terference with Mary was that she was in subjection to Bothwell.
When Bothwell on 10 June made his escape from Borthwick Castle the lords, who had surrounded it with a view to his capture, assailed Mary with ' evil and unseemly speeches,' which, ' poor princess,' says Drury , ' she did with her speech defend, wanting other means for her revenge ' (12 June, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566-8, entry 1289). On their departure towards Edinburgh, she left at evening in 'man's clothes, booted and spurred,' and joining Bothwell, rode with him to Dunbar (James Beaton, 17 June, in Laino, ii. 107 ; Captain of Inchkeith, Teulet, ii. 303 ; Buchanan, Hist. bk. xviii.) She brought no female apparel with her, but on reaching Dunbar obtained a dress, described by Drury as 'after the fashion of the women of Edinburgh, in a red petticoat [as she was of the 'largest size,' it reached only to her knees], sleeves tied with points, a "partlyte," a velvet hat and muffler' (17 June, Cal State Papers, For. Ser. entry 1313). It was in this attire that she confronted the lords at Carberry Hill on Sunday, 15 June, and the delay in coming to blows was due originally to the desire of the lords to avoid a conflict, and to the expectation of reinforcements on the part of Bothwell and Mary. The proposed single combat between Bothwell and Lindsay was negatived by the queen, who affirmed that the quarrel was hers even more than Bothwell's. It was only when she saw that the majority of her followers were unprepared to support him that she agreed to his leaving the field and to deliver hersel f to the enemy. His safety was her first concern, but she expected, when he had left her, to be treated as a sovereign, and hoped even yet either to effect his return or find the means of escape to him. When speedily undeceived by the brutal contumely of the troops, she assailed her captors with violent menaces. She talked of nothing ' but hanging and crucifying them air (De Croc, 17 June, in Teulet, ii. 310), the chief object of her wrath being Lindsav, the challenger of Bothwell (Captain of Inchkeith, ifl.p.308), to whom she swore, by his right hand held in hers, 'I will have your head for this, and therefore assure you' (Drury, 18 June, but ' the graphic episodes are omitted in Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566-8, entry 1313). About ten o'clock in the summer twilight she entered Edinburgh, 'her face all disfigured with dust and tears,' amid the almost unbroken silence of the throng of citizens which so crowded the streets that two could scarce walk abreast (Buchanan, bk. xviii. Calderwood, ii. 365). She was lodged all night and all next day in the provost's house opposite the cross, and in the extremity of her despair showed herself all dishevelled at the window calling for help (Beaton, 17 June, in Laing, ii. 114; Captain of Inchkeith, in Teulet, ii. 308; De Croc, 17 June, id. p. 313). Seeing Maitland passing she prayed him for the love of God to come and speak to her (ib.), and inveighed against the attempt to separate her from her husband, ' with whom she hoped to live and die with the greatest content on earth ' (ib. p. 31 1 ). Her determination to stand by Bothwell and the knowledge that she was already in communication with him induced the lords, after bringing her to Holy rood, to send her, originally partly for her own protection, to Lochleven. borne of the extremists were for her summary execution, but the more responsible nobles were opposed to this, and deemed it impolitic meanwhile even to accuse her of the murder. On 20 June, if Morton's declaration is to be believed, the casket containing Mary's letters to Bothwell and other incriminating documents fell into the hands of the lords. Their production at such an early period, even apart from the names of those attesting the manner of their discovery (see Morton's declaration in Henderson's Casket Letters, pp. 113-16), renders still more difficult the acceptance of any of the theories of their forgery that have yet been propounded, and additional importance attaches to Morton's declaration from the fact that the French ambassador was furnished with a copy of the letters some time before 12 July (Cal State Papers, Spanish Ser. 1558-67,' p. 65). The first and original aim of the loras was not to accuse Mary of Darnley's murder but to obtain her consent to a divorce (Answer, 21 July, Keith, ii. 577-583 ; Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566-8, entry 1485). 'They do not intend,' wrote Throckmorton, 'to touch the queen in surety or honour ' (21 July, ib. entry 1484). To have done so would have exposed them to the vengeance of other sovereigns, to the opposition of those catholic nobles who had supported them against Bothwell, and to the possibility of awkward revelations as to the relation of some of them to the murder. But Mary would not consent to a divorce. Rather than renounce Bothwell she was prepared to sacrifice 'kingdom and dignity ' (ib.) For this she gave as a cardinal reason that she was seven weeks gone with child (18 July, ib. entry 1468). Neither the statement of Claude Nau, possibly on her own authority, that she had a miscarriage of twins, nor that of Castelnau, that she gave birth to a daughter who was educated as a religieuse in the convent of Soissons,
