cised her prerogative in deferring the execution, and on 11 Feb. 1562-3 he was transferred to Dunbar. Knox states that Moray ‘laboured at the quenis hand for the saiftye of his lyeff which hardly was granted’ (ib.), and the fact that when in Edinburgh the Duke of Chatelherault supped with Knox on a Sunday, and ‘promised to be a professor of Chrystes word’ (ib. vi. 145), would seem to indicate that the duke wished Knox to use his influence with Moray on his son-in-law's behalf. On the other hand, Crawfurd (Officers of State, p. 91) states, on the authority of Gordon of Straloch, that while Huntly was in prison at Dunbar an attempt was made to have him executed on a false warrant, which, however, the governor, much to Queen Mary's satisfaction, refused to carry out. When the body of the fourth Earl of Huntly was on 28 May 1563 brought to the bar of parliament, the son was also made to attend, and as the sentence of forfeiture embraced him, he was ‘decernit to pass to Dunbar again’ (Diurnal of Occurrents, p. 76). There he remained till the marriage of Mary with Darnley, 29 July 1565, and the consequent rebellion of Moray, when to ‘strengthen her faction she took him out of prison’ (Herries, Memoirs, p. 69). On 3 Aug. cautioners were accepted for his entering into ward; on the 28th he was restored by proclamation at the market cross of Edinburgh to the lordship of Gordon (Diurnal of Occurrents, p. 81), and on 8 Oct. he was restored by similar proclamation to the earldom of Huntly and all the lands and dignities that formerly belonged to his father (ib. p. 84; Knox, ii. 512). So far, however, as possession of his lands was concerned, his restoration was merely nominal until the wishes of the queen should be ratified by parliament. Though Huntly was now high in favour with the queen, he professed the reformed faith, and declined to attend mass in her chapel (Knox, ii. 514). In this he probably followed the advice of Bothwell, with whom he at this time cemented an alliance against their common enemy Moray, by the marriage with Bothwell of his sister. Lady Jane Gordon.
On the night of Rizzio's murder, 9 March 1566, Huntly and Bothwell had apartments in the palace of Holyrood, and came suddenly into the inner court with the view of making a rescue, but Morton ‘commanded them to pass to their chamber or else they should do worse’(Knox, ii. 521; Diurnal of Occurrents, p. 90). They immediately obeyed, but escaped by a back window, and, fearing to enter Edinburgh, travelled on foot to Edmonstone, and thence went to Bothwell's castle at Crichton. From this time Huntly became Bothwell's closest associate and counsellor. The two had planned that Mary should make her escape from Holyrood ‘over the walls in the night upon towes and chairs which they had in readiness to that effect’ (letter of Mary in Keith, History, ii. 420, and Labanoff, Lettres de Marie Stuart, i. 346), but Mary did not find it necessary to avail herself of their help. After her midnight ride with Darnley from Holyrood, Huntly and Bothwell joined her at Dunbar, and on the attainder of Morton for the murder of Rizzio, Huntly succeeded to the office of lord high chancellor, which his father had previously held. About the end of April a reconciliation took place between the lords with the queen and the Earls of Moray and Argyll (Diurnal of Occurrents, p. 99), the event being celebrated by a feast in the castle. It marked the beginning of a close league in the queen's interest between Huntly and Argyll, but so far as Huntly and Moray were concerned the arrangement was privately regarded on both sides as a mere temporary truce. As it was to Moray that Huntly owed the death of his father and the ruin of his house, both revenge and worldly interest impelled him to do his utmost against Moray. According to Sir James Melville, Huntly, a little before the birth of the prince, seconded Bothwell in endeavouring to persuade the queen to imprison Moray until she was delivered, on the plea that he might during her illness usurp her authority and bring in the banished lords (Memoirs, p. 154); and afterwards with Bothwell he contrived a plot for the murder of Moray while he was with the queen at Jedburgh (ib. p. 173). The narrative given by Huntly and Argyll of the conference at Craigmillar in December, when a scheme was proposed for ridding Mary of Darnley ‘without prejudice to her son’ (printed in Keith, History, app. No. xvi.), cannot, on account of the peculiar relation of Huntly to Moray, as well as the criminal character of the whole proceedings, be regarded as trustworthy in all its details; but in it Huntly does not scruple to state that he was induced to take part in the scheme by the promise of restoration to his estates, it being stipulated on the other side that Morton and the other banished lords should be recalled. As a matter of course Huntly signed the subsequent bond at Craigmillar for Darnley's murder, although he represents the confederates as demanding nothing more of him than of the Earl of Moray: that he should ‘behald the matter and not be offendit thairat.’ As before Huntly continued in close company with Bothwell. The two are said to have accompanied the queen to Callendar House, when she set out for Glasgow to visit Darnley
