also claimed to be rightful queen of England, he might secure to his and their descendants the unexampled honour of succession to both crowns.
When Arran in 1559 became a convert to protestantism, it was thought that the French party would do their utmost to win Lennox (ib. For. 1558–9, No. 1111), and in truth Lennox was only too willing to be won. On the death of Francis, he sent his servant Nesbitt to Scotland to treat regarding his return (ib. 1559–60, Nos. 467–8); and he afterwards defended himself to Elizabeth for doing so, on the ground that he was simply ‘travelling for his right’ (ib. No. 579)—that is, for the repeal of the sentence of forfeiture and restoration to his estates. With Mary in Scotland, his return thither became to him a still more engrossing object of desire; and although the mere thought of it so provoked and alarmed Elizabeth that in 1562 she sent him to the Tower, she in 1564 allowed herself to be persuaded—either through the flattery of the Lady Margaret, or by the influence of intrigues which it is now impossible to trace, or from a special freak or purpose of her own, which now baffles full explanation—to grant his request. An important point in his favour was probably the fact that both Moray and Maitland ‘were disposed rather to further than hinder his coming’ (ib. For. 1564–5, No. 557). Their reasons are not quite clear, but their lack of love for Châtelherault was one; and no doubt also Lennox had had private communication with them. They must have been well aware that his main purpose was to promote a marriage between Darnley and Mary. This they may have imagined beyond his attainment, at least without their sanction; and besides they had no personal knowledge either of Lennox or of Darnley, and, until they knew them, may have thought Darnley an eligible suitor for Mary.
Lennox arrived in Scotland in September 1564, and shortly afterwards, on the 22nd, he was released from the horn by open proclamation at the market cross of Edinburgh (Diurnal, p. 77). After this necessary preliminary, he on the 23rd rode with his attendants in gaudy style to Holyrood Palace, where he had an interview with the queen, and gave presents to her and the principal nobles (ib.) On 9 Oct. proclamation was made of his restoration to his lands and of the repeal of the doom of forfailture (ib. p. 78); and on the 27th he and Châtelherault were formally—but only formally—reconciled at Holyrood Palace. With the permission of Elizabeth, Darnley was soon afterwards permitted to come to Scotland; but when Elizabeth learned that the Queen of Scots had determined to marry Darnley, she on 10 June 1565 sent a belated and impotent summons to Lennox and Darnley to return to England (ib. p. 125).
After the marriage of Mary and Darnley, Lennox on 6 Sept. 1565 was appointed lieutenant over all the western counties (Reg. P. C. Scotl. i. 366); and on 10 Oct. he was named leader of the vanguard of the army against Moray and the rebel protestants (ib. p. 379); but during the remainder of his son's life he, although of necessity continuing to reside in Scotland, was little more than a political cipher. Notwithstanding his fervent attendance at mass in the queen's chapel (Knox, ii. 514), he probably lost the queen's regard even before his son did; and in fact there was a dispute between Mary and her husband as to whether Lennox or Bothwell should be commander of her forces against the rebels. His haughty manners provoked the resentment of most of the nobility, while, like his son, he lacked the qualities necessary to secure even toleration of his pretensions. Worst of all, he was neither wise enough nor in character strong enough to be a proper mentor to his son, over whom he speedily lost all control. His wife, who could have exercised a salutary influence over both son and husband, was detained a captive by Elizabeth, and could not hold free communication with them even from a distance.
Lennox was privy to the plot for the murder of Riccio; but it was of course without his knowledge that Darnley treacherously conspired with the queen for her escape; and thereanent he was reported to be ‘much offended with his son,’ as he well might be (Randolph to Cecil, 21 March 1566, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566–8, No. 205). Despised almost from the beginning by the queen, and almost equally with his son the object of her wrath, for his part in the plot against Riccio, Lennox was helpless to prevent the estrangement becoming a public scandal, but he had sufficient good sense to warn the queen in October of Darnley's purpose to leave the kingdom, and to inform her that it was not in his power to turn him from it (Le Croc to Bethune, 15 Oct. 1566, in Keith's History, ii. 450). He proved equally impotent to protect Darnley from the inevitable dangers that attended his stay in Scotland. Not only so, but it may have been through his unwise and blind advice that Darnley was lured into the toils which ended in his murder. After its occurrence, Lennox adopted an attitude at once prudent and determined. His wise restraint was probably
