diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/42910.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/42910.txt | 13866 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 13866 deletions
diff --git a/old/42910.txt b/old/42910.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 351c625..0000000 --- a/old/42910.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,13866 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Mystery of Mary Stuart, by Andrew Lang - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org - - -Title: The Mystery of Mary Stuart - -Author: Andrew Lang - -Release Date: June 10, 2013 [EBook #42910] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: ASCII - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE MYSTERY OF MARY STUART *** - - - - -Produced by Chris Curnow, Anna Whitehead and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net - - - - - - - - - -THE MYSTERY OF MARY STUART - - - - -BY THE SAME AUTHOR. - - -A MONK OF FIFE. Crown 8vo. 3_s._ 6_d._ - -ANGLING SKETCHES. Crown 8vo. 3_s._ 6_d._ - -BALLADS OF BOOKS. Fcp. 8vo. 6_s._ - -BAN AND ARRIERE BAN. Fcp. 8vo. [_Out of print._ - -BOOK OF DREAMS AND GHOSTS. Crown 8vo. 3_s._ 6_d._ - -BOOKS AND BOOKMEN. Fcp. 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._ _net_. - -COCK LANE AND COMMON-SENSE. Crown 8vo. 3_s._ 6_d._ - -COMPANIONS OF PICKLE. 8vo. 16_s._ - -CUSTOM AND MYTH. Crown 8vo. 3_s._ 6_d._ - -ESSAYS IN LITTLE. Crown 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._ - -GRASS OF PARNASSUS. Fcp. 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._ _net_. - -HOMER AND THE EPIC. Crown 8vo. 9_s._ _net_. - -LETTERS ON LITERATURE. Fcp. 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._ _net_. - -LETTERS TO DEAD AUTHORS. Fcp. 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._ _net_. - -MAGIC AND RELIGION. 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._ _net_. - -MODERN MYTHOLOGY. 8vo. 9_s._ - -MYTH, RITUAL, AND RELIGION. 2 vols, crown 8vo. 7_s._ - -OLD FRIENDS. Fcp. 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._ _net_. - -PICKLE THE SPY. 8vo. [_Out of print._ - -ST. ANDREWS. 8vo. [_Out of print._ - -THE MAKING OF RELIGION. Crown 8vo. 5_s._ _net_. - - LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., 39 Paternoster Row, London - New York and Bombay. - - - - -[Illustration: Mary Stuart - -From the portrait in the collection of the Earl of Morton. - -Walker & Cockerell. ph. sc.] - - - - - THE MYSTERY OF MARY STUART - - - BY ANDREW LANG - - - WITH ILLUSTRATIONS - - - _NEW EDITION_ - - - LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. - 89 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON - NEW YORK AND BOMBAY - 1901 - - All rights reserved - - - - -PREFACE - - -In revising this book I have corrected a number of misreadings in the -Arabic numerals of dates of years. I owe much to Mr. David Bruce-Gardyne -and Mr. Hay Fleming. In deference to other criticisms offered privately, I -have somewhat modified certain phrases about the hypothetical forged -letter, as quoted by Moray and Lennox (pp. 211-236). That such a letter -once existed is, of course, an inference on which readers must form their -own opinion. The passage as to the site of Darnley's house, Kirk o' Field -(pp. 124-131), ought to have been banished to an Appendix. On any theory -the existence of the town wall, shown in the contemporary chart opposite -p. 130, is a difficulty. The puzzle is caused by the chart of 1567, -reduced in the design given at p. 130. In all published forms the drawing -is given as it is here. But it reverses the points of the compass, east -and west. Mr. A. H. Millar has suggested to me that if reflected in a -mirror some errors of the chart disappear, whence one infers that it was -drawn in reverse for an engraving. I have, therefore, corrected the text -in this sense. But difficulties remain: there is a town wall, running -south to north, of which we have no other knowledge; and Hamilton House -(if the chart is reversed) is placed east instead of west of Kirk o' -Field, where it actually stood. The original design contains only the name -of Hamilton House. In our chart the house is copied from the picture of it -as part of the University buildings, in the map of 1647. - - - - -INTRODUCTION - - -Mr. Carlyle not unjustly described the tragedy of Mary Stuart as but a -personal incident in the true national History of Scotland. He asked for -other and more essential things than these revelations of high life. Yet -he himself wrote in great detail the story of the Diamond Necklace of -Marie Antoinette. The diamonds of the French, the silver Casket of the -Scottish Queen, with all that turned on them, are of real historical -interest, for these trifles brought to the surface the characters and -principles of men living in an age of religious revolution. Wells were -sunk, as it were, deep into human personality, and the inner -characteristics of the age leaped upwards into the light. - -For this reason the Mystery of Mary Stuart must always fascinate: -moreover, curiosity has never ceased to be aroused by this problem of -Mary's guilt or innocence. Hume said, a hundred and fifty years ago, that -the Scottish Jacobite who believed in the Queen's innocence was beyond the -reach of reason or argument. Yet from America, Russia, France, and Germany -we receive works in which the guilt of Mary is denied, and the arguments -of Hume, Robertson, Laing, Mignet, and Froude are contested. Every inch of -the ground has been inspected as if by detectives on the scene of a recent -murder; and one might suppose that the Higher Criticism had uttered its -last baseless conjecture and that every syllable of the fatal Casket -Letters, the only external and documentary testimony to Mary's guilt, must -have been weighed, tested, and analysed. But this, as we shall see, is -hardly the fact. There are 'points as yet unseized by Germans.' Mary was -never tried by a Court of Justice during her lifetime. Her cause has been -in process of trial ever since. Each newly discovered manuscript, like the -fragmentary biography by her secretary, Nau, and the Declaration of the -Earl of Morton, and the newly translated dispatches of the Spanish -ambassadors, edited by Major Martin Hume (1894), has brought fresh light, -and has modified the tactics of the attack and defence. - -As Herr Cardauns remarks, at the close of his 'Der Sturz der Maria -Stuart,' we cannot expect finality, and our verdicts or hypotheses may be -changed by the emergence of some hitherto unknown piece of evidence. -Already we have seen too many ingenious theories overthrown. From the -defence of Mary by Goodall (1754) to the triumphant certainties of -Chalmers (1818), to the arguments of MM. Philippson and Sepp, of Mr. -Hosack, and of Sir John Skelton (1880-1895), increasing knowledge of -facts, new emergence of old MSS. have, on the whole, weakened the -position of the defence. Mr. Henderson's book 'The Casket Letters and Mary -Stuart' (First Edition 1889) is the last word on the matter in this -country. Mr. Henderson was the first to publish in full Morton's sworn -Declaration as to the discovery, inspection, and safe keeping of the fatal -Casket and its contents. Sir John Skelton's reply[1] told chiefly against -minor points of criticism and palaeography. - -The present volume is not a Defence of Mary's innocence. My object is to -show, how the whole problem is affected by the discovery of the Lennox -Papers, which admit us behind the scenes, and enable us to see how Mary's -prosecutors, especially the Earl of Lennox, the father of her murdered -husband, got up their case. The result of criticism of these papers is -certainly to reinforce Mr. Hosack's argument, that there once existed a -forged version of the long and monstrous letter to Bothwell from Glasgow, -generally known as 'Letter II.' In this book, as originally written, I had -myself concluded that Letter II., as it stands, bears evidence of -garbling. The same is the opinion of Dr. Bresslau, who accepts the other -Casket Papers as genuine. The internal chronology of Letter II. is -certainly quite impossible, and in this I detected unskilled dove-tailing -of genuine and forged elements. But I thought it advisable to rewrite the -first half of the Letter, in modern English, as if it were my own -composition, and while doing this I discovered the simple and ordinary -kind of accident which may explain the dislocation of the chronology, and -remove the evidence to unskilled dove-tailing and garbling. In the same -spirit of rather reluctant conscientiousness, I worked out the scheme of -dates which makes the Letter capable of being fitted into the actual -series of events. Thus I am led, though with diffidence, to infer that, -though a forged version of Letter II. probably once existed, the Letter -may be, at least in part, a genuine composition by the Queen. The fact, -however, does not absolutely compel belief, and, unless new manuscripts -are discovered, may always be doubted by admirers of Mary. - -Sir John Skelton, in his 'Maitland of Lethington,' regarded the supposed -falsification of Letter II. as an argument against all the Casket Letters -('false in one thing, false in all'). But it is clear that forgery may be -employed to strengthen the evidence, even of a valid cause. If Mary's -enemies deemed that the genuine evidence which they had collected was -inadequate, and therefore added evidence which was not genuine, that -proves their iniquity, but does not prove Mary's innocence. Portions of -the Letter II., and of some of the other Letters, have all the air of -authenticity, and suffice to compromise the Queen. - -This inquiry, then, if successfully conducted, does not clear Mary, but -solves some of the darkest problems connected with her case. I think that -a not inadequate theory of the tortuous and unintelligible policy of -Maitland of Lethington, and of his real relations with Mary, is here -presented. I also hope that new light is thrown on Mary's own line of -defence, and on the actual forgers or contaminators of her Letters, if the -existence of such forgery or contamination is held to be possible. - -By study of dates it is made clear, I think, that the Lords opposing Mary -took action, as regards the Letters, on the very day of their discovery. -This destroys the argument which had been based on the tardy appearance of -the papers in the dispatches of the period, an argument already shaken by -the revelations of the Spanish Calendar. - -Mary's cause has, hitherto, been best served by her accusers, most injured -by her defenders. For political and personal reasons her enemies, her -accomplices, or the conscious allies of her accomplices, perpetually -stultified themselves and gave themselves the lie. Their case was -otherwise very badly managed. Their dates were so carelessly compiled as -to make their case chronologically impossible. Their position, as stated, -probably by George Buchanan and Makgill, in 'The Book of Articles,' and -the 'Detection,' is marred by exaggerations and inconsistencies. Buchanan -was by no means a critical historian, and he was here writing as an -advocate, mainly from briefs furnished by Lennox, his feudal chief, the -father of the murdered Darnley. These briefs we now possess, and the -generosity of Father Pollen, S.J., has allowed me to use these hitherto -virgin materials. - -The Lennox Papers also enable us to add new and dramatically appropriate -anecdotes of Mary and Darnley, while, by giving us some hitherto unknown -myths current at the moment, they enable us to explain certain -difficulties which have puzzled historians. The whole subject throws a -lurid light on the ethics and the persons of the age which followed the -Reformation in Scotland. Other novelties may be found to emerge from new -combinations of facts and texts which have long been familiar, and -particular attention has been paid to the subordinate persons in the play, -while a hitherto disregarded theory of the character of Bothwell is -offered; a view already, in part, suggested by Mignet. - -The arrangement adopted is as follows: - -First, in two preliminary chapters, the characters and the scenes of the -events are rapidly and broadly sketched. We try to make the men and women -live and move in palaces and castles now ruinous or untenanted. - -Next the relations of the characters to each other are described, from -Mary's arrival in Scotland to her marriage with Darnley; the murder of -Riccio, the interval of the eleven predicted months that passed ere beside -Riccio lay 'a fatter than he,' Darnley: the slaying of Darnley, the -marriage with Bothwell, the discovery of the Casket, the imprisonment at -Loch Leven, the escape thence, and the flight into England. - -Next the External History of the Casket Letters, the first hints of their -existence, their production before Elizabeth's Commission at Westminster, -and Mary's attitude towards the Letters, with the obscure intrigues of the -Commission at York, and the hasty and scuffling examinations at -Westminster and Hampton Court, are described and explained. - -Next the Internal Evidence of the Letters themselves is criticised. - -Finally, the later history of the Letters, with the disappearance of the -original alleged autograph texts, closes the subject. - -Very minute examination of details and dates has been deemed necessary. -The case is really a police case, and investigation cannot be too anxious, -but certain points of complex detail are relegated to Appendices. - -In writing the book I have followed, as Socrates advises, where the -_Logos_ led me. Several conclusions or theories which at first beguiled -me, and seemed convincing, have been ruined by the occurrence of fresher -evidence, and have been withdrawn. I have endeavoured to search for, and -have stated, as fully as possible, the objections which may be urged to -conclusions which are provisional, and at the mercy of criticism, and of -fresh or neglected evidence. - -The character of Mary, _son naturel_, as she says, or is made to say in -the most incriminating Letter, is full of fascination, excellence and -charm. Her terrible expiation has won the pity of gentle hearts, and -sentiment has too often clouded reason, while reaction against sentiment -has been no less mischievous. But History, the search for truth, should be -as impersonal as the judge on the bench. I am not unaccustomed to be -blamed for 'destroying our illusions,' but to cultivate and protect -illusion has never been deemed the duty of the historian. Mary, at worst, -and even admitting her guilt (guilt monstrous and horrible to contemplate) -seems to have been a nobler nature than any of the persons most closely -associated with her fortunes. She fell, if fall she did, like the -Clytaemnestra to whom a contemporary poet compares her, under the almost -demoniacal possession of passion; a possession so sudden, strange and -overpowering that even her enemies attributed it to 'unlawful arts.' - -I have again to acknowledge the almost, or quite, unparalleled kindness of -Father Pollen in allowing me to use his materials. He found transcripts of -what I style the 'Lennox MSS.' among the papers of the late learned Father -Stevenson, S.J. These he collated with the originals in the University -Library at Cambridge. It is his intention, I understand, to publish the -whole collection, which was probably put together for the use of Dr. -Wilson, when writing, or editing, the 'Actio,' published with Buchanan's -'Detection.' Father Pollen has also read most of my proof-sheets, but he -is not responsible for any of my provisional conclusions. I have also -consulted, on various points, Mr. George Neilson, Dr. Hay Fleming, Mr. A. -H. Millar, and others. - -Miss Dorothy Alston made reduced drawings, omitting the figures, of the -contemporary charts of Edinburgh, and of Kirk o' Field. Mr. F. Compton -Price supplied the imitations of Mary's handwriting, and the facsimiles in -Plates A B, B A, &c. - -For leave to photograph and publish the portrait of Darnley and his -brother I have to acknowledge the gracious permission of his Majesty, the -King. - -The Duke of Hamilton has kindly given permission to publish photographs of -the Casket at Hamilton Palace (see Chapter XVIII.). - -The Earl of Morton has been good enough to allow his admirable portraits -of Mary (perhaps of 1575) and of the Regent Morton to be reproduced. - -Mr. Oliphant, of Rossie, has placed at my service his portrait of Mary as -a girl, a copy, probably by Sir John Medina, of a contemporary French -likeness. - -To the kindness of the Right Hon. A. J. Balfour and Miss Balfour we owe -the photographs of the famous tree at Whittingham, Mr. Balfour's seat, -where Morton, Lethington, and Bothwell conspired to murder Darnley. - -The Lennox Papers are in the Cambridge University Library. - - -_The Suppressed Confessions of Hepburn of Bowton_ - -Too late for notice in the body of this book, the following curious piece -of evidence was observed by Father Ryan, S.J., in the Cambridge MS. of -the deposition of Hepburn of Bowton. This kinsman and accomplice of -Bothwell was examined on December 8, 1567, before Moray, Atholl, -Kirkcaldy, Lindsay, and Bellenden, Lord Justice Clerk. The version of his -confession put in at the Westminster Conference, December 1568, will be -found in Anderson, ii. 183-188, and in Laing, ii. 256-259. The MS. is in -Cotton Caligula, C.I. fol. 325. It is attested as a 'true copy' by -Bellenden. But if we follow the Cambridge MS. it is _not_ a true copy. A -long passage, following 'and lay down with him,' at the end, is omitted. -That passage I now cite: - -'Farther this deponar sayis that he inquirit at my lord quhat securitie he -had for it quhilk wes done, because their wes sic ane brute and murmo{r} -in the toun And my lord ansuerit that diuerse noblemen had subscrivit the -deid with him And schew the same band[2] to the deponar, quhairat wes the -subscriptionis of the erles of huntlie, ergile, boithuile altogether, and -the secretares subscriptioun far beneth the rest. And insafar as the -deponar remembers this was the effect of it, it contenit sum friuose -[frivolous?] and licht caussis aganis the king sic as hys behavio{r} -contrar the quene, quhilk band wes in ane of twa silver cofferis and wes -in dunbar, and the deponar saw the same there the tyme that they wer thare -after the quenis revissing And understandis that the band wes with the -remanent letters, and putt in the castell be george dalgleis. Inquirit -quha deuisit that the king suld ludge at the kirk of feild? - -'Answeris S{r} James balfo{r} can better tell nor he And knew better and -befoir the