# Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hepburn, James (1536?-1578)

​HEPBURN, JAMES, fourth Earl of Bothwell (1536?–1578), husband of Mary Queen of Scots, only son of Patrick, third earl of Bothwell [q. v.], by his wife Agnes, daughter of Henry Lord Sinclair, was born probably in 1536 or 1537. According to Buchanan (Detectio) he was brought up for the most part in the palace—Spynie Castle—of his relative Patrick Hepburn, bishop of Moray [q. v.], a circumstance to which Buchanan ascribes his unruly and vicious career. Under the care of the bishop he probably obtained a more complete education than was then customary in the case of the sons of Scottish nobles. His extant letters and other writings show him to have been well educated. Certain books on mathematics and on military affairs which bear his arms indicate that he had studied the art of war.
Notwithstanding the divorce of his father and mother in 1543 (probably on the ground of consanguinity), Bothwell, on the death of his father in September 1556, obtained unquestioned possession of the titles and estates, as well as the hereditary offices of lord high admiral of Scotland, sheriff of Berwick, Haddington, and Edinburgh, and also baillie of Lauderdale with the custody of the castles of Hailes and Crichton. His father had died reconciled to the queen-dowager; and Bothwell, though professedly a protestant, became one of the most consistent supporters of her policy, even after the revolt of the protestant nobles. On 14 Dec. 1557 he signed the act appointing commissioners for the betrothal of Queen Mary to the dauphin of France. Shortly afterwards, when some of the leading nobles, jealous of the French influence at the court, refused to obey the order of the queen-dowager to make a raid into England, Bothwell, ‘notwithstanding he was yan of very young aige’ (letter of Mary Stuart in Labanoff, ii. 34), took command of the expedition, which, according to his own account, did ‘irreparable damage on the frontiers.’ From this time to the close of his life he appears as the consistent and irreconcilable enemy of England. Some time after Bothwell's early exploit against the English, negotiations were entered into for settling the differences on the borders. Bothwell, with other commissioners, met Sir James Croft, and on 17 Feb. 1558–9 an armistice was signed (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1558–9, entry 350). Bothwell was also one of those who, on 30 Aug., agreed to meet the Earl of Northumberland (ib. 1283), and signed the articles on 22 Sept. for reformation of all attempts upon the borders (ib. 1359). At the same time the English commissioners secretly agreed to supply the lords of the congregation with a sum of 3,000l. to aid them in the struggle with the queen-dowager. Cockburn, laird of Ormiston, was sent towards the end of October to convey the money from Berwick-on-Tweed. Bothwell apprehended him on 31 Oct., by order of the queen-dowager, near Dumpender Law, East Lothian, and carried off the treasure. Only three days previously he had sent Michael Balfour, one of his servants, to the lords of the congregation to ask for a safe-conduct that he might come and treat with them. As he had pledged himself meanwhile to do them no injury, they regarded his seizure of the money as an act of treachery. Bothwell carried the money and his prisoner to Crichton Castle. Immediately on learning the calamity, the Earl of Arran [see Hamilton, James, third Earl of Arran, 1530–1609] and Lord James Stuart set out to Crichton with two hundred horse, a hundred foot, and two pieces of artillery (State Papers, For. Ser. 1559–60, entry 183). Half an hour before they arrived, Bothwell was warned of their approach and fled with the money. His castle was taken and occupied by a garrison. Two days were given him to make restitution, and when he failed the castle was stripped of all its furniture (Knox, Works, i. 459). On 9 Nov. he sent Arran a challenge to meet him on horseback or foot before ‘French or Scot;’ Arran replied that he could not meet him until ‘he had won back the name of an honest man, and in no case would he meet him before Frenchmen.’
After the lords of the congregation had temporarily evacuated Edinburgh, Bothwell and Lord Seton, on 24 Nov., entered Linlithgow, but hearing the common bell rung, hurriedly retreated, losing some weapons by the way (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1559–60, entry 352). In December Bothwell was appointed by the queen-dowager to the command of eight hundred French and Scots soldiers, with whom he was sent to secure Stirling. From a letter of his to the queen-dowager, 15 May 1560, it would appear that she had resolved to send him as a special ambassador to procure assistance from France. The enterprise was full of hazard, for a diligent watch was kept round all the coasts of Scot​land. On 7 June Randolph reported that Bothwell had gone north to ‘search’ a passage (ib. 1560–1, entry 172). He made good his escape, but probably before leaving he had learned of the death of the queen-dowager, which took place on 10 June. His mission thus became less urgent, and he went on a visit to Denmark. Writing to Cecil on 23 Sept. Randolph mentions a rumour that Bothwell had there married a wife with whom he obtained forty thousand yoendallers (ib. 1560–1, entry 550). The lady was doubtless Anne, daughter of a Norwegian nobleman, Christopher Thorssen, who with her father was at this time resident in Copenhagen. She subsequently complained that Bothwell had taken her from her father and relations, and would not hold her as his lawful wife, despite promises to them and her (document quoted in Schiern's Life of Bothwell, Engl. transl., p. 54). Having been abandoned by Bothwell in the Netherlands, she was reduced to such straits that she had to dispose of her jewels. She visited Scotland, probably to obtain redress, in 1563; but all that is known of her visit is that in this year she received a passport from Queen Mary to permit her to return to Norway.
