day forward till Mary Stuart's last hopes were scattered at Langside, became the enemy of all which till that hour he had most loved and fought for’ (Froude, History of England (Lib. ed.), viii. 224). His negotiations with Elizabeth still continued, and what is chiefly manifest in his subsequent conduct is the absence of a settled and determined purpose, indicating that he was swayed by different motives at different times. Without the help of Elizabeth he had no option but to make terms with Mary, and it so happened that after the murder of Rizzio Mary was glad to be reconciled both to him and Moray. That the murder had their sanction there can be no doubt, but they were not present when it was committed, and Darnley, who had denounced Morton, Ruthven, and the other perpetrators of the deed, made no allusion to their connection with it. When it became known that Darnley was himself the principal contriver of the murder, the queen's attitude towards those who had all along opposed the marriage must have been somewhat changed, and, at least as regards Argyll, she gave strong proof of his restoration to her confidence when, on going to Edinburgh to be confined of a child, she ordered lodgings to be provided for him next her own. Shortly after this Argyll was caught in the toils which virtually bound him in honour or dishonour to the cause of Mary, so long as there was a party to fight for her in Scotland. His course of action was determined rather by circumstances than by his own will or choice. Possibly he became at first the tool of the queen and Bothwell in order to revenge himself on Darnley for his treachery towards Morton and the other banished lords, for at this time he was negotiating with Elizabeth to interfere on their behalf, on the promise that he would with his highlanders hold Shan O'Neil in check in Ireland, and would do what he could to hinder the ‘practice between the queen and the papists of England.’ That Argyll signed the bond at Craigmillar for the murder of Darnley there can be no doubt; and it was in the company of him and his countess that the queen spent the evening after she had left her husband to his fate. Thus irrevocably bound by his share in the murder to the fortunes of Mary and Bothwell, the part which Argyll had now to act was painful and humiliating to the last degree. Along with Bothwell he signed the proclamation offering 2,000l. for the discovery of the murderer, and as hereditary lord justice he presided at the trial, by a packed jury, of Bothwell, his co-conspirator. Along with other lords he was present on 19 April 1567 at the supper given by Bothwell in Ainslie's tavern, when, after they were all excited by wine, Bothwell induced them to sign a bond in favour of his marriage with the queen. After the marriage took place Argyll manifested a temporary gleam of repentance by signing the bond for the defence of the young prince, and, notwithstanding the boast of the queen, ‘for Argyll I know well how to stop his mouth’ (Drury to Cecil, 20 May 1567), it was only after the flight of Bothwell that he joined the party of nobles who on 29 June met at Dumbarton to plan measures for her deliverance. On 20 July following he was summoned to attend a meeting of the general assembly of the kirk, but excused himself on the plea that the brethren assembled in Edinburgh were in arms, and that he had not yet joined himself to them, but promised meantime to continue in the maintenance of the true religion (Calderwood, History, ii. 378). He was nominated one of the council of regency who, when the queen, on the suggestion of the assembly, consented to demit the government in favour of her son, were charged to carry it on till the arrival of Moray from France; but this did not reconcile him to the arrangement, and although Moray on his arrival, being ‘in respect of old friendship loath to offend him,’ sent him an invitation to meet him for consultation on public affairs, he declined to accept it, and only made his submission when he found further resistance to be for the time vain. Possibly the influence of Moray might have been effectual in restraining him from taking further measures in behalf of the queen, had it not been for their quarrel on account of the attempt of Argyll to divorce his wife, to which Moray, who was her half-brother, would not consent. Argyll was further exasperated by the action of the general assembly in regard to the divorce, for the assembly, doubtless with the view of punishing him for his political conduct, compelled him for separation from his wife and ‘other scandalous offences’ to submit to public discipline (ib. ii. 397). Nor could he have appreciated the impartiality which meted out similar justice to his countess, who, having acknowledged ‘that she had offended God and slaundered the kirk, by assisting the baptisme of the king in Papisticall maner with her presence,’ was ‘ordeaned to mak her publict repentance in the Chappell Royall of Stirline, in time of sermoun’ (ib.) But while these matters must have had their effect in estranging him from the regent and from the extreme protestant party as represented by Knox, the main influence that bound him to the cause of the queen and made him persevere in