deponer yof. And quhen the Quene wes in glasgow my lord -Boithuile send the deponar to S{r} James balfo{r} desiring that he wald -cum and meit my lord at the kirk of feild To quhome Schir James ansuerit, -"will my lord cum thair? gif he cum it wer gude he war quiet." And yit -they met not at that place than nor at natyme thairefter to the deponers -knawledge. - -'Thair wes xiiii keyis quhilkis this deponer efter the murtho{r} keist in -the grevvell hoill [? quarrel-hoill, _i.e._ quarry hole] betuix the abbay -and leith. And towardes the makers of the keyis they were maid betuix -Leuestoun and S{r} James balfo{r} and thai twa can tell. Item deponis that -Ilk ane that wer of the band and siclike the erle of Morton and Sy{r} -James balfo{r} suld haif send twa men to the committing of the murther. -And the erle boithuile declarit to the deponar are nyt or twa afore the -murtho{r} falland in talking of thame that wer in the kingis chalmer My -lord said that Sandy Durham wes ane gude fallowe and he wald wische that -he weir out of the same. - -'This is the trew copy, etc.' - -Perhaps few will argue that this passage has been fraudulently inserted in -the Cambridge MS. If not, Bellenden lied when he attested the mutilated -deposition to be a true copy. His own autograph signature attests the -Cambridge copy. Moray, who heard Bowton make his deposition, was a partner -to the fraud. The portion of the evidence burked by Moray is corroborated, -as regards the signatures of the band for Darnley's murder, by Ormistoun, -much later (Dec. 13, 1573) in Laing, ii. 293. Ormistoun, however, probably -by an error of memory, says that he saw what Bothwell affirmed to be the -signature of Sir James Balfour, in addition to those spoken of by Bowton, -namely Argyll, Bothwell, Huntly, and Lethington. This statement as to -Balfour Bowton withdrew in his dying confession as published. Bowton's -remark that Lethington's signature came 'far beneath the rest' sounds -true. Space would be left above for the signatures of men of higher rank -than the secretary. - -Bowton saw the band at Dunbar (April-May, 1567, during Mary's detention -there), 'in one of two silver coffers.' He only 'understands' that the -band was 'with the remanent letters, and put in the Castle by George -Dalgleish.' If 'the remanent letters' are the Casket Letters, and if -Bowton, at Dunbar, had seen them with the band, and read them, his -evidence would have been valuable as to the Letters. But as things are, we -have merely his opinion, or 'understanding,' that certain letters were -kept with the band, as Drury, we know, asserted that it was in the Casket -with the other papers, and was destroyed, while the Letters attributed to -Mary 'were kept to be shown.' Of course, if this be true, Morton lied -when he said that the contents of the Casket had neither been added to -nor diminished. - -Next, Bowton denied that, to his knowledge, Bothwell and Balfour met at -the Kirk o' Field, while Mary was at Glasgow, or at any other time. If -Bowton is right, and he was their go-between, Paris lied in his Deposition -where he says that Bothwell and Sir James had passed a whole night in Kirk -o' Field, while Mary was at Glasgow.[3] - -Bowton's confession that Morton 'should have sent two men to the -committing of the murder,' explains the presence of Archibald Douglas, -Morton's cousin, with Binning, his man. These two represented Morton. -Finally, Bowton's confession in the Cambridge MS. joins the copy of his -confession put in at Westminster, on the point of the fourteen false keys -of Kirk o' Field, thrown by Bowton into a gravel hole. Unless then the -Cambridge MS. is rejected, the Lord Justice Clerk and Moray deliberately -suppressed evidence which proved that Moray was allied with two of -Darnley's murderers in prosecuting his sister for that crime. Such -evidence, though extant, Moray, of course, dared not produce, but must -burke at Westminster. - -I have shown in the text (p. 144) that, even on Bowton's evidence as -produced at Westminster, Moray was aware that Bothwell had allies among -the nobles, but that, as far as the evidence declares, he asked no -questions. But the Cambridge MS. proves his full knowledge, which he -deliberately suppressed. The Cambridge MS. must either have been furnished -to Lennox, before the sittings at Westminster; or must have been the -original, or a copy of the original, later supplied to Dr. Wilson while -preparing Buchanan's 'Detection,' the 'Actio,' and other documents for the -press in November 1571.[4] It will be observed that when Lethington was -accused of Darnley's murder, in September 1569, Moray could not well have -prosecuted him to a conviction, as his friends, Atholl and Kirkcaldy, -having been present at Bowton's examination, knew that Moray knew of -Lethington's guilt, yet continued to be his ally. The Cambridge copy of -the deposition of Hay of Tala contains no reference to the guilt of Morton -or Lethington; naturally, for Morton was present at Hay's examination. -Finally, the evidence of Binning, in 1581, shows that representatives of -Lethington and Balfour, as well as of Morton, were present at the murder, -as Bowton, in his suppressed testimony, says had been arranged. - -It is therefore clear that Moray, in arraigning his sister with the aid of -her husband's assassins, could suppress authentic evidence. Mary's -apologists will argue that he was also capable of introducing evidence -less than authentic. - - - - -CONTENTS - - - PAGE - - INTRODUCTION vii - - I. DRAMATIS PERSONAE 1 - - II. THE MINOR CHARACTERS 28 - - III. THE CHARACTERS BEFORE RICCIO'S MURDER 45 - - IV. BEFORE THE BAPTISM OF THE PRINCE 71 - - V. BETWEEN THE BAPTISM AND THE MURDER 105 - - VI. THE MURDER OF DARNLEY 123 - - VII. THE CONFESSIONS OF PARIS 154 - - VIII. MARY'S CONDUCT AFTER THE MURDER 171 - - IX. THE EMERGENCE OF THE CASKET LETTERS 193 - - X. THE CASKET LETTERS 208 - - XI. THE LETTERS AT THE CONFERENCE OF YORK 237 - - XII. THE LETTERS AT WESTMINSTER AND HAMPTON COURT 266 - - XIII. MARY'S ATTITUDE AFTER THE CONFERENCE 283 - - XIV. INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE LETTERS 290 - - XV. THE SIX MINOR CASKET LETTERS 322 - - XVI. THE CASKET SONNETS 344 - - XVII. CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE LETTERS AND THE POSSIBLE FORGERS 346 - - XVIII. LATER HISTORY OF CASKET AND LETTERS 365 - - - _APPENDICES_ - - A. THE SUPPOSED BODY OF BOTHWELL 371 - - B. THE BURNING OF LYON KING OF ARMS 374 - - C. THE DATE OF MARY'S VISIT TO GLASGOW 379 - - D. THE BAND FOR DARNLEY'S MURDER 381 - - E. THE TRANSLATIONS OF THE CASKET LETTERS 385 - - - THE CASKET LETTERS: - - LETTER I. PUBLISHED SCOTS TRANSLATION AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION - AT RECORD OFFICE 391 - - " II. PUBLISHED SCOTS AND ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS 393 - - " III. ORIGINAL FRENCH VERSION AT HATFIELD 414 - - " IV. ORIGINAL FRENCH VERSION 416 - - " V. ORIGINAL FRENCH VERSION AT HATFIELD 417 - - " VI. PUBLISHED SCOTS TRANSLATION 418 - - " VII. SCOTS VERSION 419 - - " VIII. ORIGINAL FRENCH VERSION 420 - - " IX. THE FRENCH 'SONNETS' 422 - - CRAWFORD'S DEPOSITION 427 - - - INDEX 433 - - - - -LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS - - -_PHOTOGRAVURE PLATES_ - - MARY STUART _Frontispiece_ - _From the Portrait in the Collection of the Earl of - Morton._ - - MARY AT EIGHTEEN _To face p._ 4 - - DARNLEY ABOUT THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN " 10 - - THE REGENT MORTON " 30 - _From the Portrait in the Collection of the Earl of - Morton._ - - LE DEUIL BLANC " 48 - _Sketch by Janet, 1561._ - - HOUSE OCCUPIED BY QUEEN MARY AT JEDBURGH " 94 - - -_OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS_ - - BIRD'S-EYE VIEW OF EDINBURGH " 40 - - THE OLD TOWER, WHITTINGHAM " 116 - - THE WHITTINGHAM TREE " 118 - _After a Drawing by Richard Doyle._ - - THE WHITTINGHAM TREE (External View) " 120 - - KIRK O' FIELD SITE IN 1646, SHOWING EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY " 126 - - KEY PLAN OF KIRK O' FIELD " 130 - - PLACARD OF MARY, 1567 (Mary as a Mermaid) " 174 - - TWO SONNETS FROM THE CAMBRIDGE MS. (Plate A) " 344 - - EXAMPLES OF MARY'S HAND (Plates A B, B A) " 362 - - HANDS OF MARY BEATON, KIRKCALDY, LETHINGTON AND MARY - FLEMING (Plate C) " 364 - - SIDE OF CASKET WITH ARMS OF HAMILTON (Plate D) " 366 - - RAISED WORK ON ROOF OF CASKET (Plate D) " 366 - - CASKET SHOWING THE LOCK AND KEY (Plate E) " 368 - - FRONT OF CASKET SHOWING PLACE WHENCE THE LOCK HAS BEEN - 'STRICKEN UP' (Plate E) " 368 - - MODERN IMITATION OF MARY'S HAND (Plate F) " 420 - - - - -_Errata_ - - -Page 38, lines 20-23, _the sentence should read_: Holyrood is altered by -buildings of the Restoration; where now is the chapel where Mary prayed, -and the priests at the altar were buffeted? - -Page 165, line 21, _for_ Blackadder, _read_ Blackader. - -Page 175, line 18, _for_ Mr. James Spens, _read_ Mr. John Spens. - -Pages 196-205, 320, 355: Melville was _not_ 'the bearer,' as erroneously -stated in Bain, ii. 336. - - - - -THE MYSTERY OF MARY STUART - - - - -I - -_DRAMATIS PERSONAE_ - - -History is apt to be, and some think that it should be, a mere series of -dry uncoloured statements. Such an event occurred, such a word was -uttered, such a deed was done, at this date or the other. We give -references to our authorities, to men who heard of the events, or even saw -them when they happened. But we, the writer and the readers, _see_ -nothing: we only offer or accept bald and imperfect information. If we try -to write history on another method, we become 'picturesque:' we are -composing a novel, not striving painfully to attain the truth. Yet, when -we know not the details;--the aspect of dwellings now ruinous; the hue and -cut of garments long wasted into dust; the passing frown, or smile, or -tone of the actors and the speakers in these dramas of life long ago; the -clutch of Bothwell at his dagger's hilt, when men spoke to him in the -street; the flush of Darnley's fair face as Mary and he quarrelled at -Stirling before his murder--then we know not the real history, the real -truth. Now and then such a detail of gesture or of change of countenance -is recorded by an eyewitness, and brings us, for a moment, into more vivid -contact with the past. But we could only know it, and judge the actors and -their conduct, if we could see the personages in their costume as they -lived, passing by in some magic mirror from scene to scene. The stage, as -in Schiller's 'Marie Stuart,' comes nearest to reality, if only the facts -given by the poet were real; and next in vividness comes the novel, such -as Scott's 'Abbot,' with its picture of Mary at Loch Leven, when she falls -into an hysterical fit at the mention of Bastian's marriage on the night -of Darnley's death. Far less intimate than these imaginary pictures of -genius are the statements of History, dull when they are not -'picturesque,' and when they are 'picturesque,' sometimes prejudiced, -inaccurate, and misleading. - -We are to betake ourselves to the uninviting series of contradictory -statements and of contested dates, and of disputable assertions, which are -the dry bones of a tragedy like that of the 'Agamemnon' of AEschylus. Let -us try first to make mental pictures of the historic people who play their -parts on what is now a dimly lighted stage, but once was shone upon by the -sun in heaven; by the stars of darkling nights on ways dimly discerned; by -the candles of Holyrood, or of that crowded sick-room in Kirk o' Field, -where Bothwell and the Lords played dice round the fated Darnley's couch; -or by the flare of torches under which Mary rode down the Blackfriars Wynd -and on to Holyrood. - -The foremost person is the Queen, a tall girl of twenty-four, with brown -hair, and sidelong eyes of red brown. Such are her sidelong eyes in the -Morton portrait; such she bequeathed to her great-great-grandson, James, -'the King over the Water.' She was half French in temper, one of the proud -bold Guises, by her mother's side; and if not beautiful, she was so -beguiling that Elizabeth recognised her magic even in the reports of her -enemies.[5] - -'This lady and Princess is a notable woman,' said Knollys; 'she showeth a -disposition to speak much, to be bold, to be pleasant, and to be very -familiar. She showeth a great desire to be avenged of her enemies, she -showeth a readiness to expose herself to all perils in hope of victory, -she delighteth much to hear of hardiness and valiance, commending by name -all approved hardy men of her country, although they be her enemies, and -concealeth no cowardice even in her friends.' - -There was something 'divine,' Elizabeth said, in the face and manner which -won the hearts of her gaolers in Loch Leven and in England. 'Heaven bless -that sweet face!' cried the people in the streets as the Queen rode by, or -swept along with the long train, the 'targetted tails' and 'stinking pride -of women,' that Knox denounced. - -She was gay, as when Randolph met her, in no more state than a burgess's -wife might use, in the little house of St. Andrews, hard by the desecrated -Cathedral. She could be madly mirthful, dancing, or walking the black -midnight streets of Edinburgh, masked, in male apparel, or flitting 'in -homely attire,' said her enemies, about the Market Cross in Stirling. She -loved, at sea, 'to handle the boisterous cables,' as Buchanan tells. -Pursuing her brother, Moray, on a day of storm, or hard on the doomed -Huntly's track among the hills and morasses of the North; or galloping -through the red bracken of the October moors, and the hills of the -robbers, to Hermitage; her energy outwore the picked warriors in her -company. At other times, in a fascinating languor, she would lie long -abed, receiving company in the French fashion, waited on by her Maries, -whose four names 'are four sweet symphonies,' Mary Seton and Mary Beaton, -Mary Fleming and Mary Livingstone. To the Council Board she would bring -her woman's work, embroidery of silk and gold. She was fabled to have -carried pistols at her saddle-bow in war, and she excelled in matches of -archery and pall-mall. - -[Illustration: Mary at Eighteen.] - -Her costumes, when she would be queenly, have left their mark on the -memory of men: the ruff from which rose the snowy neck; the brocaded -bodice, with puffed and jewelled sleeves and stomacher; the diamonds, -gifts of Henri II. or of Diane; the rich pearls that became the spoil of -Elizabeth; the brooches enamelled with sacred scenes, or scenes from -fable. Many of her jewels--the ruby tortoise given by Riccio; the enamel -of the mouse and the ensnared lioness, passed by Lethington as a token -into her dungeon of Loch Leven; the diamonds bequeathed by her to one whom -she might not name; the red enamelled wedding-ring, the gift of Darnley; -the diamond worn in her bosom, the betrothal present of Norfolk--are, to -our fancy, like the fabled star-ruby of Helen of Troy, that dripped with -blood-gouts which vanished as they fell. Riccio, Darnley, Lethington, -Norfolk, the donors of these jewels, they were all to die for her, as -Bothwell, too, was to perish, the giver of the diamond carried by Paris, -the recipient of the black betrothal ring enamelled with bones and tears. -'Her feet go down to death,' her feet that were so light in the dance, -'her steps take hold on hell.... Her lips drop as an honeycomb, and her -mouth is smoother than oil. But her end is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a -two-edged sword.' The lips that dropped as honeycomb, the laughing mouth, -could wildly threaten, and vainly rage or beseech, when she was entrapped -at Carberry; or could waken pity in the sternest Puritan when, half-clad, -her bosom bare, her loose hair flowing, she wailed from her window to the -crowd of hostile Edinburgh. - -She was of a high impatient spirit: we seem to recognise her in an -anecdote told by the Black Laird of Ormistoun, one of Darnley's murderers, -in prison before his execution. He had been warned by his brother, in a -letter, that he was suspected of the crime, and should 'get some good way -to purge himself.' He showed the letter to Bothwell, who read it, and gave -it to Mary. She glanced at it, handed it to Huntly, 'and thereafter turnit -unto me, and turnit her back, and gave _ane thring_ with her shoulder, and -passit away, and spake nothing to me.' But that 'thring' spoke much of -Mary's mood, unrepentant, contemptuous, defiant. - -Mary's gratitude was not of the kind proverbial in princes. In September -1571, when the Ridolfi plot collapsed, and Mary's household was reduced, -her sorest grief was for Archibald Beaton, her usher, and little Willie -Douglas, who rescued her from Loch Leven. They were to be sent to -Scotland, which meant death to both, and she pleaded pitifully for them. -To her servants she wrote: 'I thank God, who has given me strength to -endure, and I pray Him to grant you the like grace. To you will your -loyalty bring the greatest honour, and whensoever it pleases God to set me -free, I will never fail you, but reward you according to my power.... Pray -God that you be true men and constant, to such He will never deny his -grace, and for you, John Gordon and William Douglas, I pray that He will -inspire your hearts. I can no more. Live in friendship and holy charity -one with another, bearing each other's imperfections.... You, William -Douglas, be assured that the life which you hazarded for me shall never be -destitute while I have one friend alive.' - -In a trifling transaction she writes: 'Rather would I pay twice over, than -injure or suspect any man.' - -In the long lament of the letters written during her twenty years of -captivity, but a few moods return and repeat themselves, like phrases in a -fugue. Vain complaints, vain hopes, vain intrigues with Spain, France, the -Pope, the Guises, the English Catholics, succeed each other with futile -iteration. But always we hear the note of loyalty even to her humblest -servants, of sleepless memory of their sacrifices for her, of unstinting -and generous gratitude. Such was the Queen's 'natural,' _mon naturel_: -with this character she faced the world: a lady to live and die for: and -many died. - -This woman, sensitive, proud, tameless, fierce, and kind, was browbeaten -by the implacable Knox: her priests were scourged and pilloried, her -creed was outraged every day; herself scolded, preached at, insulted; her -every plan thwarted by Elizabeth. Mary had reason enough for tears even -before her servant was slain almost in her sight by her witless husband -and the merciless Lords. She could be gay, later, dancing and hunting, but -it may well be