Bothwell was well received by the king of Denmark, who at his request conducted him through Jutland and the Duchy of Holstein. He arrived in Paris in the following September and received from the French king the appointment of gentleman of the chamber and a fee of six hundred crowns (Hardwicke, State Papers, p. 143). Mary, who was still in France, chose Bothwell one of her commissioners for holding the estates, and he set out for Scotland on 17 Nov. In announcing his departure to Elizabeth, Throckmorton, who describes him as ‘a glorious, rash, and hazardous young man,’ advises that his ‘adversaries should have an eye to him’ (State Papers, For. Ser. 1560–1, entry 737). Bothwell did not arrive in Edinburgh till February 1561 (ib. Scott. Ser. i. 169). It is often asserted that he soon returned again to France, but this is improbable if we accept Knox's statement that he had entered into a conspiracy to seize Edinburgh before the meeting of the parliament in May. Bothwell was one of the members of the privy council chosen on 6 Sept. after Mary's return to Scotland (Reg. P. C. Scotl. i. 157); but, having been forbidden to come to court on account of his differences with the Earl of Arran, he did not attend a meeting of the council till 13 Oct. On 11 Nov. he and Arran came under a mutual obligation to keep the peace till 1 Feb. 1562, and a similar arrangement was also made in regard to Bothwell's attitude towards Lord James Stuart and Cockburn of Ormiston. But Bothwell, with the French ambassador and Lord John Stuart of Coldingham, soon afterwards took part in an unseemly riot in Edinburgh, when they endeavoured to enter a merchant's house in search of a young woman, who was reputed to be the mistress of Arran. The riot induced the assembly of the kirk to present a supplication for the interference of the queen, who gave a ‘gentle answer until such time as the convention was dissolved’ (Knox, ii. 318). The attempted outrage was followed by a causeway fight between the Hamiltons and the Hepburns, but when matters looked serious, Huntly and Lord James Stuart interfered in the name of the queen, and Bothwell was commanded to leave the city. Thereupon Bothwell sought the aid of Knox—whose ancestors were dependents of the earls of Bothwell—in making peace with the Earl of Arran. Reconciliation, he stated, would spare him expense, since he was obliged for his own safety to keep ‘a number of wicked and unprofitable men, to the utter destruction of my living that is left’ (ib. ii. 323). Knox had almost succeeded in effecting a reconciliation, when Bothwell, in an ambuscade with eight horsemen, seized Cockburn, and brought him to Crichton Castle. This outrage interrupted Knox's negotiations with Arran. But Bothwell soon sent back Cockburn, and Knox, having renewed negotiations with Arran, finally brought about a meeting between them in the lodging at Kirk-o'-Field. Here they had some friendly intercourse. On the morrow Bothwell went with Arran to hear Knox preach. Three days later Arran told Knox that Bothwell had proposed to him to carry off the queen to Dumbarton. Arran's manner, as Knox observed, bore evident signs of insanity. He was confined by his father in Kinnaird House, but escaped to Stirling, and was brought thence to the queen at Falkland, where he was placed in ward. Bothwell, having unwittingly come to the court at Falkland, was also imprisoned. From Falkland the two were brought to St. Andrews, where, after six weeks' confinement in the castle, they were on 4 May removed to Edinburgh. During the night of 28 Aug. Bothwell succeeded in breaking one of the iron bars of his prison window, and either escaped down the castle rock, or, according to another account, ‘got easy passage by the gates’ (ib. ii. 347). In any case he must have had the assistance of accomplices. Knox states that the queen was little offended at his escape.
Bothwell went to his own house at the Hermitage, and acted on Knox's advice to keep ‘good quietness,’ so that his crime of ​breaking ward might be more easily pardoned (ib. ii. 357; Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1562, entry 641). On 23 Sept. 1562 he wrote to the queen, giving in his submission (ib. 688). The defeat and death of Huntly in October, however, established so firmly the predominance of Bothwell's enemy, Lord James Stuart, now Earl of Moray, that Bothwell, probably with the secret consent of the queen, resolved to return to France. Some time in December he embarked on board a merchant vessel at North Berwick, but was driven by tempestuous weather into the Holy Island. He was detained by Sir Thomas Dacre. On 1 Jan. 1564 he begged the Earl of Northumberland by letter to take him under his protection. Subsequently he came to Berwick, and on the 18th he was apprehended there in bed. Queen Mary was favourable to his release, but Moray and the counsel advised that he should be sent to England. The prudence of Moray's advice was endorsed by the opinion of Randolph, who in a letter to Cecil attacked Bothwell as ‘the mortal enemy’ of England, ‘false and untrue as a devil,’ ‘a blasphemous and irreverent speaker both of his own sovereign and the queen, my mistress,’ and one that ‘the godly of this whole nation have cause to curse for ever’ (ib. 1563, entry 131).
On 24 Jan. Bothwell was delivered into the castle of Tynemouth (ib. 164). By order of Elizabeth he was afterwards sent to the Tower (ib. 777). In February 1563–4 Queen Mary wrote to Elizabeth on his behalf, and Maitland of Lethington having also made special representations to Elizabeth, he was allowed to proceed to France. He asserted that through the recommendation of Queen Mary he was made captain of the Scots guard in France (Les Affaires du Conte de Boduel), but his name does not appear on any of the lists of the Scots guard. He returned to Scotland in March 1564–5, and, in defiance of Moray, again took up his residence at the Hermitage, where a large number of his vassals resorted to him. Although he was reported to have spoken disrespectfully of both queens in France, asserting that the ‘two could not make one honest woman’ (Randolph to Throckmorton, 31 March, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1564–5, entry 1073), Mary certainly desired his recall. Acting on her advice he expressed his willingness to appear to answer the charge of conspiracy with Arran, and of having broken his ward; but as his accusers, Moray and Argyll, brought a formidable following with them to Edinburgh, he declined to appear. The sureties for his appearance were outlawed, but Bothwell, owing to the interposition of the queen, was not put to the horn. He again withdrew to France, where he remained until after the marriage of Mary and Darnley (29 July 1565). Being recalled by the Scottish queen to assist in subduing Moray's rebellion, he went to Flushing, where he obtained two small vessels to convey him and a few followers to Scotland. An attempt was made to capture him by an English captain, named Wilson, acting on Elizabeth's directions, but he escaped, although Wilson fired several shots at him (Bedford to Cecil, 19 Sept. 1565, ib. 1510). Landing at Eyemouth, he proceeded to court. According to Randolph, who describes him as a fit man ‘to be a minister to a shameful act, be it either against God or man,’ the queen and Darnley were already at strife as to whether Bothwell or Lennox, the father of Darnley, should be lieutenant of the forces. The queen preferred Bothwell, ‘by reason he bears an evil will against Moray, and has promised to have him die as an alien’ (ib. 1551). Whether or no there was such a dispute Lennox was appointed to lead the van, Bothwell being joined with those noblemen who accompanied the king ‘in leading the battle’ (Reg. P. C. Scotl. i. 379). Probably also it was further decided, as Bothwell hinted to M. de Castelnau (Teulet, ii. 256), that Bothwell should act as lieutenant-general in the absence of Lennox. It is clear that Bothwell, from the period of his recall, occupied a position of special trust and influence. Queen Mary was prepossessed in his favour by his invaluable services to the French party during the lifetime of her mother, and by his antipathy to Moray. His reckless daring appealed to her romantic sentiments; while his strong character and resolute purpose contrasted forcibly with the weakness of her husband Darnley and his inability to control or protect her.
