commissioners to consent to the dissolution of their marriage. 9 At the same time, messengers were sent to Denmark to obtain Bothwell’s agreement to this. Mary had quickly decided that marrying Norfolk would be a sensible solution to her problems, and had already begun to correspond with him. Despite the danger, he was willing to be persuaded, and before long they were addressing each other in very affectionate terms.
After the representatives had left for London, Sussex wrote to Cecil with an incisive summation of the unavoidable outcome of the inquiry:
This matter must at length take end, either by finding the Scotch Queen guilty of the crimes that are objected against her, or by some manner of composition with a show of saving her honour. The first, I think, will hardly be attempted for two causes: the one, for that, if her adverse party accuse her of the murder by producing her letters, she will deny them, and accuse most of them of manifest consent to the murder, hardly to be denied, so as, upon trial on both sides, her proofs will judicially fall best out, as it is thought. I think the best in all respects for the Queen’s Majesty [Elizabeth], if Moray will produce such matter as the Queen’s Majesty may find judicially the Scotch Queen guilty of the murder of her husband, and therewith detain her in England at the charges of Scotland.
Therefore Mary must either be found guilty, “or the matter must be huddled up with a show of saving her honour.”
Sussex went on to say that, if Mary would confirm Moray’s Regency, the Regent would forbear to accuse her and repeal the Act of Parliament declaring her guilty of Darnley’s murder. He added that the Hamiltons wanted her restored because they hated Moray.
Thus do you see how these two factions, for their private causes, toss between them the crown and public affairs of Scotland, and care neither for the mother nor child, but to serve their own turns.
In short, Sussex was disgusted by “the inconstancy and subtleness of the people with whom we deal.” 10
Sussex was in effect saying that, even though he (and no doubt most other people) knew that the Scottish Lords were guilty of Darnley’s murder, and that Mary’s testimony would probably demonstrate this, it would be better for Elizabeth if Moray were to produce his letters and give her an excuse to keep Mary in custody. It was really immaterial whether or not Mary was innocent: English interests must be protected. It was therefore imperative that Mary should not be given a chance to appear before the commission to state her case. Clearly, Sussex had little faith in the authenticity of the Casket Letters. Yet, if his summation was correct, it mattered little whether they were genuine or not.
At the same time, Mary was writing to Elizabeth to say that she hoped presently to see a good end to the inquiry, “whereof we may be perpetually indebted to you.” 11 A day later, she wrote to inform her supporter, the Earl of Cassilis, in Scotland, of “the good proceedings” at York, where nothing had as yet been proved against her. But, unknown to Mary, Elizabeth’s attitude towards her was toughening. On 24 October, Cecil reported that she would not allow the Queen of Scots to be advanced to greater credit than she deserved. It may well be that Elizabeth had heard the rumours about the Norfolk marriage, which she would certainly have seen as a threat to herself; moreover, Norfolk was supposed to be impartial, and should not be inviting accusations of treason by courting the Scottish Queen. As for Mary, this was proof that she would not scruple to plot against Elizabeth. Norfolk himself told Moray he had heard that Elizabeth regarded the continued existence of Bothwell as a useful safeguard against Mary remarrying. Norfolk’s duplicity was probably the deciding factor in Elizabeth’s revoking of the conference to Westminster.
A further sign of her displeasure came on 30 October, when her Council agreed that
After the representatives had left for London, Sussex wrote to Cecil with an incisive summation of the unavoidable outcome of the inquiry:
This matter must at length take end, either by finding the Scotch Queen guilty of the crimes that are objected against her, or by some manner of composition with a show of saving her honour. The first, I think, will hardly be attempted for two causes: the one, for that, if her adverse party accuse her of the murder by producing her letters, she will deny them, and accuse most of them of manifest consent to the murder, hardly to be denied, so as, upon trial on both sides, her proofs will judicially fall best out, as it is thought. I think the best in all respects for the Queen’s Majesty [Elizabeth], if Moray will produce such matter as the Queen’s Majesty may find judicially the Scotch Queen guilty of the murder of her husband, and therewith detain her in England at the charges of Scotland.
Therefore Mary must either be found guilty, “or the matter must be huddled up with a show of saving her honour.”
Sussex went on to say that, if Mary would confirm Moray’s Regency, the Regent would forbear to accuse her and repeal the Act of Parliament declaring her guilty of Darnley’s murder. He added that the Hamiltons wanted her restored because they hated Moray.
Thus do you see how these two factions, for their private causes, toss between them the crown and public affairs of Scotland, and care neither for the mother nor child, but to serve their own turns.
In short, Sussex was disgusted by “the inconstancy and subtleness of the people with whom we deal.” 10
Sussex was in effect saying that, even though he (and no doubt most other people) knew that the Scottish Lords were guilty of Darnley’s murder, and that Mary’s testimony would probably demonstrate this, it would be better for Elizabeth if Moray were to produce his letters and give her an excuse to keep Mary in custody. It was really immaterial whether or not Mary was innocent: English interests must be protected. It was therefore imperative that Mary should not be given a chance to appear before the commission to state her case. Clearly, Sussex had little faith in the authenticity of the Casket Letters. Yet, if his summation was correct, it mattered little whether they were genuine or not.
At the same time, Mary was writing to Elizabeth to say that she hoped presently to see a good end to the inquiry, “whereof we may be perpetually indebted to you.” 11 A day later, she wrote to inform her supporter, the Earl of Cassilis, in Scotland, of “the good proceedings” at York, where nothing had as yet been proved against her. But, unknown to Mary, Elizabeth’s attitude towards her was toughening. On 24 October, Cecil reported that she would not allow the Queen of Scots to be advanced to greater credit than she deserved. It may well be that Elizabeth had heard the rumours about the Norfolk marriage, which she would certainly have seen as a threat to herself; moreover, Norfolk was supposed to be impartial, and should not be inviting accusations of treason by courting the Scottish Queen. As for Mary, this was proof that she would not scruple to plot against Elizabeth. Norfolk himself told Moray he had heard that Elizabeth regarded the continued existence of Bothwell as a useful safeguard against Mary remarrying. Norfolk’s duplicity was probably the deciding factor in Elizabeth’s revoking of the conference to Westminster.
A further sign of her displeasure came on 30 October, when her Council agreed that
Similar Books