that, after this last and worst of cruel insults, her heart -had now become hard as the diamond; and that she was possessed by the evil -spirits of loathing, and hatred, and longing for revenge. It had not been -a hard heart, but a tender; capable of sorrow for slaves at the galley -oars. After her child's birth, when she was holiday-making at Alloa, -according to Buchanan, with Bothwell and his gang of pirates, she wrote to -the Laird of Abercairnie, bidding him be merciful to a poor woman and her -'company of puir bairnis' whom he had evicted from their 'kindly rowme,' -or little croft. - -Her more than masculine courage her enemies have never denied. Her -resolution was incapable of despair; 'her last word should be that of a -Queen.' Her plighted promise she revered, but, in such an age, a woman's -weapon was deceit. - -She was the centre and pivot of innumerable intrigues. The fierce nobles -looked on her as a means for procuring lands, office, and revenge on their -feudal enemies. To the fiercer ministers she was an idolatress, who ought -to die the death, and, meanwhile, must be thwarted and insulted. To -France, Spain, and Austria she was a piece in the game of diplomatic -chess. To the Pope she seemed an instrument that might win back both -Scotland and England for the Church, while the English Catholics regarded -her as either their lawful or their future Queen. To Elizabeth she was, -naturally, and inevitably, and, in part, by her own fault, a deadly rival, -whatever feline caresses might pass between them: gifts of Mary's heart, -in a heart-shaped diamond; Elizabeth's diamond 'like a rock,' a rock in -which was no refuge. Yet Mary was of a nature so large and unsuspicious -that, on the strength of a ring and a promise, she trusted herself to -Elizabeth, contrary to the advice of her staunchest adherents. She was no -natural dissembler, and with difficulty came to understand that others -could be false. Her sense of honour might become perverted, but she had a -strong native sense of honour. - -One thing this woman wanted, a master. Even before Darnley and she were -wedded, at least publicly, Randolph wrote, 'All honour that may be -attributed unto any man by a wife, he hath it wholly and fully.' In her -authentic letters to Norfolk, when, a captive in England, she regarded -herself as betrothed to him, we find her adopting an attitude of -submissive obedience. The same tone pervades the disputed Casket Letters, -to Bothwell, and is certainly in singular consonance with the later, and -genuine epistles to Norfolk. But the tone--if the Casket Letters are -forged--may have been borrowed from what was known of her early submission -to Darnley. - -The second _dramatis persona_ is Darnley, 'The Young Fool.' Concerning -Darnley but little is recorded in comparison with what we know of Mary. He -was the son, by the Earl of Lennox, a royal Stewart, of that daughter whom -Margaret Tudor, sister of Henry VIII., and widow of James IV., bore to her -second husband, the Earl of Angus. Darnley's father regarded himself as -next to the Scottish crown, for the real nearest heir, the head of the -Hamiltons, the Duke of Chatelherault, Lennox chose to consider as -illegitimate. After playing a double and dishonest part in the troubled -years following the death of James V., Lennox retired to England with his -wife, a victim of the suspicions of Elizabeth.[6] The education of his -son, Henry, Lord Darnley, seems to have been excellent, as far as the -intellect and the body are concerned. The letter which, as a child of -nine, he wrote to Mary Tudor, speaking of a work of his own, 'The New -Utopia,' is in the new 'Roman' hand, carried to the perfection of -copperplate. The Lennox MSS. say that 'the Queen was stricken with the -dart of love by the comliness of his sweet behaviour, personage, wit, and -vertuous qualities, as well in languages[7] and lettered sciencies, as -also in the art of music, dancing, and playing on instruments.' When his -murderers had left his room at midnight, his last midnight, his -chamber-child begged him to play, while a psalm was sung, but his hand, -he replied, was out for the lute, so say the Lennox Papers. Physically he -was 'a comely Prince of a fair and large stature, pleasant in countenance -... well exercised in martial pastimes upon horseback as any Prince of -that age.' The Spanish Ambassador calls him 'an amiable youth.' But it is -plain that 'the long lad,' the _gentil hutaudeau_, with his girlish bloom, -and early tendency to fulness of body, was a spoiled child. His mother, a -passionate intriguer, kept this before him, that, as great-grandson of -Henry VII., and as cousin of Mary Stuart, he should unite the two crowns. -There were Catholics enough in England to flatter the pride of a future -king, though now in exile. This Prince _in partibus_, like his far-away -descendant, Prince Charles Edward, combined a show of charming manners, -when he chose to charm, with an arrogant and violent petulance, when he -deemed it safe to be insulting. At his first arrival in Scotland he won -golden opinions, 'his courteous dealing with all men is well spoken of.' -As his favour with Mary waxed he 'dealt blows where he knew that they -would be taken;' he is said to have drawn his dagger on an official who -brought him a disappointing message, and his foolish freedom of tongue -gave Moray the alarm. It was soon prophesied that he 'could not continue -long.' 'To all honest men he is intolerable, and almost forgetful of her -already, that has adventured so much for his sake. What shall become of -her or what life with him she shall lead, that already taketh so much -upon him as to control and command her, I leave it to others to think.' So -Randolph, the English Ambassador, wrote as early as May, 1565. She was -'blinded, transported, carried I know not whither or which way, to her own -confusion and destruction:' words of omen that were fulfilled. - -[Illustration: Darnley at about the age of 18. - -Walker & Cockerell. ph. sc.] - -Whether Elizabeth let Darnley go to Scotland merely for Mary's -entanglement, whether Mary fell in love with the handsome accomplished lad -(as Randolph seems to prove) or not, are questions then, and now, -disputed. The Lennox Papers, declaring that she was smitten by the arrow -of love; and her own conduct, at first, make it highly probable that she -entertained for the _gentil hutaudeau_ a passion, or a passionate caprice. - -Darnley, at least, acted like a new chemical agent in the development of -Mary's character. She had been singularly long-suffering; she had borne -the insults and outrages of the extreme Protestants; she had leaned on her -brother, Moray, and on Lethington; following or even leading these -advisers to the ruin of Huntly, her chief coreligionist. Though constantly -professing, openly to Knox, secretly to the Pope, her desire to succour -the ancient Church, she was obviously regarded, in Papal circles, as slack -in the work. She had been pliant, she had endured the long calculated -delays of Elizabeth, as to her marriage, with patience; but, so soon as -Darnley crossed her path, she became resolute, even reckless. Despite the -opposition, interested, or religious, or based on the pretext of religion, -which Moray and his allies offered, Mary wedded Darnley. She found him a -petulant, ambitious boy; sullen, suspicious, resentful, swayed by the -ambition to be a king in earnest, but too indolent in affairs for the -business of a king. - -At tennis, with Riccio, or while exercising his great horses, his -favourite amusement, Darnley was pining to use his jewelled dagger. In the -feverish days before the deed it is probable that he kept his courage -screwed up by the use of stimulants, to which he was addicted. That he -devoted himself to loose promiscuous intrigue injurious to his health, is -not established, though, when her child was born, Mary warned Darnley that -the babe was 'only too much his son,' perhaps with a foreboding of -hereditary disease. A satirist called Darnley 'the leper:' leprosy being -confounded with 'la grosse verole.' Mary, who had fainting fits, was said -to be epileptic. - -Darnley, according to Lennox, represented himself as pure in this regard, -nor have we any valid evidence to the contrary. But his word was -absolutely worthless. - -Outraged and harassed, broken, at last, in health, in constant pain, -expressing herself in hysterical outbursts of despair and desire for -death, Mary needed no passion for Bothwell to make her long for freedom -from the young fool. From his sick-bed in Glasgow, as we shall see, he -sent, by a messenger, a cutting verbal taunt to the Queen; so his own -friends declare, they who call Darnley 'that innocent lamb.' It is not -wonderful if, in an age of treachery and revenge, the character of Mary -now broke down. 'I would not do it to him for my own revenge. My heart -bleeds at it,' she says to Bothwell, in the Casket Letter II., if that was -written by her. But, whatever her part in it, the deed was done. - -Of Bothwell, the third protagonist in the tragedy of Three, we have no -portrait, and but discrepant descriptions. They who saw his body, not yet -wholly decayed, in Denmark, reported that he must have been 'an ugly -Scot,' with red hair, mixed with grey before he died. Much such another -was the truculent Morton.[8] Born in 1536 or 1537, Bothwell was in the -flower of his age, about thirty, when Darnley perished. He was certainly -not old enough to have been Mary's father, as Sir John Skelton declared, -for he was not six years her senior. His father died in 1556, and Bothwell -came young into the Hepburn inheritance of impoverished estates, high -offices, and wild reckless blood. According to Buchanan, Bothwell, in -early youth, was brought up at the house of his great-uncle, Patrick -Hepburn, Bishop of Moray, who certainly was a man of profligate life. It -is highly probable that Bothwell was educated in France. - -'Blockish' or not, Bothwell had the taste of a bibliophile. One of two -books from his library, well bound, and tooled with his name and arms, is -in the collection of the University of Edinburgh. Another was in the -Gibson Craig Library. The works are a tract of Valturin, on Military -Discipline (Paris, 1555, folio), and French translations of martial -treatises attributed to Vegetius, Sextus Julius, and AElian, with a -collection of anecdotes of warlike affairs (Paris, 1556, folio). The -possession of books like these, in such excellent condition, is no proof -of doltishness. Moreover, Bothwell appears to have read his 'CXX Histoires -concernans le faite guerre.' The evidence comes to us from a source which -discredits the virulent rhetoric of Buchanan's ally. - -It was the cue of Mary's foes to represent Bothwell as an ungainly, -stupid, cowardly, vicious monster: because, he being such a man, what a -wretch must the Queen be who could love him! 'Which love, whoever saw not, -and yet hath seen him, will perhaps think it incredible.... But yet here -there want no causes, for there was in them both a likeness, if not of -beauty or outward things, nor of virtues, yet of most extream vices.'[9] -Buchanan had often celebrated, down to December 1566, Mary's extreme -virtues. To be sure his poem, recited shortly before Darnley's death, may -have been written almost as early as James's birth, in readiness for the -feast at his baptism, and before Mary's intrigue with Bothwell could have -begun. In any case, to prove Bothwell's cowardice, some ally of Buchanan's -cites his behaviour at Carberry Hill, where he wishes us to believe that -Bothwell showed the white feather of Mary's 'pretty venereous pidgeon.' As -a witness, he cites du Croc, the French Ambassador, an aged and sagacious -man. To du Croc he has appealed, to du Croc he shall go. That Ambassador -writes: 'He' (Bothwell) 'told me that there must be no more parley, for he -saw that the enemy was approaching, and had already crossed the burn. He -said that, if I wished to resemble the man who tried to arrange a treaty -between the forces of Scipio and Hannibal, their armies being ready to -join in battle, like the two now before us, and who failed, and, wishing -to remain neutral, took a point of vantage, and beheld the best sport that -ever he saw in his life, why then I should act like that man, and would -greatly enjoy the spectacle of a good fight.' Bothwell's memory was -inaccurate, or du Croc has misreported his anecdote, but he was certainly -both cool and classical on an exciting occasion. - -Du Croc declined the invitation; he was not present when Bothwell refused -to fight a champion of the Lords, but he goes on: 'I am obliged to say -that I saw a great leader, speaking with great confidence, and leading his -forces boldly, gaily, and skilfully.... I admired him, for he saw that his -foes were resolute, he could not be sure of the loyalty of half of his own -men, and yet he was quite unmoved.'[10] Bothwell, then, was neither dolt, -lout, nor coward, as Buchanan's ally wishes us to believe, for the purpose -of disparaging the taste of a Queen, Buchanan's pupil, whose praises he -had so often sung. - -In an age when many gentlemen and ladies could not sign their names, -Bothwell wrote, and wrote French, in a firm, yet delicate Italic hand, of -singular grace and clearness.[11] His enemies accused him of studying none -but books of Art Magic in his youth, and he may have shared the taste of -the great contemporary mathematician, Napier of Merchistoun, the inventor -of Logarithms. Both Mary's friends and enemies, including the hostile -Lords in their proclamations, averred that Bothwell had won her favour by -unlawful means, philtres, witchcraft, or what we call Hypnotism. Such -beliefs were universal: Ruthven, in his account of Riccio's murder, tells -us that he gave Mary a ring, as an antidote to poison (not that _he_ -believed in it), and that both she and Moray took him for a sorcerer. On a -charge of sorcery did Moray later burn the Lyon Herald, Sir William -Stewart, probably basing the accusation on a letter in which Sir William -confessed to having consulted a prophet, perhaps Napier of Merchistoun, -the father, not the inventor of Logarithms.[12] Quite possibly Bothwell -may really have studied the Black Art in Cornelius Agrippa and similar -authors. In any case it is plain that, as regards culture, the author of -_Les Affaires du Conte de Boduel_, the man familiar with the Court of -France, where he had held command in the Scots Guards, and had probably -known Ronsard and Brantome, must have been a _rara avis_ of culture among -the nobles at Holyrood. So far, then, Mary's love for him, if love she -entertained, was the reverse of 'incredible.' It did not need to be -explained by a common possession of 'extreme vices.' The author, as usual, -overstates his case, and proves too much: Lesley admits that Bothwell was -handsome, an opinion emphatically contradicted by Brantome. - -Bothwell had the charm of recklessness to an unexampled degree. He was -fierce, passionate, unyielding, strong, and, in the darkest of Mary's -days, had been loyal. He had won for her what Knollys tells us that she -most prized, victory. A greater contrast could not be to the false -fleeting Darnley, the bully with 'a heart of wax.' In him Mary had more -than enough of bloom and youthful graces: she could master him, and she -longed for a master. If then she loved Bothwell, her love, however wicked, -was not unnatural or incredible. He had been loved by many women, and had -ruined all of them. - -Among the other persons of the play, Moray is foremost, Mary's natural -brother, the son of her whom James V. loved best, and, it was said, still -dreamed of while wooing a bride in France. Moray is an enigma. History -sees him, as in Lethington's phrase, 'looking through his fingers,' -looking thus at Riccio's and at Darnley's murders. These fingers hide the -face. He was undeniably a sound Protestant: only for a brief while, in -Mary's early reign, was he sundered from Knox. In war he was, as he aimed -at being, 'a Captain in Israel,' cool, courageous, and skilled. That he -was extremely acquisitive is certain. Born a royal bastard, and trained -for the Church, he clung as 'Commendator' to the Church's property which -he held as a layman. His enormous possessions in land, collected partly by -means that sailed close to the wind, partly from the grants of Mary, -excited the rash words of Darnley, that they were 'too large.' - -An early incident in Moray's life seems characteristic. The battle of -Pinkie was fought in 1547, when he was sixteen. Among the slain was the -Master of Buchan, the heir-apparent of the Earl of Buchan. He left a -child, Christian Stewart, who was now heiress of the earldom. In January -1550, young Lord James Stewart, though Prior of St. Andrews, contracted -himself in marriage with the little girl. The old earl was extravagant, -perhaps more or less insane, and was deep in debt. His lands were -mortgaged. In 1556 the Lord James bought and secured from the Regent, Mary -of Guise, the right of redemption. In 1562, being all powerful now with -Mary, he secured a grant of the 'ward, non-entries, and reliefs of the -whole estates of the earldom of Buchan.' Now, by the proclamation made, -as usual, before Pinkie fight, all these were left by the Crown, free, to -the heirs of such as might fall in the battle. Therefore they ought to -have appertained to Christian Stewart, whom Moray had not married, her -grandfather being dead. Moray secured everything to himself, by charters -from the Crown. The unlucky Christian went on living at Loch Leven, with -Moray's mother, Lady Douglas. In February 1562 Moray wedded Agnes Keith, -daughter of the Earl Marischal. His brother, apparently without his -knowledge, then married Christian. Moray wrote a letter to his own mother -complaining of this marriage as an act of treachery. The Old Man peeps out -through the godly and respectful style of this epistle. Moray speaks of -Christian as 'that innocent;' perhaps she was not remarkable for -intellect. He adds that whoever tries to take from him the lady's estates -will have to pass over 'his belly.' And, indeed, he retained the -possessions. The whole transaction does seem to savour of worldliness, to -be regretted in so good a man. - -Moray continued, after he was pardoned for his rebellion, to add estate to -estate. He was a pensioner of England; from France he received valuable -presents. His widow endeavoured to retain the diamonds which Mary had -owned, and wished to leave attached to the Scottish crown. His ambition -was probably more limited than his covetousness, and the suspicion that