On 24 Feb. 1565–6 Bothwell was married in the Abbey Kirk of Holyrood House to Jean Gordon, sister of George, fifth earl of Huntly [q. v.] (Diurnal of Occurrents, p. 88). He thus thought to strengthen himself with the queen's party, and more especially to cement his friendship with Huntly, who subsequently became his subservient tool. The marriage must be taken to indicate that the idea of becoming the husband of the queen was not yet within the range of Bothwell's ambition. Burton's subtle theory that the queen's heart already belonged to Bothwell is inadmissible. His chief purpose in marrying seems to have been to render his position more secure. By the catholics generally the marriage was regarded with feelings of exultation. Bothwell had always been an equivocal protestant; surrounded as he now was by catholic in​fluences, it was expected that he would become a catholic. But he remained steadfast in his outward adherence to protestantism. Notwithstanding the queen's express wish, he declined to permit the marriage ceremony to take place during mass in the chapel of Holyrood.
Bothwell's exceptional influence over the queen began after the murder of Rizzio (9 March 1566), which had been arranged by a conspiracy of protestant lords with Darnley's connivance. Bothwell was entirely ignorant of the plot. Having accompanied the queen to Edinburgh on 1 March for the opening of the parliament, he and his brother-in-law, Huntly, lodged in Holyrood Palace on the night of the murder. According to Knox, on ‘hearing the noise and clamour’ they came suddenly to the inner court ‘intending to have made work if they had a party strong enough’ (Works, ii. 521), but were commanded by Morton, a chief of the conspirators, who had seized the palace with a band of armed followers, to pass to their chambers. They obeyed, but shortly afterwards escaped by a back window, and went to Bothwell's house at Crichton (Diurnal of Occurrents, p. 90). Mary was now a prisoner at Holyrood, in the hands of her husband and his associates. A plan was contrived by Bothwell and Huntly for her escape, but she found it unnecessary to take advantage of it after she had persuaded Darnley to abandon his allies and aid in her liberation. She and Darnley rode by midnight to Dunbar. There Bothwell and Huntly joined her, Bothwell bringing with him a formidable array of borderers. By her flight the tables had been completely turned on her opponents. Both she and Moray, the leader of the protestant lords, deemed it prudent to feign a reconciliation with each other. As a matter of course she had the best wishes of the catholics, but next to her own deftness and courage she was indebted to Bothwell's resolute support for the advantageous position in which she now found herself. From this time, therefore, their special friendship must be dated. Bothwell's position acquired more and more importance as the breach between Mary and Darnley widened. Knox states that Bothwell, soon after Rizzio's murder, ‘had now of all men greatest access and familiarity with the queen’ (Works, ii. 527); writing on 24 June to Cecil, Killigrew affirms that ‘Bothwell's credit with the queen is greater than all the rest together’ (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566–8, entry 521); and on 27 July Bedford reports that Bothwell carries all credit at court, and is the most hated man in Scotland (ib. 601). As a special mark of the queen's favour, he obtained, in addition to part of the benefices of Melrose, Haddington, and Newbattle, the ancient fortress of Dunbar with the principal lands of the earldom of March. Previously Bothwell's power had, owing partly to his own extravagance, been seriously crippled by his poverty; but through the special gifts of the queen, he soon came to rank, both with regard to wealth and following, as the most powerful noble in the south of Scotland.
Bothwell manifested at this time a special grudge against Maitland of Lethington, whose talents as an intriguer he probably feared, and of whose influence with the queen he was in any case jealous. Maitland resolved to seek refuge in Flanders, but, hearing that Bothwell had taken means to capture him at sea, he went to Argyll (Killigrew to Cecil, 24 June, ib. 521). The Earls of Argyll and Moray at the queen's command also passed to Argyll, but after remaining there a month were sent for by the queen, and banquetted in the castle, Huntly and Bothwell being present (Knox, ii. 527). This may have been done at Bothwell's instance, but a subsequent proposal to recall Maitland was decidedly distasteful to him. He is stated to have had high words with Moray on the subject (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566–8, entry 650). Ultimately he permitted Maitland to be numbered for a short time among his friends. Bothwell's progress in the queen's favour was unmistakable. ‘Every man sought to him, where immediately favour was to be had, as before to David Rizzio’ (Knox, ii. 535). Bothwell was ‘mair, as wes reported, familiare with the quenis majestie nor honestie requyrit’ (Diurnal of Occurrents, p. 106). There are also several allusions of a similar tenor in the correspondence of the English agents with Cecil. The specific accusations, with place and circumstances, made by Buchanan, avowedly rest to a large extent on the inconclusive statements of Hubert, Bothwell's servant, and of George Dalgleish, his chamberlain; but Bothwell certainly had, in the words of Sir James Melville, ‘a mark of his own that he shot at,’ viz. Darnley's place.
When the queen was about to set out to hold justice ayres at Jedburgh in October, Bothwell, as her lieutenant, was sent forward to make the necessary preparations. On approaching the castle of Hermitage, in advance of his attendants, he was severely wounded in a wood by a notorious outlaw, John Elliot, alias John of Park, and was carried home in a cart for dead. On the 15th the queen rode there and back on the same day to visit him. He recovered rapidly, and by the 21st travelled to Jedburgh on a horse-litter (Foster to Cecil, 23 Oct., Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. entry ​772). On the 24th he was able to attend a meeting of council. The queen meanwhile had been taken seriously ill, and on the 26th her life was despaired of. On her recovery Bothwell attended her in her progress through the southern shires. She stayed from 17 to 23 Nov. at his castle of Dunbar.
