sister, did not as a sovereign princess recognise any judge on earth, may have rendered an appeal to the supremacy a technical necessity. At all events the Queen of England's commissioners protested, as to the claim of the Queen of Scots, "that they neither did nor would admit nor allow the same to be in any wise hurtful or prejudicial to the right title and interest incident to the crown of England, which the queen's majesty and all her noble progenitors, kings of this realm, have claimed, had, and enjoyed, as superiors over the realm of Scotland." 1

The commissioners, reporting to their mistress, told the result in these curious terms: "And so we passed over the matter with them in merry and pleasant speeches, not yielding to their opinion nor they to ours touching the matter contained in our said protestation." 2 One who had good means of information tells us that when the matter of supremacy and homage was pressed upon the commissioners of the young king, an angry flush passed over Murray's face; but Lethington seized the opportunity for the display of one of his favourite accomplishments, and flung back a scornful answer, fitted to drive the proposal out of the range of serious business : it would be time to adjust the question of homage when the lands between the Humber and the Tweed, for which it had been rendered, were restored to the crown of Scotland; "but as to the crown and kingdom of Scotland, it was freer than England had been lately, when it paid St Peter's penny to the Paip." 3 It is a feature in all the codes of law rooted in feudal usages, that claims which there is no intention and perhaps no ability to enforce, must at all events be stated at intervals to save them from extinction, the acquiescence of the opposite party not being necessary for the preservation of the latent vitality. The policy of the English commissioners seems to have been modelled on such precedents.

1

Anderson, iv. (2) 50.

2 Ibid., 42.

3 Sir James Melville's Memoirs, 206.

423

CHAPTER LII.

REGENCY OF MURRAY.

(Continued.)

OPENING OF THE INQUIRY-THE CHARGE OF REBELLION AGAINST MURRAY AND HIS PARTY-THEIR DEFENCE INVOLVING A COUNTERCHARGE, BUT RESERVING THE CHARGE OF MURDER-THE REMOVAL OF THE INQUIRY TO LONDON THE ENDEAVOURS TO DISCOVER WHAT THE RESULT WOULD BE WERE THE CHARGE MADE AND PROVED-PRIVATE DISCUSSIONS OF THE CASKET LETTERS-QUEEN MARY'S CONFERENCES WITH THE BISHOP OF ROSS ON THE SAFEST COURSE-DIRECTS ANY CHARGES AGAINST HER TO BE DENIEDLETHINGTON'S MACHINATIONS - THE DUKE OF NORFOLK - HIS ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE CHARGES, AND HIS PROFFERS TO QUEEN MARY-THE POLICY OF SUCH A MARRIAGE CONSIDERED THE RESERVATION OF THE PUBLIC CHARGE OF MURDER-MADE AT LAST THE EFFECT ON THE DISCUSSIONS-THE BOOK OF ARTICLESTHE PRODUCTION OF THE CASKET LETTERS-TENDERING OF THE TESTIMONY OF THOMAS CRAUFURD AS TO THE MEETING IN GLASGOW PERPLEXITIES OF THE BISHOP OF ROSS THE INQUIRY GRADUALLY CLOSES-INCOMPLETENESS OF THE APPARENT RESULTS -REAL RESULTS BEHIND THEM-THE CAREER OF BOTHWELL-HIS FLIGHT-IMPRISONMENT IN NORWAY AND DENMARK-HIS DANISH WIFE-HIS OFFERS TO RESTORE ORKNEY AND SHETLAND - HIS DEATH.

So began the great process which, standing, as it does, alone in feudal history with no precedent, has naturally enough excited much discussion on the question whether it was lawful or unlawful. It must have made an animated scene in York. As bitter enemies had to walk the streets and meet each other, anxious arrangements were made by the English Government for the preservation of the peace,

and they appear to have been successful. Many were there besides the commissioners and the necessary staff of officers. Murray had with him Macgill, Buchanan, and, as we have seen, Lethington. It was said that the regent was afraid to leave this versatile man behind lest he should work mischief; but, as we shall see, he might have had less opportunity for such work at home than he found in England.