he -aimed at being king, though natural, was baseless. While he must have -known, at least as well as Mary, the guilt of Morton, Lethington, Balfour, -Bothwell, and Argyll, he associated familiarly with them, before he left -Scotland prior to Mary's marriage with Bothwell, and he used Bothwell's -accomplices, including the Bishop who married Bothwell to Mary, in his -attack on the character of his sister. Whether he betrayed Norfolk, or -not, was a question between David Hume and Dr. Robertson. If to report -Norfolk's private conversation to Elizabeth is to betray,[13] Moray was a -traitor, and did what Lethington scorned to do. But Moray's most -remarkable quality was caution. He always had an _alibi_. He knew of -Riccio's murder--and came to Edinburgh next day. He left Edinburgh in the -morning, some sixteen hours before the explosion of Kirk o' Field. He left -Edinburgh for England and France, twelve days before the nobles signed the -document upholding Bothwell's innocence, and urging him to marry the -Queen. He allowed Elizabeth to lie, in his presence, and about her -encouragement of his rebellion, to the French Ambassador. His own account -of his first interview with his sister, in prison at Loch Leven, shows him -as an adept in menace cruelly suspended over her helpless head. The -account of Mary's secretary, Nau, is much less unfavourable to Moray than -his own, for obvious reasons. - -As Regent he was bold, energetic, and ruthless: the suspicion of his -intention to give up a suppliant and fugitive aroused the tolerant ethics -of the Border. A strong, patient, cautious man, capable of deep reserve, -in his family relations, financial matters apart, austerely moral, Moray -would have made an excellent king, but as a Queen's brother he was most -dangerous, when not permitted to be all powerful. He could not have -rescued Darnley, or saved Mary from herself, without risks which a Knox or -a Craig would certainly have faced, but which no secular leader in -Scotland would have dreamed of encountering. Did he wish to save the -doomed prince? A precise Puritan, he was by no means like a conscience -among the warring members of the body politic. Mary rejoiced at the news -of his murder, pensioned the assassin, and, of all people, chose an -Archbishop as her confidant. - -Reviled by Mary's literary partisans, Moray to Mr. Froude seemed 'noble' -and 'stainless.' He was a man of his time, a time when every traitor or -assassin had 'God' and 'honour' for ever on his lips. At the hypocrisies -and falsehoods of his party, deeds of treachery and blood, Moray 'looked -through his fingers.' - -Infinitely the most fascinating character in the plot was William -Maitland, the younger, of Lethington. The charm which he exercised over -his contemporaries, from Mary herself to diplomatists like Randolph, and -men of the sword like Kirkcaldy of Grange, has not yet exhausted itself. -Readers of Sir John Skelton's interesting book, 'Maitland of Lethington,' -must observe, if they know the facts, that, in presence of Lethington, Sir -John is like 'birds whom the charmer serpent draws.' He is an advocate of -Mary, but of Mary as a 'charming sinner.' By Lethington he is dominated: -he will scarcely admit that there is a stain on his scutcheon, a -scutcheon, alas! smirched and defaced. Could a man of to-day hold an -hour's converse with a man of that age, he would choose Lethington. He was -behind all the scenes: he held the threads of all the plots; he made all -the puppets dance at his will. Yet by birth he was merely the son of the -good and wise poet and essayist, Sir Richard Lethington, laird of a rugged -tower and of lands in Lauderdale, _pastorum loca vasta_. He was born about -1525, had studied in France, and was a man of classical culture, without a -touch of pedantry. As early as 1555, we find him arguing after supper with -Knox, on the lawfulness of bowing down in the House of Rimmon, attending -the Mass. Knox had the last word, for Lethington was usually tactful; in -argument Knox was a babe in the hands of the amateur theologian. Appointed -Secretary to Mary of Guise, in the troubled years of the Congregation, -Lethington deserted her and joined the Lords. He negotiated for them with -Cecil and Elizabeth, and almost to the last he was true to one idea, the -union of the crowns of England and Scotland in peace and amity. - -Through all the windings of his policy that idea governed him if not -thwarted by personal considerations, as at the last. Before Mary's arrival -in Scotland he hastened to make his peace with her, and her peace and -trust she readily granted. Lethington was the spoiled child of the -political world, 'the flower of the wits of Scotland,' as Elizabeth styled -him; was reckoned indispensable, was petted, caressed, and forgiven. He -not only withstood Knox, in the interests of religious toleration, but he -met him with a smile, with the weapons of _persiflage_, which riddled and -rankled in the vanity of the Reformer. Lethington was modern to the -finger-tips, a man of to-day, moving among the bravos, and using the -poisoned tools, of an age of violence and perfidy. - -Allied by marriage to the Earl of Atholl, in hours of peril he placed the -Tay and the Pass of Killiecrankie between himself and the Law. - -From the time of his restoration to Mary's favour after Riccio's murder, -his part in the obscure intrigue of Darnley's murder, indeed all his -future course, is a mystery. Being now over forty he had long wooed and -just before the murder had won the beautiful Mary Fleming, of all the Four -Maries the dearest to the Queen. His letter to Cecil on his love affair is -a charming interlude. 'He is no more fit for her than I to be a page,' -says the brawny, grizzled, Kirkcaldy of Grange. His devotion is often -ridiculed by perhaps envious acquaintances. But, from September 20, 1566, -Lethington was deep in every scheme against Darnley. He certainly signed -the murder 'band.' He was with Mary at Stirling (April 22-23, 1567) when, -if he did not know that Bothwell meant to carry her off (and perhaps he -really did not know), he was alone in his ignorance among the inner circle -of politicians. Yet he disliked the marriage, and was hated by Bothwell. -On the day of Mary's _enlevement_, Bothwell took Lethington, threatened -him, and, but for Mary, would probably have slain him. Passive as to -herself, she defended the Secretary with royal courage. Days darkened -round the Queen, the nobles rose in arms. Lethington, about June 7, fled -first to Livingstone's house of Callendar, then joined Atholl and the -enemies of the Queen. We shall later attempt to unfold the secret springs -of his tortuous and fatal policy. - -Lethington had been the Ahithophel of the age. 'And the counsel of -Ahithophel, which he counselled in those days, was as if a man had -enquired at the oracle of God.' But the Lord 'turned the counsel of -Ahithophel into foolishness.' He wrought against Mary, just after she -saved his life from the dagger of Bothwell, some secret inexpiable -offence, besides public injuries. Fear of her vengeance, for she knew -something fatal to him, drove him into her party when her cause was -desperate. He escaped the gallows by a natural death; he had long been -smitten by creeping paralysis. Mary hated him dead, as after his betrayal -of her she had loathed him living. - -Mary was sorely bested, then, between the Young Fool, the Furious Man, the -Puritan brother, and Michael Wylie (Machiavelli) as the Scots nicknamed -Lethington. She was absolutely alone. There was no man whom she could -trust. On every hand were known rebels, half pardoned, half reconciled. -Feuds, above all that of her husband and his clan, the Lennox Stewarts, -with the nearest heirs of the crown, the Hamiltons, broke out eternally. -The Protestants hated her: the Preachers longed to drag her down: the -English Ambassadors were hostile spies. France was far away, the Queen -Mother was her enemy: her kindred, the Guises, were cold or powerless. She -saw only one strong man who had been loyal, one protector who had served -her mother, and saved herself. That man was Bothwell. - -Most inscrutable of the persons in the play is Bothwell's wife, Lady Jane -Gordon, a daughter of Huntly, the dead and ruined Cock of the North. If we -may accept the Casket Sonnets, Lady Jane, a girl of twenty, resisted her -brother's scheme to wed her to Bothwell. She preferred some one whom the -sonnet calls 'a troublesome fool,' and a note, in the Lennox Papers, -informs us that her first love was Ogilvy of Boyne, who consoled himself -with Mary Beaton. Still following the sonnets, we learn that the young -Lady Bothwell dressed ill, but won her wild husband's heart by literary -love letters plagiarised from 'some illustrious author.' The existing -letters of the lady, written after the years of storm, are businesslike, -and deal with business. She consented to her divorce for a valuable -consideration in lands which she held till her death, in the reign of -Charles I. According to general opinion, Bothwell, as we shall see, -greatly preferred her to the Queen, and continued to live with her after -the divorce. Lady Bothwell kept the dispensation which enabled her to -marry Bothwell, though he was divorced from her for the want of it. She -married the Earl of Sutherland in 1573, and, after his death, returned _a -ses premiers amours_, wedding her old true love who had wooed her in her -girlhood, Ogilvy of Boyne. Their conversation must have been rich in -curious reminiscences. The loves and hatreds of their youth were extinct; -the wild hearts of Bothwell, Mary, Mary Beaton, Lethington, Darnley, and -the rest, had long ceased to beat, and these two were left, Darby and -Joan, alone in a new world. - - - - -II - -_THE MINOR CHARACTERS_ - - -Having sketched the chief actors in this tragedy, we may glance at the -players of subordinate parts. They were such men as are apt to be bred -when a religious and social Revolution has shaken the bases of morality, -when acquiescence in theological party cries confers the title of 'godly:' -when the wealth of a Church is to be won by cunning or force, and when -feudal or clan loyalty to a chief is infinitely more potent than fidelity -to king, country, and the fundamental laws of morality. The Protestants, -the 'godly,' accused the Idolaters (the Catholics) of throwing their sins -off their shoulders in the confessional, and beginning anew. But the -godly, if naturally ruffians, consoled and cleared themselves by -repentances on the scaffold, and one felt assured, after a life of crime, -that he 'should sup with God that night.' - -The Earl of Morton is no minor character in the history of Scotland, but -his part is relatively subordinate in that of Mary Stuart. The son of the -most accomplished and perfidious scoundrel of the past generation, Sir -George Douglas, brother of Angus the brother-in-law of Henry VIII., Morton -had treachery in his blood. His father had alternately betrayed England of -which he was a pensioner, and Scotland of which he was a subject. By a -perverse ingenuity of shame, he had used the sacred Douglas Heart, the -cognisance of the House, the achievement granted to the descendants of the -Good Lord James, as a mark to indicate what passages in his treasonable -letters might be relied on by his English employers. In Morton's father -and uncle had lived on the ancient inappeasable feud between Douglases and -Stewarts, between the Nobles and the Crown. It was a feud stained by -murder under trust, by betrayal in the field, and perfidy in the closet. -Morton was heir to the feud of his family, and to the falseness. When the -Reformation broke out, and the Wars of the Congregation against Idolatry, -Morton wavered long, but at length joined the Protestants when they were -certain of English assistance. Henceforth he was one of Mr. Froude's -'small gallant band' of Reformers, and, as such, was hostile to Mary. His -sanctimonious snuffle is audible still, in his remark to Throckmorton at -the time when the Englishman probably saved the life of the Queen from the -Lords. Throckmorton asked to be allowed to visit Mary in prison: 'The Earl -Morton answered me that shortly I should hear from them, but the day being -destined, as I did see, to the Communion, continual preaching, and common -prayer, they could not be absent, nor attend matters of the world, but -first they must seek the matters of God, and take counsel of Him who could -best direct them.' - -A red-handed murderer, living in open adultery with the widow of Captain -Cullen, whom he had hanged, and daily consorting with murderers like his -kinsman, Archibald Douglas, the Parson of Glasgow, Morton approached the -Divine Mysteries. His private life was notoriously profligate; he added -avarice to his other and more genial peccadilloes. He intruded on the Kirk -the Tulchan Bishops, who were mere filters, or conduits, through which -ecclesiastical wealth flowed to the State. Yet he was godly: he was the -foe of Idolaters, and the Kirk, while deploring his excesses, cast on him -no unfavourable eye. He held the office of Chancellor, and, during the -raids and risings which were protests against Darnley's marriage with -Mary, he was in touch with both parties, but did not commit himself. About -February, 1566, there seems to have been a purpose to deprive him of the -Seals. He seized the moment to join hands with Darnley in antagonism to -Riccio: he and his Douglases, George and Archibald, helped to organise the -murder of the favourite: Morton was then driven into England. At -Christmas, 1566, after signing a band, not involving murder, against -Darnley, he was pardoned, returned, was made acquainted with the scheme -for killing Darnley, but, he declared, declined to join without Mary's -written warrant. His friend and retainer, Archibald Douglas, was present -at the laying of gunpowder in Kirk o' Field. Morton presently signed a -band promising to aid and abet Bothwell, but instantly joined the nobles -who overthrew him. His retainers discovered the fatal Casket full of -Mary's alleged letters to Bothwell, and he was one of the most ardent of -her prosecutors. Vengeance came upon him, fourteen years later, from -Stewart, the brother-in-law of John Knox. - -[Illustration: The Regent Morton - -From the portrait in the collection of the Earl of Morton. - -Walker & Cockerell. ph. sc.] - -In person, Morton was indeed one of the Red Douglases. A good portrait at -Dalmahoy represents him with a common but grim set of features, and -reddish tawny hair, under a tall black Puritanic hat. - -A jackal constantly attendant on Morton was his kinsman, Archibald -Douglas, a son of Douglas of Whittingham. In Archibald we see the -'strugforlifeur' (as M. Daudet renders Darwin) of the period. A younger -son, he was apparently educated for the priesthood, before the -Reformation. In 1565, he was made 'Parson of Douglas,' drawing the -revenues, and also was an Extraordinary Lord of Session. Involved in -Riccio's murder, he fled to France (where he may have been educated), but -returned to negotiate Morton's pardon. He was go-between to Morton, -Bothwell, and Lethington, in the affair of Darnley's murder, and was -present at, or just before, the explosion, losing one of his embroidered -velvet dress shoes, in which he had perhaps been dancing at Bastian's -marriage masque. He was also a spectator of the opening of the Casket -(June 21, 1567), and so zealous and useful against Mary, that, after her -defeat at Langside, he received the forfeited lands of the Laird of -Corstorphine, near Edinburgh. In 1568 he became an Ordinary, or regular -Judge of the Court of Session, and, later obtained the parish of Glasgow. -The messenger of the Kirk, who came to bid him prepare his first sermon, -found him playing cards with the Laird of Bargany. He had previously been -plucked in the examination for the ministry: this was his second chance. -Being examined he declined to attempt the Greek Testament; and requested -another minister to pray for him, 'for I am not used to pray.' His sermon -was not thought savoury. After Morton became Regent, Archibald, for money, -took the Queen's side, and is accused of an ungrateful and unclerical -scheme to murder his cousin, Morton. Just for the devilry of it, and a -little money, he was intriguing, a traitor to Morton, his benefactor, with -Mary's party, and also acting as a spy for Drury and the English. He was, -later, restored to his place on the Bench of Scottish Themis, crowded as -it was with assassins, but he fled to England when Morton was accused and -dragged down by Stewart of Ochiltree (1581). Morton, in his dying -declaration, remembered his grudge against Archibald or for some other -reason freely confessed _his_ iniquities. Archibald had distinguished -himself as a forger of letters intended to aid Morton, but was denounced -by his own brother, also a judge, Douglas of Whittingham. The later career -of this accomplished gentleman was a series of treacherous betrayals of -Mary. In England his charm and accomplishments recommended him to the -friendship of Fulke Greville, who did not penetrate his character. His -letters reveal a polished irony. He was for some time ambassador of James -VI. to Elizabeth, was again accused of forgery, and, probably, ended his -active career in rural retirement. History sees Archibald in the pulpit, a -Stickit Minister: on the Bench administering justice: hobbling hurriedly -from Kirk o' Field in one shoe; watching the bursting open of the silver -Casket; playing cards, spying, dancing, and winning hearts, and forging -letters: a versatile man of considerable charm and knowledge of the world. -His life, after 1581, is a varied but always sordid chapter of romance. - -A grimmer and a godlier man is Mr. John Wood, secretary of Moray, with -whom he had been in France, an austere person, a rebuker of Mary's dances -and frivolity. He, too, was a Lord of Session, and was wont to spur Moray -on against Idolaters. We shall find him very busy in managing the Casket -Letters. He was slain by young Forbes of Reres, the son of the corpulent -Lady Reres, rumoured to have been the complacent confidant of Mary's amour -with Bothwell. Reres had certainly no reason to love Mr. John Wood. George -Buchanan, too, is on the scene, the Latin poet, the Latin historian, who -sang of and libelled his Queen, his pupil. Old now, and a devoted partisan -of the Lennoxes, no man contributed more to the cause of Mary's innocence -than Buchanan, so grossly inaccurate and amusingly inconsistent are his -various indictments of her behaviour. 