Thence she removed to Craigmillar, where early in December the famous conference was held in her presence regarding her relation to Darnley. The conference was called in order to determine on a method by which the queen might gratify her desire to be rid of Darnley. The only account of the conference, apart from a very summary notice by Buchanan, is contained in a narrative signed by Argyll and Huntly (printed in Keith, History, App. No. xvi. and frequently reprinted). As this narrative emanated from the queen it is necessary to receive its statements with caution. Bothwell is there represented merely as favouring a divorce, and citing his own case as a proof that a divorce might be obtained without prejudice to the young prince. Maitland alone is represented as letting fall a hint of the advisability of recourse to a more summary method; but this hint is said to have drawn from the queen an appeal to those present not to do anything ‘whereto any spot may be laid to my honour and conscience.’ It is plain that none of those present had a good word to say for Darnley, and all were of opinion that matters would be simplified if he ceased to be the husband of the queen. The majority of the protestant nobles saw no obstacle to procuring a divorce. But the catholic nobles, with the exception of Huntly, were unlikely to assent to this procedure. After the conference Bothwell was approached on the subject of Morton's recall. He assented to the proposal, but clearly demanded a quid pro quo, which should include the dissolution by some means or other of the queen's marriage with Darnley.
Bothwell's natural predilection for lawless violence, and his fear of revelations made during the process of divorce, contributed, with possibly the representations of Maitland and others, to shape his plans. Nor could he suppose that the protestant nobles, the majority of whom had been involved in the plot against Rizzio, would be greatly shocked by the death of their treacherous co-conspirator. Accordingly, after the Craigmillar conference a bond, so the subordinate agents in Darnley's murder subsequently asserted, was signed by Bothwell, Huntly, Argyll, Maitland of Lethington, and James Balfour, in which it was engaged that Darnley ‘sould be put off by ane way or other, and quahosever sould take the deid in hand, or do it, they sould defend and fortifie it as themselves.’ Bothwell, after a vain effort to obtain the help of Morton, resolved himself to ‘take the deid in hand.’ There is undoubted proof that he had the immediate charge of the practical arrangements, and he doubtless suggested the method adopted. Cool, resolute determination characterised his every step. If the genuineness of the ‘Casket Letters’ be admitted, the queen, presumedly under the spell of an absorbing passion for Bothwell, forced herself to become his instrument in effecting his purpose.
When the queen set out in January 1566–1567 to visit Darnley at Glasgow, Bothwell, according to the ‘Diary’ handed in by the Scottish commissioners at Westminster, accompanied her to Lord Livingstone's place at Callendar. His movements after parting from her are somewhat uncertain. Not improbably, before returning to Edinburgh, he proceeded to Whittingham, where he made an unsuccessful attempt to induce Morton to undertake the murder. According to the ‘Diary’ already mentioned, he superintended the arrangements at Edinburgh for lodging Darnley at Kirk-o'-Field. Subsequently he proceeded south, for on the 27th he set out from Jedburgh to chastise some rebellious borderers in Liddesdale, with whom he had a sharp skirmish (Scrope to Cecil, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566–8, entry 918). On 31 Jan. he met the queen some distance from Edinburgh, and escorted her and Darnley into the city. A suite of apartments was assigned him in Holyrood Palace. Here on the night of Sunday, 9 Feb., he held a consultation with certain subordinates to arrange the final details of his plot. His plan from the beginning appears to have been to blow up the lodging. He had conveyed an immense quantity of powder from the fortress of Dunbar, his calculation being to arrange the explosion on such a gigantic scale that it would be beyond the limits of possibility for his victim to escape, or for it to be known how he met his death. On the Sunday evening the queen, who occasionally slept in a chamber below that occupied by Darnley, had remained at Kirk-o'-Field till a late hour. She intended to sleep at Holyrood, having agreed to attend a masked ball in the palace in honour of the marriage of one of her servants. Before setting out she and her escort went upstairs to Darnley's apartment. Bothwell must at least have been informed of the queen's intentions. It was actually while she and her escort were in the room above that he superintended the conveyance of the powder into the room which she had just left below. It was placed beneath the bed which she would have occupied had she ​not decided to go to the ball. After completing these arrangements Bothwell followed the queen into Darnley's chamber. They left Darnley about eleven o'clock. The queen passed the door of her own apartment without again entering it, and the royal party, lighted by torch-bearers, wended along Blackfriars Wynd to Holyrood. Bothwell put in an appearance at the ball, but retired towards midnight, and after changing his court dress for a simple doublet and a horseman's cloak, sufficient in the darkness to conceal his identity, returned, accompanied by four of his followers, towards Kirk-o'-Field. On stating that they were ‘friends of Lord Bothwell’ they were permitted to pass the keeper at Canongate Port and arrived safely at Kirk-o'-Field. Leaving three of the attendants at the garden wall, Bothwell and his French servant, Hubert, leaped it and proceeded to the house. Two other agents of Bothwell had been left in charge of the powder, and as soon as Bothwell had inspected the arrangements and given instructions for lighting the train, the whole of them returned to the place of tryst at the garden wall to await the result. The match burned slowly, and Bothwell, with characteristic impatience, was preparing again to leap the wall in order to return to the house when the explosion took place. The conspirators hurried back with the utmost speed to Holyrood. Failing to scale the city wall at a low part near Leith Wynd, and dreading delay, they were compelled to pass again the keeper at Canongate Port. On reaching his apartments Bothwell called for drink before going to bed. In about half an hour a messenger arrived at the palace with the news that the king's house was blown up, and the king himself, it was supposed, slain. Feigning to have been aroused from sleep, Bothwell exclaimed, ‘Fie! Treason!’ and hurriedly dressed himself in order (he pretended) to make inquiries personally. The lodging was found to have been, as Mary said, ‘dung in dross to the very groundstone.’ The body of Darnley lay at some distance from the site of the building (see sketch in Chalmers, Life of Mary Queen of Scots). Bothwell stated that there was not ‘a mark or a hurt on all his body.’ The impression prevailed that previous to the explosion he had been strangled in bed, but the subordinate agents affirmed that no personal violence was used. Their testimony is not, however, of much weight, nor is it appreciably strengthened by the fact that the surgeons expressed themselves to a similar effect. After viewing the body, Bothwell returned to break the news to the queen. As he was leaving her apartment he met Sir James Melville, to whom he stated that her majesty was ‘sorrowful and quiet.’ He also attributed the calamity to ‘the strangest accident that ever chancit, to wit, the fouder [lightning] come out of the luft [sky] and had burnt the king's house’ (Memoirs, p. 173). After the murder Bothwell gave valuable presents to all who had assisted him, and charged them to ‘hold their tongues, for they should never want so long as he had anything.’
