most consistent with the facts is that she at last broke down in her attempt to play the cold ambitious role to which her relatives had trained her. The mingled motives of revenge and love seem alone sufficient to explain her fatuity. As some excuse — even apart from the peculiarities of that lawless age — it may be pleaded that Darnley was universally contemned, and, though never put upon his' trial, had been guilty both of murder and treason. It may be, also, that her feelings towards Both well were originally partly those of gratitude; but in any case, her constancy to him amidst universal obloquy must be ascribed rather to devotion than fear.
On 11 Feb. Mary expressed to Beaton her conviction that the assassins aimed at her own life as well as Darnley's, and her determination to exercise the utmost rigour against them (ib. ii. 4). Yet when the promation on the 12th of a reward of 2,000l. for their discovery led to the exhibition of placards on the Tolbooth declaring that he had been murdered by Bothwell and others with the queen's own consent (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566-8, entry 977, printed in Buchanan's Detection), the information caused her more embarrassment than indignation. The author was desired to appear and avow the same, and in answer promised to do so on the following Sunday if a pledge were given that a bona-fide inquiry would be made, but his proposals were ignored. Without honour or ceremony befitting his rank Darnley was privately buried during the night of 14 Feb. (Diurnal of Occurrents, p. 109; Knox, ii. 550 ; Buchanan; Instructions for Lord Grey, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1 566-8, entry 1 1 29) ; and on the 16th Mary left for Seton, in company with Bothwell, Huntly, Argyll, and others concerned in the murder. Bishop Leslie states that the queen, not on the ground of health, but because Darnley was only a king by courtesy, did not observe the usual period of close seclusion customary during morning (Defence of Queen Mary's Honour). So far from aiding Lennox to bring the murderers to trial, she co-operated with Bothwell and others in insuring that the trial should be a fiasco (Keith, ii. 525-9; Labanofp, ii. 10-13, 17-19). Elizabeth, Beaton, the queen-mother, and the king of France all warned her that she was compromising her reputation. Before the trial Bothwell was rendered doubly secure by obtaining the command of Edinburgh and Blackness Castles and the superiority of Leith. It was already the general belief that he intended to marry the queen (Sir Jakes Melville, p. 175), and with this view measures were being taken for his divorce from Catherine Gordon (Drury, 29 March, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566-8, entry 1053, 30 March, ib. 1054). The popular opinion as to Both weirs acquittal on 12 April was shown in the caricature representing him as a hare pursued by hounds, which Mary as a crowned mermaid lashed away from him. On the 19th Mary was carried oft' to Dunbar ; on 3 May Bothwell was divorced by the civil court, and on the 8th by the catholic court, reconstituted by Mary on the 24th of the previous December [cf. Hepburn, James, fourth Earl of Bothwell]. On the evidence of the Casket letters the Kidnapping was done at Mary's instigation, and this is corroborated by Kirkcaldy (26 April, V). entry 1131), Drury (27 April, ib. entry 1 1 39), and Melville (Memoirs, p. 177). Probably she wished to supply a plausible explanation of her precipitate marriage within less than three months of Darnley's death. On 27 April the lords who had met at Stirling sent her a letter offering a rescue if she had been carried off' unwillingly (quoted by Frottde, viii. 144, from manuscript in possession of Mr. Richard Almack ; Drury, 2 May, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566-8, entry 1161) ; but to this she replied that it was true she had been evil and strangely handled, but since so well used she had no cause to complain (5 May, ib. entry 1173). On 6 May she entered Edinburgh, Bothwell leading her horse by the bridle (Diurnal, p. 111). The purpose of marriage was proclaimed on the 8th, and it took place on the 15th. In the contract her consent to the marriage was attributed to the advice of the ' maist part of her nobilitie ' (Labanoff, ii. 25), the reference being to the bond signed in Ainslie's tavern. She was married after the protestant fashion, and not only outwardly conformed to Bothwell's religion, but consented to the prohibition of catholic services throughout Scotland (Req. P. V. Scotl. i. 513). De Croc (18 May, Teulet, ii. 297), Drurv (20 May, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566-8, entry*1226), and Sir James Melville (Memoirs, p. 182) state that soon after the marriage serious quarrels occurred between them ; that each was jealous of the other, and that Mary was frequently very distressed, and even threatened more than once to destroy herself. There was probably some ground for the statements. Both were imperious and impulsive ; and whether Mary was confederate or victim she could scarcely escape, even apart from quarrels, occasional attacks of remorse and despair. All statements as to essential unhappiness in their relations must, however, be received with caution, for the position now assumed in Scotland and France in order to justify in-