'He spak and wret as they that wer -about him for the tym infourmed him,' says Sir James Melville, 'for he was -becom sleprie and cairles.' Melville speaks of a later date, but George's -invectives against Mary are 'careless' in all conscience. - -Besides these there is a pell-mell of men and women; crafty courteous -diplomatists like the two Melvilles; burly Kirkcaldy of Grange, a murderer -of the Cardinal, a spy of England when he was in French service, a secret -agent of Cecil, a brave man and good captain, but accused of forgery, and -by no means 'the second Wallace of Scotland,' the frank, manly, -open-hearted Greysteil of historical tradition. Huntly and Argyll make -little mark on the imagination: both astute, both full of promise, both -barren of accomplishment. The Hamiltons have a lofty position, but are -destitute of brains as of scruples; even the Archbishop, most unscrupulous -of all, is no substitute for Cardinal Beaton. - -There is a crowd of squires; loyal, gallant Arthur Erskine, Willie -Douglas, who drew Mary forth of prison, the two Standens, English -equerries of Darnley, whose lives are unwritten romances (what one of them -did write is picturesque but untrustworthy), Lennox Lairds, busy Minto, -Provost of Glasgow, and Houstoun, and valiant dubious Thomas Crawford, -called 'Gauntlets,' and shifty Drumquhassel; spies like Rokeby, assassins -if need or opportunity arise; copper captains like Captain Cullen; and -most truculent of all, Bothwell's Lambs, young Tala, who ceased reading -the Bible when he came to Court; and the Black Laird of Ormistoun, he who, -on the day of his hanging, said 'With God I hope this night to sup.' Said -he, 'Of all men on the earth I have been one of the proudest and (_sic_) -high-minded, and most filthy of my body. But specially I have shed -innocent blood of one Michael Hunter with my own hands. Alas therefore, -because the said Michael, having me lying on my back, having a pitchfork -in his hand, might have slain me if he pleased, but did it not, which of -all things grieves me most in conscience.... Within these seven years I -never saw two good men, nor one good deed, but all kind of wickedness; and -yet my God would not suffer me to be lost, and has drawn me from them as -out of Hell ... for the which I thank him, and I am assured that I am one -of his Elect.' This devotee used to hang about Mary in Carlisle, when she -had fled into England. 'Not two good men, nor one good deed,' saw -Ormistoun, in seven long years of riding the Border, and following -Bothwell to Court or Warden's Raid. Few are the good men, rare are the -good deeds, that meet us in this tragic History. 'There is none that doeth -good, no, not one.' - -But behind the men and the time are the Preachers of Righteousness, grim, -indeed, as their Geneva gowns, not gentle and easily entreated, crying -out on the Murderess, Adulteress, Idolatress, to be led to block or stake, -but yet bold to rebuke Bothwell when he had cowed all the nobles of the -land. The future was with these men, with the smaller barons or lairds, -and with sober burgesses, like the discreet author of the 'Diurnal of -Occurrents,' and with honest hinds, like Michael Hunter, whom Ormistoun -slew in cold blood. The social and religious cataclysm withdrew its waves: -a new Creed grew into the hearts of the people: intercourse with England -slowly abated the ruffianism of the Lords: slowly the Law extended to the -Border: swiftly the bonds of feudal duty were broken: but not in Mary's -time. - -One strange feature of the age we must not forget: the universal belief in -sorcery. Mary and Moray (she declares) both believed that Ruthven had -given her a ring of baneful magical properties. Foes and friends alike -alleged that Bothwell had bewitched Mary 'by unleasom means,' philtres, -'sweet waters,' magic. The preachers, when Mary fled, urged Moray to burn -witches, and the cliffs of St. Andrews flared with the flames wherein they -perished. The Lyon King at Arms, as has been said, died by fire, -apparently for confessed dealings with a wizard, who foretold the events -of the year, and for treasure hunting with the divining rod. A Napier of -Merchistoun did foretell Mary's escape (according to Nau); this man, -_ayant reputation de grand magicien_, may have been the soothsayer: his -son sought for hidden treasure by divination. Buchanan tells how a dying -gentleman beheld Darnley's fate in a clairvoyant vision: and how a dim -shapeless thing smote and awoke, successively, four Atholl men in -Edinburgh, on the night of the crime of Kirk o' Field. Old rhyming -prophecies were circulated and believed. Knox himself was credited with -winning his sixteen-year-old bride by witchcraft, as Bothwell won Mary. -Men listened to his reports of his own 'premonitions.' - -When Huntly, one of the band for Darnley's murder, died, his death was -strange. He had hunted, and taken three hares and a fox, after dinner he -played football, fell into a fit, and expired, crying 'never a word save -one, looking up broad with his eyes, and that word was this, "Look, Look, -Look!"' Unlike the dying murderer of Riccio, Ruthven, he perhaps did not -behold the Angel Choir. His coffers were locked up in a chamber, with -candles burning. Next day a rough fellow, banished by Lochinvar, and -received by Huntly, fell into unconsciousness for twenty-four hours, and -on waking, cried '_Cauld, cauld, cauld!_' John Hamilton, opening one of -the dead Earl's coffers, fell down with the same exclamation. Men carried -him away, and, returning, found a third man fallen senseless on the -coffer. 'All wrought as the Earl of Huntly wrought in the death thraw.' -The chamber was haunted by strange sounds: the word went about that the -Earl was rising again. Says Knox's secretary, Bannatyne, who tells this -tale, 'I maun praise the Lord my God, and bless his holy name for ever, -when I behold the five that was in the conspiracy, not only of the King's -[Darnley's] and the second Regent's murder, but also of the first Regent's -murder. Four is past with small provision, to wit, Lethington, Argyll, -Bothwell, and last of all Huntly. I hope in God the fifth [Morton] shall -die more perfectly, and declare his life's deeds with his own mouth, -making his repentance at the gallows foot.' Part of his life's deeds -Morton did declare on his dying day. - -In such a mist of dark beliefs and dreads was the world living, beliefs -shared by Queen, preacher, and Earl, scholar, poet, historian, and the -simple secretary of Knox: while the sun shone fair on St. Leonard's -gardens, and boys like little James Melville were playing tennis and golf. -The scenes in which the wild deeds were done are scarcely recognisable in -modern Scotland. Holyrood is altered by buildings of the Restoration; the -lovely chapel is a ruin, where Mary prayed, and the priests at the altar -were buffeted. The Queen's chamber is empty, swept and garnished, as is -the little cabinet whereinto came the livid face of Ruthven, clad in -armour, and Darnley, half afraid, and Standen, later to boast, with -different circumstances, that he saved the Queen from the dirk of Patrick -Ballantyne. The blood of Riccio, outside the door of the state chamber, is -washed away: there are only a tourist or two in the long hall where Mary -leaned on Chastelard's breast in the dance called 'The Purpose' or -'talking dance.' The tombs of the kings through which Mary stole, -stopping, says Lennox, to threaten Darnley above the new mould of Riccio's -grave, have long been desecrated. - -At Jedburgh we may still see the tall old house, with crow-stepped gables, -and winding stairs, and the little chambers where Mary tried to make so -good an end, and where the wounded Bothwell was tended. In the long -gallery above, Lethington, and Moray, and du Croc must have held anxious -converse, while physicians came and went, proposing uncouth remedies, and -the Confessor flitted through, and the ladies in waiting wept. But least -changed are the hills of the robbers, sweeping slopes of rough pasturage, -broken by marshes, and the foaming burns of October, through which Mary -rode to the wounded Bothwell in Hermitage Castle, now a huge shell of grey -stone, in the pastoral wastes. - -Most changed of all is Glasgow, then a pretty village, among trees, -between the burn and the clear water of Clyde. The houses clustered about -the Cathedral, the ruined abodes of the religious, and the Castle where -Lennox and Darnley both lay sick, while Mary abode, it would seem, in the -palace then empty of its Archbishop. We see the little town full of armed -Hamiltons, and their feudal foes, the Stewarts of Lennox, who anxiously -attend her with suspicious glances, as she goes to comfort their young -chief. - -In thinking of old Edinburgh, as Mary knew it, our fancy naturally but -erroneously dwells on the narrow wynds of the old town, cabined between -grimy slate-roofed houses of some twelve or fifteen stories in height, -'piled black and massy steep and high,' and darkened with centuries of -smoke, squalid, sunless, without a green tree in the near view, so we are -apt to conceive the Edinburgh of Queen Mary. But we do the good town -injustice: we are conceiving the Edinburgh of Queen Mary under the colours -and in the forms of the Edinburgh of Prince Charles and of Robert Burns. - -There exists a bird's-eye view of the city, probably done by an English -hand, in 1544. It looks a bright, red-roofed, sparkling little town, in -contour much resembling St. Andrews. At St. Andrews the cathedral forms, -as it were, the handle of a fan, from which radiate, like the ribs of the -fan, North Street, Market Street, and South Street, with the houses and -lanes between them. At Edinburgh the Castle Rock was the handle of the -fan. Thence diverged two spokes or ribs of streets, High Street and -Cowgate, lined with houses with red-tiled roofs. Quaint wooden galleries -were suspended outside the first floor, in which, not in the ground floor, -the front door usually was, approached by an outer staircase. Quaintness, -irregularity, broken outlines, nooks, odd stone staircases, were -everywhere. The inner stairs or turnpikes were within semicircular -towers, and these, with the tall crow-stepped gables, high-pitched roofs, -and dormer windows, made up picturesque clumps of buildings, perforated by -wynds. St. Giles's Church occupied, of course, its present site, and the -'ports,' or gates which closed the High Street towards Holyrood, had -turrets for supporters. Through the gate, the Nether Bow, the Court suburb -of the Canongate ran down to Holyrood, with gardens, and groves, and green -fields behind the houses. The towers of the beautiful Abbey of Holyrood, -partly burned by the English in 1544, ended the line of buildings from the -Castle eastward. - -[Illustration: - -1. Kirk o' Field Church - -2. Holyrood - -3. Canongate - -4. Netherbow Port - -5. Netherbow - -6. St. Giles's Church - -7. Cowgate - -8. Wynd leading to Kirk o' Field - -9. Castle - -10. Calton Hill] - -Far to the left of the town, on a wooded height, the highest and central -point of the landscape, we mark a tall rectangular church tower, crowned -with a crow-stepped high-pitched roof. It is the church of Kirk o' Field, -soon to be so famous as the scene of Darnley's death. - -The blocks of buildings are intersected, we said, by narrow wynds, not yet -black, though, from Dunbar's poem, we know that Edinburgh was -conspicuously dirty and insanitary. But the narrow, compact, bright little -town running down the spine of rock from the Castle to Holyrood, was on -every side surrounded by green fields, and there were still trout in the -Norloch beneath the base of the Castle cliff, where now the railway runs. -New town, of course, there was none. Most of the town of Mary's age was -embraced by the ruinous wall, hastily constructed after the defeat and -death of James IV. Such was the city: of the houses we may gain an idea -from the fine old building traditionally called John Knox's house: if we -suppose it neat, clean, its roof scarlet, its walls not grimy with -centuries of reek. The houses stood among green gardens, hedges, and -trees, and on the grassy hills between the city and the sea, and to the -east and west, were _chateaux_ and peel-towers of lords and lairds. - -Such was Queen Mary's Edinburgh: long, narrow, and mightily unlike the -picturesque but stony, and begrimed, and smoke-hidden capital of -to-day.[14] - -'There were fertile soil, pleasant meadows, woods, lakes, and burns, all -around,' where now is nothing but stone, noisy pavement, and slate. The -monasteries of the Franciscans and Dominicans lay on either side of St. -Mary in the Fields, or Kirk of Field, with its college quadrangle and wide -gardens.[15] But, in Mary's day, the monastic buildings and several -churches lay in ruins, owing to the recent reform of the Christian -religion, and to English invaders. - -The palaces of the Cowgate and of the Canongate were the homes of the -nobles; the wynds were crowded with burgesses, tradesmen, prentices, and -the throng of artisans. These were less godly than the burgesses, were a -fickle and fiery mob, ready to run for spears, or use their tools to -defend their May-day sport of Robin Hood against the preachers and the -Bible-loving middle classes. Brawls were common, the artisans besieging -the magistrates in the Tolbooth, or the rival followings of two lairds or -lords coming to pistol-shots and sword-strokes on the causeway, while -burgesses handed spears to their friends from the windows. Among popular -pleasures were the stake, at which witches and murderesses of masters or -husbands were burned; and the pillory, where every one might throw what -came handy at a Catholic priest, and the pits in the Norloch where -fornicators were ducked. The town gates were adorned with spikes, on which -were impaled the heads of sinners against the Law. - -Mary rode through a land of new-made ruins, black with fire, not yet green -with ivy. On every side, wherever monks had lived, and laboured, and dealt -alms, and written manuscripts, desolation met Mary's eyes. The altars were -desecrated, the illumined manuscripts were burned, the religious skulked -in lay dress, or had fled to France, or stood under the showers of -missiles on the pillory. It was a land of fallen fanes, and of stubborn -blind keeps with scarce a window, that she passed through, with horse and -litter, lace, and gold, and velvet, and troops of gallants and girls. In -the black tall Tolbooth lurked the engines of torture, that were to strain -or crush the limbs of Bothwell's Lambs. Often must Mary have seen, on the -skyline, the gallows tree, and the fruits which that tree bore, and the -flocking ravens; one of that company followed Darnley and her from -Glasgow, and perched ominous on the roof of Kirk o' Field, croaking loudly -on the day of the murder. So writes Nau, Mary's secretary, informed, -probably, by one of her attendants. - - - - -III - -_THE CHARACTERS BEFORE RICCIO'S MURDER_ - - -After sketching the characters and scenes of the tragedy, we must show how -destiny interwove the life-threads of Bothwell and Mary. They were fated -to come together. She was a woman looking for a master, he was a masterful -and, in the old sense of the word, a 'masterless' man, seeking what he -might devour. In the phrase of Aristotle, 'Nature _wishes_' to produce -this or that result. It almost seems as if Nature had long 'wished' to -throw a Scottish Queen into the hands of a Hepburn. The Hepburns were not -of ancient _noblesse_. From their first appearance in Scottish history -they are seen to be prone to piratical adventure, and to courting widowed -queens. The unhappy Jane Beaufort, widow of James I., and of the Black -Knight of Lome, died in the stronghold of a Hepburn freebooter. A Hepburn -was reputed to be the lover of Mary of Gueldres, the beautiful and not -inconsolable widow of James II. This Hepburn, had he succeeded in securing -the person of Mary's son, the boy James III., might have played Bothwell's -part. The name rose to power and rank on the ruin of the murdered James -III., and of Ramsay, his favourite, who had worn, but forfeited to the -Hepburn of the day, the title of Bothwell. The name was strong in the most -lawless dales of the Border, chiefly in Liddesdale, where the clans -alternately wore the cross of St. Andrew and of St. George, and -impartially plundered both countries. The more profitable Hepburn estates, -however, were in the richer bounds of Lothian. - -The attitude and position of James Hepburn, our Bothwell, were, from the -first, unique. He was at once a Protestant, 'the stoutest and the worst -thought of,' and also an inveterate enemy of England, a resolute partisan -of Mary's mother, Mary of Guise, the Regent, in her wars against the -Protestant rebels, 'the Lords of the Congregation.' From this curious and -illogical position, adopted in his early youth, Bothwell never wandered. -He was to end by making Mary wed him with Protestant rites, while she -assured her confessor that she only did so in the hope of restoring the -Catholic Church! We must briefly trace the early career of Bothwell. - -While Darnley was being educated in England, with occasional visits to -France, and while Mary was residing there as the bride of the Dauphin: -while Moray was becoming the leader of the Protestant opposition to Mary -of Guise ('the Lords of the Congregation'), while Maitland was entering on -his career of diplomacy, Bothwell was active in the field. In 1558, after -Mary of Guise had been deserted by her nobles at Kelso, as her husband -had been at Fala, young Bothwell, being now Lieutenant-General on the -Border, made a raid into England. In the war between Mary of Guise, as -Regent, and the Protestant Lords of the Congregation, Bothwell fought on -her side. A Diary of the Siege of Leith (among the Lennox MSS.) describes -his activity in intercepting and robbing poor peaceful tradesmen. From -another unpublished source we learn that he, among others, condemned the -Earl of Arran (in absence) as the cause of the Protestant rebellion.[16] -On October 5, 1559, Bothwell seized, near Haddington, Cockburn of -Ormiston, who was carrying English gold to the Lords.[17] They, in -reprisal, sacked his castle of Crichton, and nearly caught him. He later -in vain challenged the Earl of Arran (the son of the chief of the -Hamiltons, the Duke of Chatelherault) to single combat. A feud of -far-reaching results now began between Arran and Cockburn on one side, and -Bothwell on the other. When Leith, held for Mary of Guise, in 1560, was -besieged by the Scots and English, Bothwell (whose estates had been sold) -was sent to ask aid from France. He went thither by way of Denmark, and -now, probably, he was more or less legally betrothed to a Norwegian lady, -Anne Throndssoen, whom he carried from her home, and presently deserted. -Already, in 1559, he was said to be 'quietly married or handfasted' to -Janet Beaton, niece of Cardinal Beaton, and widow of Sir Walter Scott of -Buccleugh, the wizard Lady of Branxholme in Scott's 'Lay of the Last -Minstrel.'