Bothwell may have counted on suspicion falling on Morton, or other well-known enemies of Darnley; in any case he seems to have supposed that he had rendered no inconsiderable service to the protestant nobles. There was a passive indifference in the attitude of the protestant lords, which at the least showed that their indignation, if it existed, was well restrained by prudence. It was against Bothwell, however, that the universal suspicion of the multitude from the beginning pointed. According to Buchanan his guilt was proclaimed ‘baith be buikes and be pictures and be cryis in the dark night.’ Placards were secretly posted up naming as the murderers him and several others of minor rank, who were subsequently executed as the perpetrators of the crime. The accusations seemed to produce not the slightest effect on Bothwell's iron nerves, although it was observed that when he talked with any one of whose goodwill towards him he was doubtful, he ‘was accustomed to keep his hand on his dagger.’ His position at court was in no degree weakened. With the queen his influence, whatever its nature, was plainly greater than ever; nor was there any indication that the cordiality, on one side or the other, was feigned. On 14 Feb., the day of Darnley's funeral, he received the reversion of the superiority over the town of Leith. Two days afterwards the queen went to Seton, Haddingtonshire, leaving, according to the ‘Diurnal of Occurrents’ (p. 106), Huntly and Bothwell in Holyrood in charge of the young prince. On the 28th Drury reported to Cecil that Argyll, Huntly, Bothwell, and Livingstone were with the queen at Seton; that on the previous Wednesday she came to Lord Wharton's house at Tranent, and that she and the Earl of Bothwell having won at the butts against Lord Seton and Huntly, the losers entertained them at dinner at Tranent. This report is not necessarily inconsistent with the fact that Huntly and Bothwell were left in charge of the prince at Holyrood. They did not require either separately or together to be day and night in attendance on the prince; they had merely to see that he was properly guarded, and Tranent was within easy riding distance of Holyrood. ​Soon the queen's name became associated with that of Bothwell as responsible for the murder. As she passed out of the market of Edinburgh the voices of the market women could be heard, saying, ‘God preserve you if you are saikless of the king's death.’ Notwithstanding the widespread suspicion, it was not till the Earl of Lennox, father of Darnley, pointedly called the attention of the queen to the fact that Bothwell and others were persistently proclaimed as the murderers, and that he for his part greatly suspected these persons, that the queen, with the consent of the council, promised him a judicial examination. At a meeting of the privy council held on 28 March 1567 instructions were given for a trial to take place on 12 April, but the government carefully avoided taking the initiative. The burden of the prosecution was laid on the Earl of Lennox and other accusers of Bothwell, who were required to ‘compeir and thair persew the said Erll and his complices’ (Reg. P. C. Scotl. i. 505). Lennox, knowing that Edinburgh was crowded with the followers of Bothwell, resolved for his own protection to bring three thousand men with him; but on approaching Linlithgow a message reached him, forbidding him to enter the city with more than six followers, and he therefore declined to attend. On the day of the trial a message arrived from Elizabeth, asking for its postponement, but when the import of the message was known Drury found it impossible to get it delivered to the queen. Robert Cunningham, on behalf of Lennox, also made an application for postponement, but it was resolved to proceed. Before such a jury as that selected it was scarcely possible that Bothwell on any evidence could have been found guilty; but no jury, except one strongly biassed against him, would have gone out of its way to convict in the absence of a prosecutor. Practically no trial took place at all. A technical verdict of ‘not guilty’ arrived at in such circumstances was valueless. On the conclusion of the trial Bothwell, in accordance with ancient custom, offered by public cartel to fight any one who should challenge his innocence. All that could be done to ratify the sentence of the jury was also immediately done by parliament, for on 14 April he obtained from parliament a confirmation of his rights to various lordships and lands previously conferred on him.
Before Bothwell's trial a rumour was current that, although his wife, Lady Jean Gordon, was still alive, he intended to marry the queen, and that she had promised to become his wife ‘long before the murder was done’ (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566–8, entry 1091). As early as 30 March Drury reports to Cecil that the ‘Earl of Huntly has now condescended to the divorce of his sister from Bothwell’ (ib. 1054). One of the documents, said to have been found in the silver casket, was a promise of marriage by the queen to Bothwell, in French, without date, and another was a marriage contract, dated Seton, 5 April 1567, said to be in the handwriting of Huntly, and professedly signed by the queen and Bothwell. Sir James Melville gives a graphic account of the danger to which Bothwell's wrath exposed Lord Herries and himself when they informed the queen of the rumours regarding her intended marriage to Bothwell (Memoirs, pp. 175–7). Neither Bothwell nor the queen wished their intentions to be made known prematurely, but after the trial no secret was made of their purpose of marriage. On the afternoon of 19 April, the day that the parliament rose, Bothwell entertained the leading protestant noblemen to supper in Ainslie's Tavern. In accepting his invitation they gave a pledge of friendliness, and when late in the evening he presented a document for their signature, the purport of which was to commit them to an assertion of his innocence, and to the support of his claims to the queen's hand, all subscribed with the exception of one or two who slipped out. It is stated that he showed them the queen's written authority for the proposal. Had the nobles supposed that Bothwell was acting without her authority, his proposal would probably have been rejected. Writing on the following day, Kirkcaldy of Grange, who was not at the supper, reported to Bedford that the ‘queen had said that she cares not to lose France, England, and her own country for him, and will go with him to the world's end in a white peticoat ere she leaves him’ (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566–8, entry 1119).
