now inconvenient — by Rizzio as foreign secretary should also be noted. Presumably that
Dudley might have ' honours and preferments conformable' to a suitor of Mary,
Elizabeth in September created him Earl of
Leicester, but if she really desired the success
of his suit, it was folly to give consent to
Darnley *s visit. Mary's intention was almost
self-evident. Still to the last she kept up
the appearance of being guided by Elizabeth.
On 5 Feb. 1564-5 Randolph — about the time
Darnley set out for Scotland — found her at
St. Andrews, merrily pretending co live with
' her little troup' as a ' plain bourgeois wife,'
and protesting that he should not ' spoil their
pastime with his grave matters:' but when
he did mention Leicester, she replied, with a
placid irony which was lost on Randolph,
that one whom *the queen his mistress did
so well like' ' ought not to mislike her' (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1504-5, entry 901).
Mary first saw Darnley at Wemvss Castle in Fife' on Saturday, 38 Feb. 1504-5 (Randolph, 10 Feb., ib. entry 995). On the 26th he went to hear Knox preach, and in the evening, at the request of Moray, danced a galliard with the queen (Randolph, 27 Feb., ib. entry 1008). According to Sir James Melville, Mary was agreeably impressed with Darnley ' as the best proportioned lang man she had seen' (Memoirs, p. 134); but she also stated to Melville that at first she took his proposals ' in evil part.' Probably she did not wish the engagement fixed, or at least published prematurely. Darnley's egregious vanity and obstinate self-will may have also caused her some misgivings. But she gave an indication of her purpose in her firmer attitude towards Catholicism, and the expression of a desire to have ' all men live as they list' (Randolph, 20 March, in Keith, ii. 268-75). About the beginning of April Darnley while with Mary at Stirling fell ill of the measles. She spent most of her time in his sick room, and according to foreign rumour was on his recovery secretly married to him by a priest introduced into the castle by Rizzio (Memoire in Labanoff, vii. 66; De Foix, 26 April, on the supposed authority of a letter of Randolph, Teclet, ii. 193; De Silva, 26 April, on the authority of Lady Lennox, CaL State Papery Spanish Ser. 1558-67, p. 424 ; De Silva, 5 May, ib. p. 429). The rumour, though accepted by some historians as true, is insufficiently authenticated. What Randolph reported was that Mary treated Darnley as her affianced husband (15 April, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1564-5, entry 1099). On 1 May the English privy council resolved to warn Man- that the contemplated marriage would be dangerous to the weal of both countries (Illustrations of the Reign of Mary, pp. 115-17), but she expressed ingenuous, and to some extent justifiable, surprise at their objections (Throckmorton, 21 May, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1564-5, entry 1187).
Although Darnley's fatal facility in arousing jealousy and hate proved from the beginning a serious drawback, Mary did not neglect any possible means of reconciling the nobles to the marriage. She even made an attempt to induce Moray to commit himself before the result of Maitland's latest mission to England was known (Randolph, 8 May 1565, ib. entry 1151). James Hamilton, duke of Chatelherault [q. v.], and Archibald Campbell, fifth earl or Argyll, from hereditary jealousies, were unfavourably disposed, but all the principal lords were invited to sign & band in favour of the marriage (ib.), and special precautions were taken to secure the support of Darnlev's kinsman Morton, while Lindsay and Rut liven were also devoted to him by ' bond of blood.' The protestant party was thus divided. Moreover, when it was necessary to take action against Moray, George Gordon, fifth earl of Huntly [q. v.], was liberated from prison and Bothwell recalled to Scotland. To the articles of the kirk, requiring among other things the abolition of the mass in the 'queen's own person' (Knox, ii. 484-6), she did not finally reply till after the marriage, but on 12 July she made a proclamation disowning all intention to molest any of her subjects in the 'quiet using of their religion and conscience' (Reg. P. C. SeotL i. 338). This did not reconcile the kirk authorities, but it allayed the fears of the more moderate, while the catholics might infer that they at least would not be further molested. Her intentions may be judged from her letter to the pope in October 1564, expressing her determination to root out heresy in Scotland (Labanoff, it. 7; De Alava, 4 June, Teulet, v. 11 ; Duke d'Alba, 29 June, ib. v. 12 ; the king of Spain to De Silva, 6 June, CaL State Papers, Span. Ser. 1558-67; Pius IV, k 25 Sept., Pillippson, ii. 384; Mary to Philip, 14 July, Labanoff, vii. 339).
On 14 June Mary sent Hay to Elizabeth with a proposal to refer the points of difference between them to a commission (Keith, ii. 293-6; Labanoff, i. 266-71), but as this assumed Elizabeth's agreement to the marriage on certain conditions, the only reply was a request that Mary would give effect to the recall of Lennox and Darnley. A scheme of Moray to kidnap Darnley on 3 July and send him to England was frustrated, and ' shortly afterwards Moray and the other lords