[18] She was sister of Lady Reres, wife of Forbes of Reres, the -lady said to have aided Bothwell in his amour with Mary. In 1567 one of -the libels issued after Darnley's murder charged the Lady of Branksome -with helping Bothwell to win Mary's heart by magic. - -Anne Throndssoen, later, accused Bothwell of breach of promise of marriage, -given to her and her family 'by hand and mouth and letters.' In 1560 the -Lady of Branksome circulated a report that Bothwell had wedded a rich wife -in Denmark: she does not seem to have been jealous.[19] An anonymous -writer represents Bothwell as having three simultaneous wives, probably -Anne, the Branxholme lady, and his actual spouse, Lady Jane Gordon, sister -of Huntly. But the arrangements in the first two cases were probably not -legally valid. There is no doubt that Bothwell, ugly or not, was a great -conqueror of hearts. He may have been _un beau laid_, and he possessed, as -we have said, the qualities, so attractive to many women, of utter -recklessness, of a bullying manner, of great physical strength, and of -a reputation for _bonnes fortunes_. That Bothwell was extravagant and a -gambler is probably true: and, in short, he was, to many women, a most -attractive character. To the virtuous, like Lady Jane Gordon, he would -appear as an agreeable brand to be snatched from the burning. - -[Illustration: Le Dueil Blanc - -Sketch by Janet 1561. - -Walker & Cockerell. ph. sc.] - -Dropping poor Anne Throndssoen in the Netherlands, on his way from Denmark, -Bothwell, in 1560, went to the French Court, where he was made Gentilhomme -de la Chambre, but could not procure aid for Mary of Guise. He acquired -more French polish, and (so his enemies and his valet, Paris, said) he -learned certain infamous vices. Mary Stuart became a widow, and Dowager of -France, in December 1560: it is not certain whether or not Bothwell was in -her train at Joinville in April 1561.[20] After Mary's return to Scotland -the old feud between Arran and Bothwell broke out afresh. Bothwell and -d'Elboeuf paid a noisy visit to the handsome daughter of a burgess, said -to be Arran's mistress. There were brawls, and presently Bothwell attacked -Cockburn of Ormiston, the man he had robbed, Arran's ally, and carried off -his son to Crichton Castle. This occurred in March, 1562, and, as early as -February 21, Randolph, the English minister at Holyrood, had 'marked -something strange' in Arran.[21] His feeble ambitious mind was already -tottering, which casts doubt on what followed. On March 25, Bothwell -visited Knox (whose ancestors had been retainers of the House of Hepburn), -and invited the Reformer to reconcile him with Arran. The feud, Bothwell -said, was expensive: he dared not move without a company of armed men. -Knox contrived a meeting at the Hamilton house near the fatal Kirk o' -Field. The enemies were reconciled, and next day went together to 'the -Sermon,' a spiritual privilege of which Bothwell was only too neglectful. -Knox had done a good stroke for the Anti-Marian Protestant party, of whose -left wing Arran was the leader.[22] - -But alas for Knox's hopes! Only three days after the sermon, on March 29, -Arran (who had been wont to confide his love-sorrows to Knox) came to the -Reformer with a strange tale. Bothwell had opened to him, in the effusions -of their new friendship, his design to seize Mary, and put her in Arran's -keeping, in Dumbarton Castle. He would slay Mar (that is Lord James -Stuart, later Moray) and Lethington, whom he detested, 'and he and I would -rule all,' said Arran, who knew very well what sort of share he would be -permitted to enjoy in the dual control. I have very little doubt that the -impoverished, more or less disgraced Bothwell did make this proposal. He -was safe in doing so. If Arran accused him, Arran would, first, be -incarcerated, till he proved his charge (which he could not do), or, -secondly, Bothwell would appeal to Trial by Combat, for which he knew -that Arran had no taste. In his opinion, Bothwell merely meant to entrap -him, and his idea was to write to Mary and her brother. Whether Knox -already perceived that Arran was insane, or not, he gave him what was -perhaps the best advice--to be silent. Arran's position was perilous. If -the plot came to be known, if Bothwell confessed all, then he would be -guilty of concealing his foreknowledge of it; like Morton in the case of -Darnley's murder. - -Arran did not listen to Knox's counsel. He wrote to Mary and Mar, partly -implicating his own father; he then fled from his father's castle of -Keneil, hurried to Fife, and was brought by Mar (Moray) to Mary at -Falkland, whither Bothwell also came, perhaps warned by Knox, who had a -family feudal attachment to the Hepburns. Arran now was, or affected to -be, distraught. He persisted, however, in his charge against Bothwell, who -was warded in Edinburgh Castle, while Arran's father was deprived of -Dumbarton Castle. - -The truth of Arran's charge is uncertain. In any case, 'the Queen both -honestly and stoutly behaves herself,' Randolph wrote. While Bothwell lay, -a prisoner on suspicion, in Edinburgh Castle, Mary was come to a crisis in -her reign. Her political position, hitherto, may be stated in broad -outline. The strains of European tendencies, political and theological, -were dragging Scotland in opposite directions. Was the country to remain -Protestant, and in alliance with England, or was it to return to the -ancient league with France, and to the Church of Rome? - -During Mary's first years in Scotland, she and the governing politicians, -her brother Moray and Maitland of Lethington, were fairly well agreed as -to general policy. With all her affection for her Church and her French -kinsmen, Mary could not hope, at present, for much more than a certain -measure of toleration for Catholics. As to the choice of the French or -English alliance, her ambitions appeared to see their best hope in an -understanding with Elizabeth, under which Mary and her issue should be -recognised as heirs of the English throne. So far the ruling politicians, -Moray, Lethington, and Morton, were sufficiently in accord with their -Queen. A restoration of the Church they would not endure. Not only their -theological tenets (sincerely held by Moray) opposed any such restoration, -but their hold of Church property was what they would not abandon save -with life. The Queen and her chief advisers, therefore, for years enjoyed -a _modus vivendi_: a pacific kind of compromise. Mary was so far from -being ardently Catholic in politics, that, while Bothwell was confined in -Edinburgh Castle, she accompanied Moray to the North, and overthrew her -chief Catholic supporter, Huntly, 'the Cock of the North,' and all but the -king of the Northern Catholics. Before she set foot in Scotland, he had -offered to restore her by force, and with her, the Church. She preferred -the alliance of her brother, of Lethington, and of _les politiques_, the -moderate Protestants. Huntly died in battle against his Queen; his family, -for the hour, was ruined; but Huntly's son and successor in the title -represented the discontents and ambitions of the warlike North, as -Bothwell represented those of the warlike Borderers. Similarity of -fortunes and of desires soon united these two ruined and reckless men, -Huntly and Bothwell, in a league equally dangerous to Moray, to amity with -England, and, finally, to Mary herself. - -To restore his family to land and power, Huntly was ready to sacrifice not -only faith and honour, but natural affection. Twice he was to sell his -sister, Lady Jane, once when he married her to Bothwell against her will: -once when, Bothwell having won her love, Huntly compelled or induced her -to divorce him. But these things lay in the future. For the moment, the -autumn of 1562, the Huntlys were ruined, and Bothwell (August 28, 1562), -in the confusion, escaped from prison in Edinburgh Castle. 'Some whispered -that he got easy passage by the gates,' says Knox. 'One thing,' he adds, -'is certain, to wit, the Queen was little offended at his escaping.'[23] -He was, at least, her mother's faithful servant. - -We begin to see that the Protestant party henceforward suspected the Queen -of regarding Bothwell as, to Mary, a useful man in case of trouble. -Bothwell first fled to Hermitage Castle in Liddesdale. As -Lieutenant-General on the Border he commanded the reckless broken clans, -the 'Lambs,' his own Hepburns, Hays, Ormistouns of Ormistoun, and others -who aided him in his most desperate enterprises; while, as Admiral, he had -the dare-devils of the sea to back him. - -Lord James now became Earl of Moray, and all-powerful; and Bothwell, -flying to France, was storm-stayed at Holy Island, and held prisoner by -Elizabeth. His kinsfolk made interest for him with Mary, and, on February -5, 1564, she begged Elizabeth to allow him to go abroad. In England, -Bothwell is said to have behaved with unlooked-for propriety. 'He is very -wise, and not the man he was reported to be,' that is, not 'rash, -glorious, and hazardous,' Sir Harry Percy wrote to Cecil. 'His behaviour -has been courteous and honourable, keeping his promise.' Sir John Forster -corroborated this evidence. Bothwell, then, was not loutish, but, when he -pleased, could act like a gentleman. He sailed to France, and says himself -that he became Captain of the Scottish Guards, a post which Arran had once -held. In France he is said to have accused Mary of incestuous relations -with her uncle, the Cardinal. - -During Bothwell's residence in England, and in France, the equipoise of -Mary's political position had been disturbed. She had held her ground, -against the extreme Protestants, who clamoured for the death of all -idolaters, by her alliance with _les politiques_, led by Moray and -Lethington. Their ambition, like hers, was to see the crowns of England -and Scotland united in her, or in her issue. Therefore they maintained a -perilous amity with England, and with Elizabeth, while plans for a meeting -of the Queens, and for the recognition of Mary as Elizabeth's heir, were -being negotiated. But this caused ceaseless fretfulness to Elizabeth, who -believed, perhaps correctly, that to name her successor was to seal her -death-warrant. The Catholics of England would have hurried her to the -grave, she feared, that they might welcome Mary. In the same way, no -conceivable marriage for Mary could be welcome to Elizabeth, who hated the -very name of wedlock. Yet, while Bothwell was abroad, and while -negotiations lasted, there was a kind of repose, despite the anxieties of -the godly and their outrages on Catholics. Mary endured much and endured -with some patience. One chronic trouble was at rest. The feud between the -Hamiltons, the nearest heirs of the crown, and the rival claimants, the -Lennox Stewarts, was quiescent. - -The interval of peace soon ended. Lennox, the head of the House hateful to -the Hamiltons, was, at the end of 1564, allowed to return to Scotland, and -was reinstated in the lands which his treason had forfeited long ago. In -the early spring of 1565, Lennox's son, Darnley, followed his father to -the North, was seen and admired by Mary, and the peace of Scotland was -shattered. As a Catholic by education, though really of no creed in -particular, Darnley excited the terrors of the godly. His marriage with -Mary meant, to Moray, loss of power; to Lethington, a fresh policy; to the -Hamiltons, the ruin of their hopes of royalty, while, by most men, Darnley -soon came to be personally detested. - -Before it was certain that Mary would marry Darnley, but while the friends -and foes of the match were banding into parties, early in March 1565, -Bothwell returned unbidden to Scotland, and lurked in his Border fastness. -Knox's continuator says that Moray told Mary that either he or Bothwell -must leave the country. Mary replied that, considering Bothwell's past -services, 'she could not hate him,' neither could she do anything -prejudicial to Moray.[24] 'A day of law' was set for Bothwell, for May 2, -but, as Moray gathered an overpowering armed force, he sent in a protest, -by his comparatively respectable friend, Hepburn of Riccartoun, and went -abroad. Mary, according to Randolph, had said that she 'altogether -misliked his home-coming without a licence,' but Bedford feared that she -secretly abetted him. He was condemned in absence, but Mary was thought to -have prevented the process of outlawry. Dr. Hay Fleming, however, cites -Pitcairn's 'Criminal Trials,' i. 462,[25] as proof that Bothwell actually -was outlawed, or put to the horn. Knox's continuator, however, says that -Bothwell 'was not put to the horn, for the Queen continually bore a great -favour to him, and kept him to be a soldier.'[26] The Protestants ever -feared that Mary would 'shake Bothwell out of her pocket,' against -them.[27] - -Presently, her temper outworn by the perpetual thwartings which checked -her every movement, and regardless of the opposition of Moray, of the -Hamiltons, of Argyll, and of the whole Protestant community, Mary wedded -Darnley (July 29, 1565). Her adversaries assembled in arms, secretly -encouraged by Elizabeth, and what Kirkcaldy of Grange had prophesied -occurred: Mary 'shook Bothwell out of her pocket' at her opponents. In -July, she sent Hepburn of Riccartoun to summon him back from France. -Riccartoun was captured by the English, but Bothwell, after a narrow -escape, presented himself before Mary on September 20. By October, Moray, -the Hamiltons, and Argyll were driven into England or rendered harmless. -Randolph now reported that Bothwell and Atholl were all-powerful. The -result was ill feeling between Darnley and Bothwell. Darnley wished his -father, Lennox, to govern on the Border, but Mary gave the post to -Bothwell.[28] Her estrangement from Darnley had already begun. Jealousy of -Mary's new secretary, Riccio, was added. - -The relations between Darnley, Bothwell, Mary, and Riccio, between the -crushing of Moray's revolt, in October 1565, and the murder of the -Italian Secretary, in March 1566, are still obscure. Was Riccio Mary's -lover? What were the exact causes of the estrangement from Darnley, which -was later used as the spring to discharge on Riccio, and on Mary, the -wrath of the discontented nobles and Puritans? The Lennox Papers inform -us, as to Mary and Darnley, that 'their love never decayed till their -return from Dumfries,' whence they had pursued Moray into England. - -Mary had come back to Edinburgh from Dumfries by October 18, 1565. Riccio -was already, indeed by September 22, complained of as a foreign upstart, -but not as a lover of Mary, by the rebel Lords.[29] The Lennox Papers -attribute the estrangement of Mary and Darnley to her pardoning without -the consent of the King, her husband, 'sundry rebels,' namely the -Hamiltons. The pardon implied humiliation and five years of exile. It was -granted about December 3.[30] The measure was deeply distasteful to -Darnley and Lennox, who had long been at mortal feud, over the heirship to -the crown, with the Lennox Stewarts. The pardon is attributed to the -influence of 'Wicked David,' Riccio. But to pardon perpetually was the -function of a Scottish prince. Soon we find Darnley intriguing for the -pardon of Moray, Ruthven, and others, who were not Hamiltons. Next, Lennox -complains of Mary for 'using the said David more like a lover than a -husband, forsaking her husband's bed and board very often.' But this was -not before November. The 'Book of Articles' put in against Mary by her -accusers is often based on Lennox's papers. It says 'she suddenly altered -the same' (her 'vehement love' of Darnley) 'about November, for she -removed and secluded him from the counsel and knowledge of all Council -affairs.'[31] The 'Book of Articles,' like Lennox's own papers, omits -every reference to Riccio that can be avoided. The 'Book of Articles,' -indeed, never hints at his existence. The reason is obvious: Darnley had -not shone in the Riccio affair. Moreover the Lennox party could not accuse -Mary of a guilty amour before mid November, 1565, for James VI. was born -on June 19, 1566. It would not do to discredit his legitimacy. But, as -early as September 1565, Bedford had written to Cecil that 'of the -countenance which Mary gave to David he would not write, for the honour -due to the person of a Queen.'[32] Thus, a bride of six weeks, Mary was -reported to be already a wanton! Moreover, on October 13, 1565, Randolph -wrote from Edinburgh that Mary's anger against Moray (who had really -enraged her by rising to prevent her from marrying Darnley) came from some -dishonourable secret in Moray's keeping, 'not to be named for reverence -sake.' He 'has a thing more strange' even than the fact that Mary 'places -Bothwell in honour above every subject that she hath.' As the 'thing' is -_not_ a nascent passion for Bothwell, it may be an amour with Riccio.[33] -Indeed, on October 18, 1565, he will not speak of the cause of mischief, -but hints at 'a stranger and a varlet,' Riccio.[34] Randolph and the -English diplomatists were then infuriated against Mary, who had expelled -their allies, Moray and the rest, discredited Elizabeth, their -paymistress, and won over her a diplomatic victory. Consequently this talk -of her early amour with Riccio, an ugly Milanese musician, need not be -credited. For their own reasons, the Lennox faction dared not assert so -early a scandal. - -They, however, insisted that Mary, in November, 'removed and secluded' -Darnley from her Council. To prevent his knowing what letters were -written, when he signed them with her, she had his name printed on an iron -stamp, 'and used the same _in all things_,' in place of his subscription. -This stamp was employed in affixing his signature to the 'remission' to -the Hamiltons.[35] - -In fact, Darnley's ambitions were royal, but he had an objection to the -business which kings are well paid for transacting. Knox's continuator -makes him pass 'his time in hunting and hawking, and such other pleasures -as were agreeable to his appetite, having in his company gentlemen willing -to satisfy his will and affections.' He had the two Anthony Standens, wild -young English Catholics. While Darnley hunted and hawked, Lennox 'lies at -Glasgow' (where he had a castle near the Cathedral), and 'takes, I hear, -what he likes from all men,' says Randolph.