On 21 April 1567 the queen went to visit the infant prince at Stirling, and on the 24th, when returning to Edinburgh, she was met near the city by Bothwell, and with a show of force carried to Dunbar. Sir James Melville, who was present in her train at her capture, affirmed that ‘Captain Blaikater, that was my taker, allegit that it was the quenis awen consent’ (Memoirs, p. 177). If the evidence of the ‘Casket Letters’ be accepted she had made arrangements for the capture, and there is at least no evidence that Bothwell's procedure caused her any alarm, or met with any remonstrance. Both were aware, notwithstanding the signature of the bond by the nobles, that they alone really desired the marriage. Even the soldiers at Holyrood had become mutinous (ib. 1126). ​Angry mutterings and sinister rumours were heard on all sides. It was safer for both that until a divorce between Bothwell and his wife had been granted the queen should be kept in security within his own fortress of Dunbar.
Before the queen's so-called abduction, Bothwell had begun steps to obtain the two decrees needful for his divorce. In the civil commissary court action was taken ostensibly at the instance of Bothwell's wife, while in the catholic consistorial court it was taken at the instance of Bothwell. Collusion between the parties was almost self-evident. On 3 May the civil court pronounced sentence of divorce against Bothwell, on the ground of adultery, but according to catholic practice a divorce on the ground of adultery amounted only to separation, and did not permit the divorced person to marry again. The ground on which divorce was sought in the catholic court was that before his marriage he had committed fornication with his wife's near kinswoman, and thus brought himself within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity. When the sentence of divorce was passed on 7 May it was falsely stated by the court that no dispensation which would, according to the catholic canons, have made the marriage indissoluble, had been obtained before the marriage. As a matter of fact, Archbishop Hamilton, who pronounced the divorce, had himself procured such a dispensation before the marriage. Buchanan, in his ‘Detection,’ asserts that ‘all the while they kept close the pope's bull, by which the same offence was dispensed with.’ Within recent years this dispensation has been discovered at Dunrobin, whither it was apparently carried by Lady Jean Gordon, who afterwards in 1573 married Alexander, eleventh earl of Sutherland (Hist. MSS. Comm. 2nd Rep. p. 177). It has, therefore, been argued (see Dr. James Stuart, A Lost Chapter in the History of Mary Queen of Scots) that since, according to catholic law, the marriage could not be annulled, Mary, when she married Bothwell, must have known that the ceremony was an empty form. On the other hand, it has been urged that the conditions on which the dispensation was granted were never fulfilled, inasmuch as the marriage was not celebrated in the face of the church (see Colin Lindsay, Mary Queen of Scots and her Marriage with Bothwell, 1883). The court, however, appear to have made no reference to the irregularity of the ceremony, but only to the absence of the dispensation. Possibly Mary sincerely believed that a decree of divorce pronounced by a catholic court absolved her from responsibility.
The divorce was speedily followed by the queen's marriage. On 3 May (Diary of the Scottish Commissioners; or 6 May, according to Diurnal of Occurrents, p. 110) Bothwell and the queen returned from Dunbar to Edinburgh. They entered by the West Port, ‘and raid up the bow to the Castle, the said Erle Bothwill leidand the quenis Majestie by the bridill as captive’ (ib. p. 111). On the 8th, the day after sentence of divorce was pronounced by the catholic court, she was proclaimed in the palace of Holyrood to be married to Bothwell, and on the following day she was proclaimed in St. Giles's Church. John Craig, the minister who proclaimed the banns, took, however, ‘heaven and earth to witness that he abhorred and detested that marriage’ (Declaration in Anderson's Collections, ii. 281). On the 12th the queen passed from the castle to the palace of Holyrood, stopping by the way at the court of session, where she made what was styled the ‘declaration of the queen's liberty,’ in which, while referring in mild reprehensory terms to her abduction, she stated that ‘her highness stands content with the said earl, and has forgiven and forgives him and all other his complices.’ On the same evening he was made Duke of Orkney and Shetland with ‘great magnificence,’ the queen herself placing the ducal coronet on his head. On the 14th she formally subscribed her approval of the bond which had been given by the nobles to Bothwell in Ainslie's Tavern, and on the same day the marriage contract was signed. The marriage took place on the following day (15 May 1567) in Holyrood Palace before a gathering of the more subservient of the nobles. It was celebrated according to the protestant form, the officiating clergyman being Adam Bothwell, protestant bishop of Orkney. Probably one of Bothwell's motives in declining to have the marriage performed also according to catholic rites was to convince the protestants that protestantism was safe in his hands. To the king of France he sent with the queen's messenger, who announced the marriage, a short note couched in terms at once respectful and self-respecting. To Elizabeth he adopted an equally friendly and respectful, but a somewhat more self-assertive tone, frankly stating that he was well aware of the bad opinion she entertained of him, but protesting that it was undeserved, and expressing his readiness to do the utmost to preserve the amity between the two kingdoms.
