printed in Philippson's Marie Stuart et la Ligue Catholigue Universelle, pp. 37-40), Mary was endeavouring to further the marriage by entering into arrangements with Philip and others for the restoration of Catholicism. Maitland had suspicions of this, but it was not by him, or Elizabeth, or the Scots, that the project was to be wrecked. Elizabeth's warning, that a marriage to a foreign catholic prince would dissolve the concord between the two nations, both Maitland and Mary were prepared to brave (De Quadra, 26 June, in Cal. State Papers, Spanish Ser. 1558-67, p. 338, and Documents Intd. lxxxvii. 529 ; Randolph's Memorial, 20 Aug., Cal State Papers,For. Ser. 1563, entry 1162, and in Keith, ii. 205-10). Nor did the violent diatribes of Knox, although they occasioned an outburst of passionate anger from Mary (Knox, ii. 387-9), do much to endanger the scheme. Mary's hopes were dashed by her own relatives. The Guises, as well as Catherine de Medici, feared that the proposed alliance would prejudice the interests of France. They were hostile even to a Scottish and English alliance, and a project for the fusion of these two countries with Spain was regarded with positive consternation. To prevent both possibilities the Cardinal of Lorraine pressed Mary to accept the Archduke Charles of Austria, and succeeded in giving such prominence to the suit as to delay and embarrass the negotiations with Philip. Catherine de Medici, to foil Mary's purpose, made also a dubious offer to her of the hand of Charles IX. By the unscrupulous representations of the cardinal the pope was won over to favour the Austrian marriage, but Mary was proof against the pretences of Catherine and the persuasions of both cardinal and pope. Though unable to move Mary's resolution, the cardinal shook that of Philip. Philip was anxious not to imperil his immediate relations with France. That the ruin of such great hopes was effected chiefly by her uncle intensified the bitterness of Mary's disappointment. She was observed to be at times ' in great melancholie,' and to ' weep when there was little appearance of occasion' (Randolph, 31 Dec, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1563, entry 1481).
Elizabeth's first suggestion of her lover, Lord Robert Dudley, as a husband to the queen of Scots was made to Maitland in March 1563 (De Quadra, 28 March, Cal. State Papers, Spanish Ser. 1558-67, p. 313), but he jestingly replied that Elizabeth had better first marry him herself. When Elizabeth discovered that Mary favoured a foreign suitor — supposed to be the Archduke Charles — she authorised Randolph to vaguely suggest ' some nobleman of good birth within this our realm' (20 Aug., Keith, ii. 200, and Cal. State Papers,¥or. Ser. 1563, entry 1162). On mooting the matter to Mary, Randolph ' could not perceive what her mind' was (30 Dec, ib. entry 1559), but she professed a preference to remain a widow — at one time from regard to her late husband, at another because ' no such man as she looks for looks this way' (20 Feb. 1563-4, ib. 1564-5, entry 181 ; 8 March ib. entry 220). Before the summer of 1561 she had begun to think of the probable necessity of resigning herself to an English marriage. When at last Randolph definitely named Dudley, she expressed some incredulity and dissatisfaction (Randolph, 30 March, ib. entry 282). Elizabeth, Maitland and Moray asserted, intended nothing by the proposal but ' drift of time.' Drift of time was what Mary desired, and she utilised it for the furtherance of a match with Lord Darnley tsee Stewart, Henry], son of Lady Margaret Douglas [q. v.], next lineal heir after Mary to the English throne, by Matthew Stewart, earl of Lennox [q. v.], who disputed with the Hamiltons the succession after Mary to the Scottish throne. By such a marriage Mary would greatly strengthen her claims as heir-presumptive to Elizabeth. The chief objection to Darnley — that although professedly a protestant, he represented Elizabeth's enemies, the English catholics — was to Mary a prime recommendation, for she intended to mount the English throne by catholic aid and as a catholic queen. While in this she had to count on the opposition of Maitland and Moray, she was, in marrying Darnley, acting against the wishes of the Cardinal of Lorraine, who styled him 'ung gentil hutaudeau' (a handsome fribble) (De Foix, 23 May 1565, Teulet, ii. 199), and the Cardinal of Guise and Madame de Guise were in a 'marvellous agony' when they learned her intention (Smith to Leicester in Froude, vii. 245); even the pope and Philip preferred the Austrian marriage. The enterprise owed its inception to herself alone, encouraged only by the English catholics.
The theory of the Darnley love match (Camden, Robertson, Burton, &c.) is sufficiently refuted by Mary herself (Mémoire in Labanoff, i. 297). On purely political grounds. Darnley was her next choice after Don Carlos. She had practically decided on the marriage when she began negotiations for the recall of Lennox, who returned to Scotland in September 1564. After his arrival she despatched Sir James Melville to obtain leave of absence for Darnley, who was in England (Melville, Memoirs, p. 120). The superseding on 4 Dec. of Raulet — whose French predilections were