[36] He writes (November 6) -that Mary 'above all things desires her husband to be called King.'[37] -Yet it is hinted that she is in love with Riccio! On the same date 'oaths -and bands are taken of all that ... acknowledge Darnley king, and liberty -to live as they list in religion.' On November 19, Mary was suffering from -'her old disease that commonly takes her this time of year in her side.' -It was a chronic malady: we read of it in the Casket Letters. From -November 14 to December 1, she was ill, but Darnley hunted and hawked in -Fife, from Falkland probably, and was not expected to return till December -4.[38] Lennox was being accused of 'extortions' at Glasgow, complained of -'to the Council.' Chatelherault was 'like to speed well enough in his suit -to be restored,' after his share in Moray's rebellion. - -Darnley was better engaged, perhaps, in Fife, than in advocating his needy -and extortionate father before the Council, or in opposing the limited -pardon to old Chatelherault. In such circumstances, Darnley was often -absent, either for pleasure, or because his father was not allowed to -despoil the West; while the Hamilton chief, the heir presumptive of the -throne, was treated as a repentant rebel, rather than as a feudal enemy. -He was an exile, and lost his 'moveables' and all his castles, so he told -Elizabeth.[39] During, or after, these absences of Darnley, that 'iron -stamp,' of which Buchanan complains, was made and used. - -The Young Fool had brought this on himself. Mary already, according to -Randolph, had been heard to say that she wished Lennox had never entered -Scotland 'in her days.' Lennox, the father-in-law of the Queen, was really -a competitor for the crown. If Mary had no issue, he and Darnley desired -the crown to be entailed on them, passing over the rightful heirs, the -House of Hamilton. A father and son, with such preoccupations, could not -safely be allowed to exercise power. The father would have lived on -robbery, the son would have shielded him. Yet, so occupied was Darnley -with distant field sports, that, says Buchanan, he took the affair of the -iron stamp easily.[40] Next comes a terrible grievance. Darnley was driven -out, in the depth of winter, to Peebles. There was so much snow, the roads -were so choked, the country so bare, that Darnley might conceivably have -been reduced to 'halesome parritch.' Luckily the Bishop of Orkney, the -jovial scoundrel, 'Bishop Turpy,' who married Mary to Bothwell, and then -denounced her to Elizabeth, had brought wine and delicacies. This is -Buchanan's tale. A letter from Lennox to Darnley, of December 20, 1565, -represents the father as anxious to wait on 'Your Majesty' at Peebles, -but scarcely expecting him in such stormy weather. Darnley, doubtless, -really went for the sake of the deer: which, in Scotland, were pursued at -that season. He had been making exaggerated show of Catholicism, at matins -on Christmas Eve, while Mary sat up playing cards.[41] Presently he was to -be the ally of the extreme Protestants, the expelled rebels. Moray was -said not to have two hundred crowns in the world, and was ready for -anything, in his English retreat. Randolph (Dec. 25) reported 'private -disorders' between Darnley and Mary, 'but these may be but _amantium -irae_,' lovers' quarrels.[42] Yet, two months before he had hinted broadly -that Riccio was the object of Mary's passion. - -On this important point of Mary's guilt with Riccio, we have no -affirmative evidence, save Darnley's word, when he was most anxious to -destroy the Italian for political reasons. Randolph, who, as we have seen, -had apparently turned his back on his old slanders, now accepted, or -feigned to accept, Darnley's anecdotes of his discoveries. - -It is strange that Mary at the end of 1565, and the beginning of 1566, -seems to have had no idea of the perils of her position. On January 31, -1566, she wrote 'to the most holy lord, the Lord Pope Pius V.,' saying: -'Already some of our enemies are in exile, and some of them are in our -hands, but their fury, and the great necessity in which they are placed, -urge them on to attempt extreme measures.'[43] But, ungallant as the -criticism may seem, I fear that this was only a begging letter _in -excelsis_, and that Mary wanted the papal ducats, without entertaining any -great hope or intention of aiding the papal cause, or any real -apprehension of 'extreme measures' on the side of her rebels. Her -intention was to forfeit and ruin Moray and his allies, in the Parliament -of the coming March. She also wished to do something 'tending to' the -restoration of the Church, by reintroducing the spiritual lords. But that -she actually joined the Catholic League, as she was certainly requested to -do, seems most improbable.[44] Having arranged a marriage between Bothwell -and Huntly's sister, Lady Jane Gordon, she probably relied on the united -strength of the two nobles in the North and the South. But this was a -frail reed to lean upon. Mary's position, though she does not seem to have -realised it, was desperate. She had incurred the feud of the Lennox -Stewarts, Lennox and Darnley, by her neglect of both, and by Darnley's -jealousy of Riccio. The chiefs of the Hamiltons, who could always be -trusted to counterbalance the Lennox faction, were in exile. Moray was -desperate. Lethington was secretly estranged. The Protestants were at -once angry and terrified: ready for extremes. Finally, Morton was -threatened with loss of the seals, and almost all the nobles loathed the -power of the low-born foreign favourite, Riccio. - -Even now the exact nature of the intrigues which culminated in Riccio's -murder are obscure. We cannot entirely trust the well-known 'Relation' -which, after the murder, on April 2, Morton and Ruthven sent to Cecil. He -was given leave to amend it, and it is, at best, a partisan report. Its -object was to throw the blame on Darnley, who had deserted the -conspirators, and betrayed them. According to Ruthven, it was on February -10 that Darnley sent to him George Douglas, a notorious assassin, akin -both to Darnley and Morton. Darnley, it is averred, had proof of Mary's -guilt with Riccio, and desired to disgrace Mary by slaying Riccio in her -presence. The negotiation, then, began with Darnley, on February 10.[45] -But on February 5 Randolph had written to Cecil that Mary 'hath said -openly that she will have mass free for all men that will hear it,' and -that Darnley, Lennox, and Atholl daily resort to it. 'The Protestants are -in great fear and doubt what shall become of them. The wisest so much -dislike this state and government, that they design nothing more than the -return of the Lords, either to be put into their own rooms, or once again -to put all in hazard.'[46] 'The wisest' is a phrase apt to mean -Lethington. Now, on February 9, before Darnley's motion to Ruthven, -Lethington wrote to Cecil: 'Mary! I see no certain way unless we chop at -the very root; you know where it lieth.'[47] When Mary, later, was a -prisoner in England, Knox, writing to Cecil, used this very phrase, 'If ye -strike not at the root, the branches that appear to be broken will bud -again' (Jan. 2, 1570). When Lethington meant to 'chop at the very root,' -on February 9, 1566, he undoubtedly intended the death of Riccio, if not -of Mary. - -In four days (February 13) Randolph informed Leicester of Darnley's -jealousy, and adds, 'I know that there are practices in hand, contrived -between the father and son' (Lennox and Darnley), 'to come by the crown -against her will.' 'The crown' may only mean 'the Crown Matrimonial,' -which would, apparently, give Darnley regal power for his lifetime. 'I -know that, if that take effect which is intended, David, with the consent -of the King, shall have his throat cut within these ten days. Many things -grievouser and worse than these are brought to my ears: yea, of things -intended against her own person....'[48] - -The conspiracy seems to have been political and theological in its -beginnings. Mary was certainly making more open show of Catholicism: very -possibly to impress the French envoys who had come to congratulate her on -her marriage, and to strengthen her claim on the Pope for money. But -Lennox and Darnley were also parading Catholic devoutness: they had no -quarrel with Mary on this head. The Protestants, however, took alarm. -Darnley was, perhaps, induced to believe in Mary's misconduct with Riccio -after 'the wisest,' and Lethington, had decided 'to chop at the very -root.' Ruthven and Morton then won Darnley's aid: he consented to secure -Protestantism, and, by a formal band, to restore Moray and the exiles: -who, in turn, recognised him as their sovereign. Randolph, banished by -Mary for aiding her rebels, conspired with Bedford at Berwick, and sent -copies to Cecil of the 'bands' between Darnley and the nobles (March -6).[49] - -Darnley himself, said Randolph, was determined to be present at Riccio's -slaying. Moray was to arrive in Edinburgh immediately after the deed. -Lethington, Argyll, Morton, Boyd, and Ruthven were privy to the murder, -also Moray, Rothes, Kirkcaldy, in England, with Randolph and Bedford. It -is probable that others besides Riccio were threatened. There is a 'Band -of Assurance for the Murder.'[50] Darnley says that he has enlisted -'lords, barons, freeholders, gentlemen, merchants, and craftsmen to assist -us in this enterprise, which cannot be finished without great hazard. And -because it may chance that there be certain great personages present, who -may make them to withstand our enterprise, wherethrough certain of them -may be slain,' Darnley guarantees his allies against the blood feud of the -'great persons.' These, doubtless, are Bothwell, Atholl, and Huntly. The -deed 'may chance to be done in presence of the Queen's Majesty, or within -her palace of Holyrood House.' The band is dated March 1, in other texts, -March 5. The indications point to a design of killing Mary's nobles, while -she, in her condition, might die of the shock. She was to be morally -disgraced. So unscrupulous were Mary's foes that Cecil told de Foix, the -French Ambassador in London, how Riccio had been slain in Mary's arms, -_reginam nefario stupro polluens_.[51] Cecil well knew that this was a -lie: and it is natural to disbelieve every statement of a convicted liar -and traitor like Darnley. - -Just before the explosion of the anti-Riccio conspiracy, Bothwell _se -rangea_. Mary herself made a match for him (the contract is of February 9, -1566) with Lady Jane Gordon, a Catholic, a sister of Huntly, and a -daughter of that Huntly who fell at Corrichie burn. The lady was only in -her twentieth year. The parties being akin, a dispensation was necessary, -and was granted by the Pope, and issued by the Archbishop of St. -Andrews.[52] The marriage took place in the Protestant Kirk of the -Canongate, though the bride was a Catholic, and Mary gave the wedding -dress (February 24). The honeymoon was interrupted, on March 9, by the -murder of Riccio. - -The conspirators made the fatal error of not securing Bothwell and Huntly -before they broke into Mary's room and slew Riccio. While Bothwell, -Huntly, and Atholl were at large, the forces of the Queen's party had -powerful friends in the North and on the Border. When the tumult of the -murderers was heard, these nobles tried to fight their way to Mary's -assistance, but were overpowered by numbers, and compelled to seek their -apartments. An attempt was made to reconcile them to the situation, but -they escaped under cloud of night. In her letter to the French Court (May -1567) excusing her marriage with Bothwell, Mary speaks of his 'dexterity' -in escaping, 'and how suddenly by his prudence not only were we delivered -out of prison,' after Riccio's death, 'but also that whole company of -conspirators dissolved....' 'We could never forget it,' Mary adds, and -Bothwell's favour had a natural and legitimate basis in the gratitude of -the Queen. Very soon after the outrage she had secretly communicated with -Bothwell and Huntly, 'who, taking no regard to hazard their lives,' -arranged a plan for her flight by means of ropes let down from the -windows.[53] Mary preferred the passage through the basement into the -royal tombs, and, by aid of Arthur Erskine and Stewart of Traquair, she -made her way to Dunbar. Here Huntly, Atholl, and Bothwell rallied to her -standard: Knox fled from Edinburgh, Morton and Ruthven with their allies -found refuge in England: the lately exiled Lords were allowed to remain in -Scotland: Darnley betrayed his accomplices, they communicated to Mary -their treaties with him, and the Queen was left to reconcile Moray and -Argyll to Huntly, Bothwell, and Atholl. - - - - -IV - -_BEFORE THE BAPTISM OF THE PRINCE_ - - -Mary's task was 'to quieten the country,' a task perhaps impossible. Her -defenders might probably make a better case for her conduct and prudence, -at this time, than they have usually presented. Her policy was, if -possible, to return to the state of balance which existed before her -marriage. She must allay the Protestants' anxieties, and lean on their -trusted Moray and on the wisdom of Lethington. But gratitude for the -highest services compelled her to employ Huntly and Bothwell, who equally -detested Lethington and Moray. Darnley was an impossible and disturbing -factor in the problem. He had, publicly, on March 20, and privately, -declared his innocence, which we find him still protesting in the Casket -Letters. He had informed against his associates, and insisted on dragging -into the tale of conspirators, Lethington, who had retired to Atholl. -Moreover Mary must have despised and hated the wretch. Perhaps her hatred -had already found expression. - -The Lennox MSS. aver that Darnley secured Mary's escape to Dunbar 'with -great hazard and danger of his life.' Claude Nau reports, on the other -hand, that he fled at full speed, brutally taunting Mary, who, in her -condition, could not keep the pace with him. Nau tells us that, as the -pair escaped out of Holyrood, Darnley uttered remorseful words over -Riccio's new-made grave. The Lennox MSS. aver that Mary, seeing the grave, -said 'it should go very hard with her but a fatter than Riccio should lie -anear him ere one twelvemonth was at an end.' In Edinburgh, on the return -from Dunbar, Lennox accuses Mary of threatening to take revenge with her -own hands. 'That innocent lamb' (Darnley) 'had but an unquiet life' -(Lennox MSS.). - -Once more, Mary had to meet, on many sides, the demand for the pardon of -the Lords who had just insulted and injured her by the murder of her -servant. On April 2, from Berwick, Morton and Ruthven told Throckmorton -that they were in trouble 'for the relief of our brethren and the -religion,' and expected 'to be relieved by the help of our brethren, which -we hope in God shall be shortly.'[54] Moray was eager for their -restoration, which must be fatal to their betrayer, Darnley. On the other -side, Bothwell and Darnley, we shall see, were presently intriguing for -the ruin of Moray, and of Lethington, who, still unpardoned, dared not -take to the seas lest Bothwell should intercept him.[55] Bothwell and -Darnley had been on ill terms in April, according to Drury.[56] But -common hatreds soon drew them together, as is to be shown. - -Randolph's desire was 'to have my Lord of Moray again in Court' (April 4), -and to Court Moray came. - -Out of policy or affection, Mary certainly did protect and befriend Moray, -despite her alleged nascent passion for his enemy, Bothwell. By April 25, -Moray with Argyll and Glencairn had been received by Mary, who had -forbidden Darnley to meet them on their progress.[57] With a prudence -which cannot be called unreasonable, Mary tried to keep the nobles apart -from her husband. She suspected an intrigue whenever he conversed with -them, and she had abundant cause of suspicion. She herself had taken -refuge in the Castle, awaiting the birth of her child. - -Mary and Moray now wished to pardon Lord Boyd, with whom Darnley had a -private quarrel, and whom he accused of being a party to Riccio's -murder.[58] On May 13, Randolph tells Cecil that 'Moray and Argyll have -such misliking of their King (Darnley) as never was more of man.'[59] -Moray, at this date, was most anxious for the recall of Morton, who (May -24) reports, as news from Scotland, that Darnley 'is minded to depart to -Flanders,' or some other place, to complain of Mary's unkindness.[60] -Darnley was an obstacle to Mary's efforts at general conciliation, apart -from the horror of the man which she probably entertained. In England -Morton and his gang had orders, never obeyed, to leave the country: -Ruthven had died, beholding a Choir of Angels, on May 16. - -At this time, when Mary was within three weeks of her confinement, the -Lennox Papers tell a curious tale, adopted, with a bewildering confusion -of dates, by Buchanan in his 'Detection.' Lennox represents Mary as trying -to induce Darnley to make love to the wife of Moray, while 'Bothwell alone -was all in all.' This anecdote is told by Lennox himself, on Darnley's own -authority. The MS. is headed, 'Some part of the talk between the late King -of Scotland and me, the Earl of Lennox, riding between Dundas and Lythkoo -(Linlithgow) in a dark night, taking upon him to be the guide that night, -the rest of his company being in doubt of the highway.' Darnley said he -had often ridden that road, and Lennox replied that it was no wonder, he -riding to meet his wife, 'a paragon and a Queen.' Darnley answered that -they were not happy. As an instance of Mary's ways, he reported that, just -before their child's birth, Mary had advised him to take a mistress, and -if possible 'to make my Lord ----' (Moray) 'wear horns, and I assure you I -shall never love you the worse.' Lennox liked not the saying, but merely -advised Darnley never to be unfaithful to the Queen. Darnley replied, 'I -never offended the Queen, my wife, in meddling with any woman in thought, -let be in deed.' Darnley also told the story of 'horning' Moray to a -servant of his, which Moray 'is privy unto.' - -The tale of Darnley's then keeping a mistress arose, says Lennox, from the -fact that one of two Englishmen in his service, brothers, each called -Anthony Standen, brought a girl into the Castle. The sinner was, when -Lennox wrote, in France. Nearly forty years after James VI. imprisoned him -in the Tower, and he wrote a romantic memoir of which there is a -manuscript copy at Hatfield. - -Whatever Mary's feelings towards Darnley, when making an inventory of her -jewels for bequests, in case she and her child both died, she left her -husband a number of beautiful objects, including the red enamel ring with -which he wedded her.