Bothwell's avowed forcible abduction of the queen gave the nobles an almost providential excuse for interfering with his projects. They had promised to support him only on condition that he had the queen's consent, and by carrying her ostensibly by ​force to Dunbar, he was declaring to the world that that consent had not been obtained. Moreover, the catholic nobles could now be appealed to for help in delivering their sovereign from one who, after murdering the king, had captured the queen, and virtually usurped the royal authority. A secret council was therefore formed, consisting of catholic as well as protestant noblemen, to ‘seek the liberty of the Queen, to preserve the life of the Prince, and to pursue them that murdered the King.’ Since the queen expressed her readiness to be in Bothwell's custody, and since Elizabeth, to whom they had applied for help, deprecated force, no effort was made to prevent the marriage. But on 1 June 1567 the nobles resolved to capture Bothwell and the queen at Holyrood. Their purpose, however, became known, and Bothwell and the queen instantly fled to Borthwick Castle. It was surrounded by Morton and Lord Home, but Bothwell made his escape by a postern gate, and went to Dunbar. The queen disdainfully refused to return to Edinburgh, and as the nobles did not dare to effect her capture, she some days afterwards joined Bothwell. After collecting a powerful force—a considerable proportion of which was composed of Bothwell's dependents—Bothwell and the queen marched on Edinburgh. They were met by the lords at Carberry Hill, but both parties apparently preferred to negotiate rather than to fight. The queen expected reinforcements, but by engaging in negotiations she virtually lost her cause. Though many were thoroughly loyal to her, the enthusiasm for Bothwell, even among his own followers, was very lukewarm. Du Croc, the French ambassador, expressed, in his letter to the king of France, high admiration both of the manner in which Bothwell bore himself and marshalled his troops, and was confident that if the troops could have been relied on he would have been victorious (letter in Teulet, ii. 312–20). Bothwell declared to Du Croc that those who had come to oppose him were simply envious at his elevation. Out of sympathy with the queen, for whose painful position he declared that he deeply felt, he was, however, willing to waive his royal rank, and to fight with any one worthy, by nobility of birth, to meet him. Knox states that he ‘came out of the camp well mounted, with a defie to any that would fight with him’ (Works, ii. 560). The queen, however, would not permit any of her subjects to engage in single combat with her husband. Meantime, while negotiations were going on, many of the troops of the queen had been leaving the field, and it became evident that a battle in such circumstances would be disastrous to her. Resigning herself to the inevitable, she appears to have made arrangements for Bothwell's escape, and in obedience to her urgent request that he should save himself by flight before it was too late, he unwillingly bade her farewell, and rode off unmolested to Dunbar.
After reaching Dunbar Bothwell sent his servants to fetch the effects which had been kept by him in the castle of Edinburgh. Among these is stated to have been the famous silver casket which the lords avowed they intercepted on 20 June, and opened next day, when it was found to contain, in addition to other documents, certain letters addressed by the queen to Bothwell (see ‘Morton's Declaration’ in Henderson, Casket Letters, pp. 112–16). The discovery, whatever its nature, apparently determined the lords to make more strenuous efforts against Bothwell. Although he remained at Dunbar, and the queen expressed her determination not to give him up, no great zeal was at first shown to effect his capture. On 26 June 1567, however, the secret council declared that they had ‘be evident pruif, alswiel of witnesses as of writinges maid manifest unto thame, that James, Erll Bothuill, was the principal deviser of Darnley's murder’ (Reg. P. C. Scotl. i. 524). On the following day, probably before he knew of the proclamation, Bothwell left Dunbar for the north, not apparently from any dread of capture, for the castle was strongly fortified, but in order if possible to create a diversion in favour of the queen. But by the queen's best and most loyal friends he was secretly detested. If any were prepared to risk their lives for her, none were prepared to risk anything for Bothwell, who, if they assumed her guilt, had led her into crime, or, if they assumed her innocence, had tarnished her fame. There were, it would appear, even limits to Huntly's debasing devotion to the interests of his former brother-in-law, and he now declined to adventure anything for him (Throckmorton to Elizabeth, 16 July 1567, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566–8, entry 1459). One night, possibly dreading treachery, Bothwell departed suddenly from Huntly's residence, and went to the palace of his old tutor and guardian, the Bishop of Moray at Spynie. The bishop not only gave him shelter for a time, but furthered his escape.
Bothwell approached Kirkwall with two small ships, counting apparently on a favourable reception in his dukedom of Orkney, but the keeper of the castle refused to deliver it up. He had no means of capturing it, and therefore set sail for Shetland, where his claims were at once recognised by the inhabitants, and he received the gift of a sheep and an ox, which every benefice was from time immemorial in ​the habit of paying to the feudal lord. Moreover, when it became known that the ex-high admiral of Scotland aspired to become a pirate commander, several of the pirate captains who frequented the islands placed themselves under his orders. Writing on 20 July 1567 Throckmorton reported that Bothwell meant to allure ‘the pirates of all countries to him.’ He clearly wished to collect as large a naval force as possible. Such a force could be maintained only by piracy. Professor Schiern is inclined to give some weight (Life of Bothwell, English translation, p. 303) to the denial of the contemporary writer, Adam Blackwood, that Bothwell was a pirate; but there can be no doubt whatever that Bothwell soon began to capture merchant ships. The abortive attempt of Professor Schiern to distinguish between a pirate and a privateer tends rather to inculpate than exonerate Bothwell. It was discerned that unless Bothwell's proceedings were promptly stopped he might prove a very formidable foe. The magistrates of Dundee were therefore ordered to instruct the skippers of four large vessels belonging to the port to place them at the service of Murray of Tullibardine and Kirkcaldy of Grange in order to attempt his capture (Reg. P. C. Scotl. i. 544–6). The vessels were armed with cannon, and in addition to the seamen, carried four hundred arquebusiers. In Bressay Sound, while Bothwell and part of the crew were on shore, Kirkcaldy came up with the ships of Bothwell, who had lately captured and armed a large ship of ‘Breame’ (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566–8, entry 1640). In the eagerness to capture one of Bothwell's ships, Kirkcaldy ran his own ship on a rock, and with difficulty saved himself from drowning. Bothwell's ships then sailed to the northern isles, where Bothwell succeeded in joining them. There the enemy again came up with them. For a time all seemed going against Bothwell, but Kirkcaldy, skilled though he was in military matters, was deficient in seamanship, and a south-west wind having sprung suddenly up, Bothwell made his escape to the North Sea, leaving one of his vessels, which had become disabled, in Kirkcaldy's hands. Kirkcaldy persevered for sixty miles in his chase, but Bothwell drew rapidly away, not slackening sail till he sighted land, which proved to be the south-west coast of Norway. Here he spoke with the master of a Hanseatic vessel, who piloted him into Karm Sound.