Besides the Scots commissioners, who were supposed to represent public interests, another accuser was at work whose motives were avowedly of a narrower kind. This was Lennox, the father of the murdered Darnley. We have seen how his efforts to bring Bothwell to justice were baffled. It was but natural, after what had passed then and since, that he should help the combination against her who had first shielded and then married the murderer of his son. He was in a position to know all. He knew the story told by the casket letters, and had peculiar facilities for deciding whether they were genuine or false, since, as we have seen, he had in his possession a report, set down by another observer, of the conversations detailed in them. If the letters were forged to shape them to this report, or if this report had been adjusted to confirm the story told in the letters, Lennox must have known the real truth. Whatever he believed, there are traces that he busied himself in collecting collateral evidence, tending not merely to support the joint story of the casket letters and of his own adherent, but otherwise to bring home guilty conclusions against his son's widow.1

When in point of form the controversy had begun, it was in form only. The two parties pretended to attack

1 Notes on the Hamilton Papers by George Chalmers, edited by Joseph Robertson for the Maitland Club Miscellany, vol. iv. part i. "He calls the queen the destroyer of his family, and of all his friends and servants, of which he says there is sufficiency in her own handwrit, by the faith of her letters, to condemn her. Nevertheless he would have them, by all possible methods, to search for more matters, not only against her, but against all those who had come thither (to England) in company with her, and by what means the articles which he had sent them might be made out."-P. 118.

and defend under a tacit understanding that the real contest should be deferred. The chief reason for this was, that the assurance as to the ultimate steps to be taken in the event of Queen Mary's guilt being proved was only partially satisfactory. Elizabeth had changed her tone, and had said what would have been sufficient to commit a more scrupulous person to the desired course of action; but Murray, knowing by bitter experience with whom he had to deal, required stronger assurances before he took that step which, in the understanding of all concerned, was to close the door against all possibility of reconciliation between the two great parties in Scotland-the step of publicly charging the Queen of Scots with murder at that tribunal which the Queen of England had set up. Whether Murray's party ought to have felt satisfied was matter of much discussion among the commissioners. It seems needless to enter on an analysis of their subtle altercations, and to be sufficient to give in its place the demand ultimately made by Murray's party.

The etiquette by which Elizabeth professed to guard the sovereign dignity of the queen who was yet to plead before her was formally observed. She was to be the accuser, and her subjects were to be heard only in their defence. The queen accordingly made her charge of rebellion. The point of time at which her narrative begins is that of the assemblage at Carberry Hill, so that she has no occasion to refer to the murder of her husband or the existence of such a person as Bothwell. In brief formal terms it is told how she was forcibly conveyed to prison, and how on her escape she was again assailed by force. These undutiful acts in the end compelled her to come to England, to require of the queen her nearest relation "favour and support, that she may enjoy peaceably her realm according to God's calling, and that they her subjects may be caused recognise their dutiful obedience." There is no demand for punishment or outburst of revengeful wrath; and those partial to such close examinations would find an interest in comparing this document with the passionate and fierce appeals made by Queen Mary to her friends abroad and to Elizabeth herself.

Murray and his colleagues made answer, going farther back. They mention the murder, saying it was committed by Bothwell, and was followed by his "attaining to" a marriage with the queen. These things are briefly and gently told as the cause of what followed. Her unfortunate position demanded their intervention, and compelled them "to sequestrate her person for a season." Then, weary of spirit, she abdicated her crown in favour of her son, and authorised her brother to act for him as regent. All this was confirmed in Parliament; and the new Government was duly honoured and obeyed, until certain evil-minded persons, "disdaining to see justice proceed as it was begun, and likely to have continued, to the punishment of many offenders over the haill country," practised to reinstate the power of the ex-queen, contrary to the Act of Parliament and the established rule over the land. Thereupon they require that the king and regent in his behalf "may peaceably enjoy and govern his realm according to God's calling, and that his majesty's disobedient subjects may be caused recognise their debtful obedience." There is a reservation that the commissioners may "eke" or add to their statement; and what they did eke was, as we shall find, far more important than the statement itself.

Before issuing their defence, these commissioners had prepared a document of a different kind. The charge was issued on the 8th of October, and next day Murray laid on the table a set of "articles" or "demands." The first was, "We desire to be resolved whether ye have commission and sufficient authority from the queen's majesty of England to pronounce in the cause of the murder guilty or not guilty, according to the merits of the cause, and as ye shall see matter deduced before you." The reasons for such a demand have already been discussed. The articles demand an anticipation of the result. If the decision be "guilty," will she be either delivered to the Scots Government, or detained in England so as to be kept from mischief? and will the Queen of England concur in what has been done in Scotland since the meeting