Scotland on 2 April 1560, and was joined by Moray and other lords, with their followers, at Prestonpans, whence the combined force proceeded towards Edinburgh (ib. p. 58). In subsequent negotiations with the queen regent Lord James took a prominent part, insisting specially on French evacuation, which the queen regent would probably have agreed to, had not her death, on 10 June, taken place before the negotiations could be completed.
The death of the queen regent was a happy deliverance, probably for her, and certainly for Lord James and the protestants. It left the catholics without a recognised head, and thus rendered possible the very one-sided treaty of Edinburgh on 8 July 1560. The cardinal provision of the treaty was that against the employment of foreign troops in Scotland; for although the sovereignty of Mary Stuart was also formally recognised, this formal recognition was virtually little more than a mockery—a circumstance made clear by the fact that, without taking counsel with their sovereign, the estates sent commissioners to Elizabeth to propose a marriage between Elizabeth and Arran. The intention to supersede Mary by a joint sovereignty of Arran and Elizabeth is self-evident. To this proposal Lord James was by his silence a party; but he could scarce have desired its success, even had he regarded his own sovereignty as impossible or improbable; for Arran's promotion would mean his own political extinction. Still, even had he been disposed so far to favour his sister's rights, he probably knew that any objection on his part would be attributed to jealousy of Arran, and would therefore do more harm than good. As Lord James perhaps anticipated, Elizabeth rejected the proposal; and hardly had she done so when news reached Scotland of the death of Mary's husband, Francis II, on 5 Dec. 1560. No event could have been more unwelcome to Elizabeth; nor could it have been welcome to the reformers and Lord James. It brought matters to a sudden crisis, a crisis full of difficulty and peril. Either Mary's rights to the Scottish throne had to be recognised by her recall to Scotland or formal deposition would be necessary.
But here again Lord James was equal to the occasion, though Elizabeth was not. He was equal to it in spite of, and almost in direct opposition to, Elizabeth. If selfishness was his main motive, it was selfishness under thorough discipline, and the selfishness of a consummate statesman or at least politician. It was a great opportunity for himself, and he probably made the most of it; but it must be placed to his credit that the path he decided to tread was also seemingly—that is, so far as acts are a key to motives—one of the strictest integrity and honour. Compelled by almost inevitable destiny to assume overwhelming responsibilities, he acquitted himself to admiration. Fully recognising the personal danger to himself in Mary's return, he was yet persuaded that her return ought not to be prevented, and, except at the risk of greater evils, could not. From the beginning, therefore, he sought to win her confidence; but he did not attempt to do so by disguising his opinions or aims. On 15 Jan. 1560–1 he was by the Scottish parliament appointed deputy to her, the main object of his visit being to ‘grope her mind.’ While he was in France every attempt was made to win him to catholicism; but not for an instant did he even pretend to waver. On the contrary, he aimed to impress on her the impossibility of reimposing catholicism on Scotland; and on 10 June 1560, after his return to Scotland, he, with perfect candour, advised her, ‘for the love of God,’ not to ‘press matters of religion, not for any man's advice on earth;’ and stated that he gave her this advice not merely in her own interest, but for the affection he bore the religion which he himself confessed (Letter in Addit. MS. Brit. Mus. 32091, fol. 189, printed in full in Philippson, Marie Stuart, iii. 434–43). To Throgmorton, the English ambassador in Paris, Lord James revealed the whole tenor of his interview with his sister, concealing absolutely nothing. For doing so he has been denounced as a traitor of the blackest kind, influenced mainly by a desire to prejudice his sister in the eyes of Elizabeth. But only the most superficial acquaintance with facts could originate such a theory. It is not a question of his disinterestedness. It was absolutely necessary for his own sake that he should retain Elizabeth's confidence, and he could only succeed in doing so by perfect frankness. That he did succeed is evident from the letters of Throgmorton, who on 1 May wrote to the queen that Lord James deserved to ‘be well entertained and made of by the Queen of England’ (Cal. State Papers, For. 1561–2, No. 158), and expressed the opinion that Elizabeth could not bestow ‘too much favour and benefits on him’ (ib. p. 159); and on 4 May described him as ‘one of the most virtuous noblemen, and one in whom religion, sincerity, and magnanimity as much reign as ever he knew in any man in any nation’ (ib. p. 167). But, though it was doubtless of the highest importance to him personally to stand well with Elizabeth,