No sooner had Bothwell cast anchor than the Danish warship Björnen made its appearance, and Bothwell's papers being found unsatisfactory, his vessels were brought to Bergen. His identity having now become known, he was permitted to take up his residence at a hostelry in the town till further orders should be received regarding him. Meanwhile he was treated with respect, and was frequently entertained by Eric Rosenkrands in the castle. By a curious coincidence Anne Thorssen, whom he had abandoned in the Netherlands, had on the death of her father come with her mother to reside in Bergen. On learning his arrival, she sued him before the court for redress, but by promising her an annuity, to be paid in Scotland, and handing over to her the smallest of his ships, he succeeded in getting proceedings quashed. Bothwell, when examined on board ship, had denied that he had with him any jewels or valuables, or even any letters or papers, but when he was led to believe that his ships would not again be delivered up to him, he stated that in his own ship there were some papers of which he wished to obtain possession. His request for them aroused suspicion, and when the letter-case was opened it was found to contain among other documents various proclamations against him as a traitor and murderer, and a letter in the handwriting of the Queen of Scots, bewailing the fate that had befallen him and her. After an examination held on 23 Sept. 1567, it was decided that Bothwell should be sent to Denmark in one of the king's own ships, accompanied by only four of his servants.
Bothwell arrived at Copenhagen on 30 Sept. Representations made to the Danish government by the regent Moray induced the high steward, in the absence of King Frederick II, to send him to the castle, and the king subsequently gave instructions that he should be detained there till further orders. Bothwell now ingeniously explained in a letter to the king of Denmark that when he was seized at Karm Sound he was really on his way to Copenhagen to lay before him the wrongs committed against the Queen of Scots, the king's near relative, and that he intended to proceed thence to France on a like errand. To the French king he also wrote in a similar strain. The Danish king's ministers had advised that he should be sent to a castle in Jutland, but Bothwell's letter produced so favourable an impression that the king ordered that he should remain in Copenhagen. On 30 Dec. the king, in answer to a request for his surrender, sent by Moray in the name of James VI, replied that Bothwell had informed him that he had been legally acquitted of the murder, and therefore he would not agree to do more than keep him in close confinement, with which he hoped the Scottish king would be satisfied (ib. For. Ser. entry 1889). For greater security he was removed to Malmoe in Sweden, where an old apartment in the north wing is still ​pointed out as the one he occupied. Previous to his removal he had composed in the castle of Copenhagen a narrative of his doings (published by the Bannatyne Club, under the title ‘Les Affaires du Conte de Boduel’), intended to show that he was the victim of ill-will on the part of the Scottish nobility. As this exposition of his wrongs did not produce an adequate impression on the king, he, on 13 Jan. 1568, stated that if the king would aid him, he was empowered to offer him as a recompense the islands of Orkney and Shetland. It had long been the ambition of the Danish sovereign to win back these islands from Scotland, and although Bothwell's offer was not accepted, simply because it was difficult to render it effective, the fact that it had been made secured the king's goodwill, and probably was the main reason why he refused to deliver Bothwell up or agree to his execution, although repeatedly pressed to do so both by Moray and Elizabeth. Meanwhile a proposal had been mooted for the marriage of Queen Mary to Norfolk, and on this account Queen Mary empowered Lord Boyd to take measures to obtain her divorce from Bothwell on the ground that the marriage ‘was for divers respects unlawful.’ The matter came before a convention held at Perth on 29 July 1569, when by a large majority liberty to take action in the matter was refused, the Earl of Huntly, Atholl, and other catholics voting for granting it, while Moray and Morton declined to vote (Reg. P. C. Scotl. ii. 8–9). Sentence of divorce was, however, passed in September 1570 by the pope, on the ground that she had been ravished previous to the marriage (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1569–71, entry 1412). Bothwell is said to have given a mandate signifying his assent to the divorce. According to Chalmers (Mary Queen of Scots, 1st ed. ii. 242), the mandate remained among the papers of the Boyd family until 1746, but no such paper has yet been brought to light. Nor was a mandate from Bothwell likely to have any effect in enabling the queen to obtain a divorce. It would simply have proved collusion between the parties. In any case it would appear that the proposals for a divorce caused no break in the friendship between Bothwell and the queen, for on 19 Jan. 1571 Thomas Buchanan reports to Cecil that they constantly corresponded (Cal. State Papers, Scott. Ser. i. 310).
After the queen's cause in Scotland became completely lost, Bothwell was treated with less respect by the Danish king, and in June 1573 was removed to Drachsholm in Zeeland, described as ‘a much worse and closer’ prison. From this time he would appear to have been cut off from all communication with the outside world. The rigour of his confinement, the despair of deliverance from it, and the uncertainty as to whether at any moment he might not be sent to execution, gradually broke down his iron nerve. Accustomed as he was to an active outdoor life, his physical health suffered, and this doubtless also contributed to the overthrow of his mental balance. In any case the statements that he passed his latter years in insanity are made by so many contemporaries—Buchanan, Sir James Melville, De Thou, Lord Herries, &c.—that they must be accepted as conclusive. The Danish authorities give the year 1578 as that of his death, the ‘Calendar of Eiler Brockenhaus’ naming 14 April as the day. The so-called deathbed confession by Bothwell, exonerating Mary from the murder of Darnley, was professedly written when at Malmoe in 1575 (only abstracts of this document are known to exist); this must be regarded as conclusive against its genuineness, for he was removed from Malmoe in 1573, and died, not in 1575, but in 1578. He was buried in Faareveile Church. A coffin, indicated by tradition as his, was opened on 31 May 1858, and a portrait which was then taken of the head of the body is now in the museum of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Nothing was discovered, however, clearly to identify the body as Bothwell's, and as a large number of Scottish prisoners have been buried there, the matter is enveloped in considerable doubt. No portrait of Bothwell is now known to exist. He was famed for bodily strength. The tradition as to his ugliness rests wholly on the statements, more or less vituperative in form, of Brantôme and Buchanan. He left no lawful issue. His wife, Lady Jean Gordon, was married on 13 Dec. 1573 to Alexander Gordon, twelfth earl of Sutherland [see under {{sc|Gordon, John]], eleventh Earl of Sutherland, 1526?–1567], and after his death in 1594 to Alexander Ogilvy of Boyne. She survived till 1629.
T. F. H.