rather see God followed wholly or Baal followed wholly; 'it was dangerous to urge a necessity in things which God's word did set at liberty.'1 Far worse was the effect in Scotland. The rigid Calvinists, who had long watched Elizabeth with jealous eyes, clamoured that she was showing herself at last in her true colours. Posts and packets flying daily in the air,' brought such news as lost her and lost England 'the hearts of all the godly.' No imagination was too extravagant to receive credit. The two Queens were supposed to be in a secret league for the overthrow of the truth, and Darnley's return was interpreted as part of an insidious policy-at once to match the Queen of Scots meanly and poorly,' and to confirm her in her evil ways 'by marrying her to a Papist.' The 'godly' exclaimed in anguish that no hope was left of any sure establishment of Christ's religion, but all was turned to confusion.' 'The evil effect' on men's minds was described as beyond measure infinite;' and Mary Stuart's desire to obtain liberty of conscience for the Catholics and the increasing favour which she showed to Darnley, were alike set down to Elizabeth. The Leicester scandals were revived with new anec- dotes to confirm them.2 1 The Archbishop of Armagh to Cecil, 1565 Irish MSS. Rolls House. 2 It is in every man's mouth that lately the Duke of Norfolk's Grace and my Lord of Leicester were playing at tennis, the Queen | beholding them, and my Lord Robert, being very hot and sweating, took the Queen's napkin out of her hand and wiped his face, which the Duke seeing said he was too saucy, and swore he would lay his racket upon his face. Hereupon arose a fear and fury, swore that the priests at Holyrood should be hanged, and 'idolatry' be no more suffered. Mary Stuart being on a visit at Lundy in Fife, the Laird—‘a grave antient man with a white head and a white beard' -led his seven sons before her, all tall and stalwart men. They knelt together at her feet. The house,' the laird said, 'was hers and all that was in it, and he and his boys would serve her truly till death;' but he prayed that while she remained no mass should be said there.' She asked why. He said it was worse than the mickle de'il.'1 Remonstrance did not rest in words. A priest in Edinburgh, taking courage from the reports which were in the air, said mass at Easter at a private house. He was denounced, caught, hurried before the town magistrates, and having confessed, was fastened hand and foot to the market cross. There from two o'clock in the afternoon till six he stood exposed, while 'ten thousand eggs' were broken upon his face and body; and the hungry mob howled round his feet and threatened to dash his brains out with their clubs as soon as he was taken down. The Provost, who had gone contentedly home to supper, was obliged to return with the city guard to bring him off in safety; and the miserable wretch pasted with slime and filth was carried senseless tumult, and the Queen offended sore | better, or many of your tattling with the Duke. This tale is told by tongues shorter.' Randolph to the Earl of Athol. Whatsoever is Throgmorton, March 31: Scotch most secret among you is sooner at MSS. Rolls House. this Queen's ears than some would think it. I would your doings were MS. Ibid. 1 Randolph to Cecil, March 27: into the Tolbooth and there made fast in irons with two of his congregation at his side.1 The Queen of Scots, who was at Stirling when she heard of this cowardly outrage, sent for the Provost, and ordered him to release his prisoner; 'not however,' wrote an unknown correspondent in relating the story to Randolph, without great offence of the whole people; ' 'whereby,' he said, 'I trust whenever the like occurs again, and there be knowledge gotten, execution will be made in another manner of sort without seeking of further justice at the magistrate's hands; I assure you there is greater rage now amongst the faithful nor ever I saw since her Grace came to Scotland.' Meantime Mary Stuart, weary of the mask which she had so long worn, and unable to endure any longer these wild insults to her creed and herself, determined to run the chance of dividing Scotland, to throw herself on the loyalty of the Catholic party in her own country, in England, and abroad, to marry Darnley and dare the worst which Elizabeth could do. Whether she had received any encouraging answer from Philip before she made up her mind does not appear. It is most likely however that she had learnt from the Government in the Netherlands what the answer would be when it arrived; and the opinions of the Spanish ministers, when made 1 Randolph to Cecil, April, 1565: | whoever he was, Randolph was inRolls House MS. 2 One of a number of letters to Randolph, in the Rolls House, written in the same hand, and signed 'You know who.' To this person, debted for much of his secret information. The hand partly resembles that of Kirkaldy of Grange; partly, though not to the same de gree, that of Knox. known at last, were decisively favourable. After a consultation at the Escurial the Duke of Alva and the Count de Feria recommended Philip by all means to support the Queen of Scots in taking a Catholic husband who by blood was so near the English crown; and Philip sent her word, and through de Silva sent word to the English Catholics, that she and they might rely on him to bear them through.' Tired of waiting, and anticipating with justifiable confidence that Philip would approve, the Queen of Scots in the middle of April came to a fixed resolution. As Darnley was an English subject it was necessary to go through the form of consulting the English sovereign; and Maitland, who to the last moment had believed that he had been successful in dissuading his mistress from so rash a step, was the person chosen to inform Elizabeth that the Queen of Scots had made her choice, and to request her consent. With but faint hopes of success-for he knew too much to share the illusions of his countrymen-Maitland left Edinburgh on the 15th of April, taking Randolph with him as far as Berwick. Three days later he reached London. Mary Stuart still trusted Maitland with her secrets, in the belief that although he might disapprove of what she was doing he would remain true to her. He carried with him private messages to de Silva and Lady Lennox, and was thoroughly aware of all that she intended. It is certain however from Mait 1 MS. Simancas. land's subsequent conduct that although ready to go with his mistress to the edge of a rupture with Elizabeth he was not prepared for open defiance. Elizabeth's conduct had been so strange and uncertain that it was possible that she might make no difficulty. Even the Spanish ambassador believed that although she would prefer Leicester, yet sooner than quarrel with the Queen of Scots she would agree to the marriage with Darnley; and with a faint impression that it might be so Maitland had accepted the commission. Yet either Maitland betrayed his trust, or Elizabeth already knew all that he had to tell her: immediately after his arrival de Silva reported that the Queen of England ‘had changed her mind; ' while Mary Stuart, as soon as she was freed from the restraint of Maitland's presence, no longer concealed that she had made up her mind irreVocably whether Elizabeth consented or refused. Letters from Randolph followed close behind Maitland to say that the marriage was openly declared; Lady Lennox even told de Silva that she believed it had secretly taken place; and amidst the exultation of the Catholics a general expectation spread through England that the good time was at hand when the King of Spain and the Queen of Scots would give them back their own again.' 2 Nor were their hopes without sound foundation. Mary Stuart, as soon as her resolution was taken, de 1 Á lo que he podido entender esta Reyna se ha mucho alterado de este negocio.'-De Silva to Philip, April 25: MS. Simancas. 2 Ibid. |