On April 12th 1567 The Earl of Bothwell was tried for the murder of Mary Queen of Scots husband, Lor

On April 12th 1567 The Earl of Bothwell was tried for the murder of Mary Queen of Scots husband, Lord Darnley.

Within three months of Darnley’s murder, the Earl of Bothwell had married Mary in Edinburgh. The marriage was largely unpopular with the nobles 

Many reports say Mary was kidnapped and forced to marry Bothwell. Others said that she pretended to be kidnapped. Mary’s apparent closeness to Bothwell before the murder of Darnley heightened suspicion of her involvement in Darnley’s murder.

Although a Protestant, Bothwell was not popular with many of the nobles who agreed that Bothwell should be put on trial for Lord Darnley’s murder. However, after Bothwell’s supporters intimidated the prosecution in Edinburgh, Bothwell was acquitted.

Catholics within the country and overseas were concerned about Mary’s apparent lack of commitment to her faith. The speed with which the marriage had occurred and the unpopularity of Bothwell amongst the nobles, led to Mary being accused of being part of the conspiracy to murder her husband.

I’ve tried to find details of Bothwell’s trial but unusually there are no details of it in The National Archives of Scotland, plenty on Darnley’s murder and lots more besides, the only other information about him was he rode into Edinburgh in a procession, flanked by many of the Bothwell family, and the other details are that it was a rigged trial, arranged by Queen Mary and only took 7 hours. I find it very strange no records are available yet many are made public about Mary’s many mistakes, I think it goes to show that the Protestant Lords did much to paint Mary’s character after she fled to England, maybe with Bothwell there was no real proof linking him to the murder so the records were never preserved? There is however a record of the proceedings that survives, written in the hand of Justice Clerk Bellenden, who  presided, as Justice-General, that I have located since I last posted about the trial, I shall post the link at the foot of this post, although I warn you it is hard work reading it, legal wording is always tough, add to that it is written in the language of the day, The Scot’s tongue of the 16th century.

I did find out that many of the prosecution witnesses were intimidated, and that   Darnley’s father, Mathew Lennox, having “left Glasgow with 3,000 men of his affinity, arrived at Linlithgow, only to be informed that he was permitted to take just six supporters with him to Edinburgh”

This was quite correct: the law allowed the accused to appear at the bar with four attendants, while six were permitted to the accuser. But Lennox had also heard that Edinburgh was already packed with 4,000 of Bothwell’s armed supporters, and believed it would be suicide for him to set foot in the city. This is where the Queen’s inertia showed to her greatest disadvantage for, had she been in control, she should have ensured that the law applied to Bothwell too. But the indications are that she was by now somewhat intimidated by Bothwell, and powerless, in her weakened state, to gainsay him. Thus she laid herself open to accusations of collusion.

Too late, Lennox appealed to his new ally, Moray, for advice, but Moray had already left for England. Lennox therefore decided to send a protest that he dared not enter Edinburgh for fear of his life, and on the following day, he fell back on Stirling.

There’s also this, “At 6 a.m. on 12 April, Queen Elizabeth’s messenger, John Selby, Provost Marshal of Berwick, arrived at Holyrood with her letter urging a postponement of Bothwell’s trial, only to be informed that Queen Mary was not to be disturbed at this early hour.”

It’s possible that Mary was pregnant at the time, with Bothwell’s twins, she miscarried them during he imprisonment at Loch even later that year. 

At the end of the trial  Bothwell walked from the Tolbooth a free man. The Court Recorder wrote that the Earl “was made clean of the said slaughter” 

Had Lennox been granted the time he needed to procure witnesses and evidence, he might well have constructed a better case against Bothwell. But too many people were determined that that should never be allowed to happen.

According to the historian, George  Buchanan, after “this jolly acquittal,”“suspicion was increased and retribution seemed only to be postponed.”

As he left the Tolbooth, Bothwell defiantly “fixed a cartel to the door,” on which was written a challenge, “wherein he offered to fight in single contest against any gentleman undefamed that durst charge him with the murder.”  He then sent a town crier around Edinburgh to proclaim the verdict and had placards and letters bearing his own seal and repeating his challenge posted around the city, daring all comers to meet him in combat to “be taught the truth.”

If you recall my posts about the” Battle” of Carberry Hill in June the same year, Bothwell would again offer to take on anyone in single combat, so he must have fancied himself as a bit of a “hard man” 

Bothwell claims that “not a man took up my challenge,” but in fact, on the following day, he received three anonymous answers: one calling him “the chief author of the foul and horrible murder,”  at the foot of this were three lines linking Mary with Bothwell in murder and adultery:

Is it not enough the poor King is dead,
But the wicked murderers occupy his stead,
And double adultery has all this land shamed?

The tide was turning for Mary, agitators were riling the ordinary people of Edinburgh, and Scotland as a whole, making her out to be some kind of antichrist, things came to ahead when she was taken prisoner at Carberry Hill, her husband,  Bothwell fled Scotland ending up in Denmark, where his skulduggery of the past caught up with him and he was arrested and was placed in solitary confinement at Dragsholm Castle, where he died on 
14th April 1578, more of that in a couple of days time.

As promised you can read more about the trial here http://google.it.ao/books?id=o5YDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA925&focus=viewport&dq=editions:HARVARDHWNP7V&lr=&as_brr=0&output=html_text#c_top