[61] Whatever her feelings towards Moray, she lodged -him and Argyll in the Castle during her labour: 'Huntly and Bothwell would -also have lodged there, but were refused.'[62] Sir James Melville (writing -in old age) declares that Huntly and Lesley, Bishop of Ross, 'envied the -favour that the Queen showed unto the Earl of Moray,' and wished her to -'put him in ward,' as dangerous. Melville dissuaded Mary from this course, -and she admitted Moray to the Castle, while rejecting Huntly and -Bothwell.[63] - -James VI. and I. was born on June 19. Killigrew carried Elizabeth's -congratulations, and found that Argyll, Moray, Mar, and Atholl were -'linked together' at Court. Bothwell had tried to prejudice Mary against -Moray, as likely to 'bring in Morton during her child-bed,' but Bothwell -had failed, and gone to the Border. 'He would not gladly be in the danger -of the four that lie in the Castle.' Yet he was thought to be 'more in -credit' with Mary than all the rest. If so, Mary certainly 'dissembled her -love,' to the proverbial extent. Darnley was in the Castle, but little -regarded.[64] Moray complained that his own 'credit was yet but small:' he -was with the Privy Council, Bothwell was not.[65] By July 11, Moray told -Cecil that his favour 'stands now in good case.'[66] - -He had good reason to thank God, as he did. According to Nau, Huntly and -Bothwell had long been urging Darnley to ruin Moray and Lethington, and -Darnley had a high regard for George Douglas, now in exile, his agent with -Ruthven for Riccio's murder.[67] This is confirmed by a letter from Morton -in exile to Sir John Forster in July. Morton had heard from Scotland that -Bothwell and Darnley were urging Mary to recall the said George Douglas, -whom they expected to denounce Moray and Lethington as 'the devisers of -the slaughter of Davy.' 'I now find,' says Morton, 'that the King and -Bothwell are not likely to speed, as was written, for the Queen likes -nothing of their desire.'[68] - -Thus Mary was protecting Moray from the grotesque combination of Bothwell -and Darnley. This is at a time when 'Bothwell was all in all,' according -to Lennox, and when she had just tried to embroil Moray and her husband by -bidding Darnley seduce Lady Moray. By Moray's and Morton's own showing, -Moray's favour was 'in good case,' and he was guarded from Darnley's -intrigues. - -However, Buchanan makes Mary try to drive Darnley and Moray to dagger -strokes after her 'deliverance.'[69] We need not credit his tale of Mary's -informing Darnley that the nobles meant to kill him, and then calling -Moray out of bed, half-naked, to hear that he was to be killed by Darnley. -All that is known of this affair of the hurried Moray speeding through the -corridors in his dressing-gown, comes from certain notes of news sent by -Bedford to Cecil on August 15. 'The Queen declared to Moray that the King -had told her he was determined to kill him, finding fault that she bears -him so much company. The King confessed that reports were made to him that -Moray was not his friend, which made him speak that of which he repented. -The Queen said that she could not be content that either he or any else -should be unfriend to Moray.' 'Any else' included Bothwell. 'Moray and -Bothwell have been at evil words for Lethington. The King has departed; he -cannot bear that the Queen should use familiarity with man or woman.'[70] -This may be the basis of Buchanan's legend. Moray and Darnley hated each -other. On the historical evidence of documents as against the partisan -legends of Lennox and Buchanan, Mary, before and after her delivery, was -leaning on Moray, whatever may have been her private affection for -Bothwell. She even confided to him 'that money had been sent from the -Pope.' Moray was thus deep in her confidence. That she should distrust -Darnley, ever weaving new intrigues, was no more than just. His wicked -folly was the chief obstacle to peace. - -Peace, while Darnley lived, there could not be. Morton was certain to be -pardoned, and of all feuds the deadliest was that between Morton and -Darnley, who had betrayed him. Meanwhile Mary's dislike of Darnley must -have increased, after her fear of dying in child-birth had disappeared. -When once the nobles' were knitted into a combination, with Lethington -restored to the Secretaryship (for which Moray laboured successfully -against Bothwell), with Morton and the Douglases brought home, Darnley was -certain to perish. Lennox was disgraced, and his Stewarts were powerless, -and Darnley's own Douglas kinsmen were, of all men, most likely to put -their hands in his blood: as they did. Mary was his only possible shelter. -Nothing was more to be dreaded by the Lords than the reconciliation of the -royal pair; whom Darnley threatened with the vengeance he would take if -once his foot was on their necks. But of a sincere reconciliation there -was no danger. - -A difficult problem is to account for the rise of Mary's passion for -Bothwell. In February, she had given him into the arms of a beautiful -bride. In March, he had won her sincerest gratitude and confidence. She -had, Lennox says, bestowed on him the command of her new Guard of -harquebus men, a wild crew of mercenaries under dare-devil captains. But -though, according to her accusers, her gratitude and confidence turned to -love, and though that love, they say, was shameless and notorious, there -are no contemporary hints of it in all the gossip of scandalous -diplomatists. We have to fall back on what Buchanan, inspired by Lennox, -wrote after Darnley's murder, and on what Lennox wrote himself in language -more becoming a gentleman than that of Buchanan. If Lennox speaks truth, -improper relations between Mary and Bothwell began as soon as she -recovered from the birth of her child. He avers that Mary wrote a letter -to Bothwell shortly after her recovery from child-bed, and just when she -was resisting Bothwell's and Darnley's plot against Moray and Lethington. -Bothwell, reading the letter among his friends, exclaimed, 'Gyf any faith -might be given to a princess, they' (Darnley and Mary) 'should never be -togidder in bed agane.' A version in English (the other paper is in Scots) -makes Mary promise this to Bothwell when he entered her room, and found -her washing her hands. Buchanan's tales of Mary's secret flight to Alloa, -shortly after James's birth, and her revels there in company with Bothwell -and his crew of pirates, are well known. Lennox, however, represents her -as departing to Stirling, 'before her month,' when even women of low -degree keep the house, and as 'taking her pleasure in most uncomely -manner, arraied in homely sort, dancing about the market cross of the -town.' - -According to Nau, Mary and her ladies really resided at Alloa as guests of -Lord Mar, one of the least treacherous and abandoned of her nobles. -Bedford, in a letter of August 3, 1566, mentions Mary's secret departure -from Edinburgh, her intended meeting with Lethington (who had been exiled -from Court since Riccio's death), at Alloa, on August 2, and her -disdainful words about Darnley. He adds that Bothwell is the most hated -man in Scotland: 'his insolence is such that David [Riccio] was never more -abhorred than he is now,' but Bedford says nothing of a love intrigue -between Bothwell and Mary.[71] The visit to Alloa, with occasional returns -to Edinburgh, is of July-August. - -In August, Mary, Bothwell, Moray, and Darnley hunted in Meggatdale, the -moorland region between the stripling Yarrow and the Tweed. They had poor -sport: poachers had been busy among the deer. Charles IX., in France, now -learned that the royal pair were on the best terms;[72] and Mary's -Inventories prove that, in August, she had presented Darnley with a -magnificent bed; by no means 'the second-best bed.' In September she also -gave him a quantity of cloth of gold, to make a caparison for his -horse.[73] Claude Nau reports, however, various brutal remarks of Darnley -to his wife while they were in Meggatdale. By September 20, Mary, -according to Lethington, reconciled Bothwell and himself. This was a very -important event. The reconciliation, Lethington says, was quietly managed -at the house of a friend of his own, Argyll, Moray, and Bothwell alone -being present. Moray says: 'Lethington is restored to favour, wherein I -trust he shall increase.'[74] This step was hostile to Darnley's -interests, for he had attempted to ruin Lethington. It is certain, as we -shall see, that all parties were now united in a band to resist Darnley's -authority, and maintain that of the Queen, though, probably, nothing was -said about violence. - -At this very point Buchanan, supported and probably inspired by Lennox, -makes the guilty intimacy of Mary and Bothwell begin in earnest. In -September, 1566, Mary certainly was in Edinburgh, reconciling Lethington -to Bothwell, and also working at the budget and finance in the Exchequer -House. It 'was large and had pleasant gardens to it, and next to the -gardens, all along, a solitary vacant room,' says Buchanan. But the real -charm, he declares, was in the neighbourhood of the house of David -Chalmers, a man of learning, and a friend of Bothwell. The back door of -Chalmers's house opened on the garden of the Exchequer House, and -according to Buchanan, Bothwell thence passed, through the garden, to -Mary's chamber, where he overcame her virtue by force. She was betrayed -into his hands by Lady Reres.[75] - -This lady, who has been mentioned already, was the wife of Arthur Forbes -of Reres. His castle, on a hill above the north shore of the Firth of -Forth, is now but a grassy mound, near Lord Crawford's house of Balcarres. -The lady was a niece of Cardinal Beaton, a sister of the magic lady of -Branksome, and aunt of one of the Four Maries, Mary Beaton. Buchanan -describes her as an old love of Bothwell, 'a woman very heavy, both by -unwieldy age and massy substance;' her gay days, then, must long have been -over. She was also the mother of a fairly large family. Cecil absurdly -avers that Bothwell obtained his divorce by accusing himself of an amour -with this fat old lady.[76] Knox's silly secretary, Bannatyne, tells us -that the Reformer, dining at Falsyde, was regaled with a witch story by a -Mr. Lundie. He said that when Lady Atholl and Mary were both in labour, in -Edinburgh Castle, he came there on business, and found Lady Reres lying -abed. 'He asking her of her disease, she answered that she was never so -troubled with no bairn that ever she bare, for the Lady Atholl had cast -all the pain of her child-birth upon her.'[77] It was a case of -Telepathy. Lady Reres had been married long enough to have a grown-up son, -the young Laird of Reres, who was in Mary's service at Carberry Hill -(June, 1567). According to Dr. Joseph Robertson, Lady Reres was wet-nurse -to Mary's baby. But, if we trust Buchanan, she was always wandering about -with Mary, while the nurseling was elsewhere. The name of Lady Reres does -not occur among those of Mary's household in her _Etat_ of February 1567. -We only hear of her, then, from Buchanan, as a veteran procuress of vast -bulk who, at some remote period, had herself been the mistress of -Bothwell. - -A few days after the treasonable and infamous action of Bothwell in -violating his Queen, we are to believe that Mary, still in the Exchequer -House, sent Lady Reres for that hero. Though it would have been simple and -easy to send a girl like Margaret Carwood, Mary and Margaret must needs -let old Lady Reres 'down by a string, over an old wall, into the next -garden.' Still easier would it have been for Lady Reres to use the key of -the back door, as when she first admitted Bothwell. But these methods were -not romantic enough: 'Behold, the string suddenly broke, and down with a -great noise fell Lady Reres.' However, she returned with Bothwell, and so -began these tragic loves. - -This legend is backed, according to Buchanan, by the confession of -Bothwell's valet, George Dalgleish, 'which still remaineth upon record,' -but is nowhere to be found. In Dalgleish's confession, printed in the -'Detection,' nothing of the kind occurs. But a passage in the Casket -Sonnet IX. is taken as referring to the condoned rape: - - Pour luy aussi j'ai jete mainte larme, - Premier, quand il se fist de ce corps possesseur, - Duquel alors il n'avoit pas le coeur. - -In the Lennox MSS. Lennox himself dates the beginning of the intrigue with -Bothwell about September, 1566. But he and Buchanan are practically but -one witness. There is no other. - -As regards this critical period, we have abundant contemporary -information. The Privy Council, writing to Catherine de' Medici, from -Edinburgh, on October 8, make Mary, ten or twelve days before (say -September 26), leave Stirling for Edinburgh, on affairs of the Exchequer. -She offered to bring Darnley, but he insisted on remaining at Stirling, -where Lennox visited him for two or three days, returning to Glasgow. -Thence he wrote to Mary, warning her that Darnley had a vessel in -readiness, to fly the country. The letter reached Mary on September 29, -and Darnley arrived on the same day. He rode to Mary, but refused to enter -the palace, because three or four of the Lords were in attendance. Mary -actually went out to see her husband, apparently dismissed the Lords, and -brought him to her chamber, where he passed the night. On the following -day, the Council, with du Croc, met Darnley. He was invited, by Mary and -the rest, to declare his grievances: his attention was directed to the -'wise and virtuous' conduct of his wife. Nothing could be extracted from -Darnley, who sulkily withdrew, warning Mary, by a letter, that he still -thought of leaving the country. His letter hinted that he was deprived of -regal authority, and was abandoned by the nobles. To this they reply that -he must be _aimable_ before he can be _aime_, and that they will never -consent to his having the disposal of affairs.[78] - -A similar account was given by du Croc to Archbishop Beaton, and, on -October 17, to Catherine de' Medici, no friend of Mary, also by Mary to -Lennox.[79] - -We have not Darnley's version of what occurred. He knew that all the -powerful Lords were now united against him. Du Croc, however, had frequent -interviews with Darnley, who stated his grievance. It was not that -Bothwell injured his honour. Darnley kept spies on Mary, and had such a -noisy and burlesque set of incidents occurred in the garden of Exchequer -House as Buchanan reports, Darnley should have had the news. But he merely -complained to du Croc that he did not enjoy the same share of power and -trust as was his in the early weeks of his wedding. Du Croc replied that -this fortune could never again be his. The 'Book of Articles' entirely -omits Darnley's offence in the slaying of Riccio. Du Croc was more -explicit. He told Darnley that the Queen had been personally offended, and -would never restore him to his authority. 'He ought to be well content -with the honour and good cheer which she gave him, honouring and treating -him as the King her husband, and supplying his household with all manner -of good things.' This goes ill with Buchanan's story about Mary's -stinginess to Darnley. It is admitted by the Lennox MSS. that she did not -keep her alleged promise to Bothwell, that she and Darnley should never -meet in the marriage bed. - -When Mary had gone to Jedburgh, to hold a court (about October 8), du Croc -was asked to meet Darnley at some place, apparently Dundas, 'three leagues -from Edinburgh.' Du Croc thought that Darnley wished Mary to ask him to -return. But Darnley, du Croc believed, intended to hang off till after the -baptism of James, and did not mean to be present on that occasion (_pour -ne s'y trouver point_). He had, in du Croc's opinion, but two causes of -unhappiness: one, the reconciliation of the Lords with the Queen, and -their favour; the other, a fear lest Elizabeth's envoy to the baptism -might decline to recognise him (_ne fera compte de luy_). The night-ride -from Dundas to Linlithgow, in which (according to Lennox) Darnley told the -tale of Mary's advice to him to seduce Lady Moray, must have occurred at -this very time, perhaps after the meeting with du Croc, three leagues from -Edinburgh. In his paper about the night-ride, Lennox avers that Mary -yielded to Bothwell's love, before this ride and conversation. But he does -not say that he himself was already aware of the amour, and his whole -narrative leaves the impression that he was not. We are to suppose that, -if Buchanan's account is true, the adventures of the Exchequer House and -of Lady Reres were only known to the world later. Certainly no suspicion -of Mary had crossed the mind of du Croc, who says that he never saw her so -much loved and respected; and, in short, there is no known contemporary -hint of the beginning of the guilty amour, flagrant as were its alleged -circumstances. This point has, naturally, been much insisted upon by the -defenders of Mary. - -It must not escape us that, about this time, almost every Lord, from Moray -downwards, was probably united in a signed 'band' against Darnley. The -precise nature of its stipulations is uncertain, but that a hostile band -existed, I think can be demonstrated. The Lords, in their letter of -October 8 to Catherine, declare that they will never consent to let -Darnley manage affairs. The evidence as to a band comes from four sources: -Randolph, Archibald Douglas, a cousin and ally of Morton, Claude Nau, -Mary's secretary, and Moray himself. - -First, on October 15, 1570, Randolph, being in Edinburgh after the death -of the Regent Moray, writes: 'Divers, since the Regent's death, either to -cover their own doings or to advance their cause, have sought to make him -odious to the world. The universal bruit runs upon three or four persons' -(Bothwell, Lethington, Balfour(?), Huntly, and Argyll) 'who subscribed -upon a bond promising to concur and assist one another in the late King's -death. This bond was kept in the Castle, in a little coffer covered with -green, and, after the apprehension of the Scottish Queen at Carberry Hill, -was taken out of the place where it lay by the Laird of Lethington, in -presence of Mr. James Balfour.... This being a thing so notoriously known, -as well by Mr. James Balfour's own report, as testimony of other who have -seen the thing, is utterly denied to be true, _and another bond produced -which they allege to be it, containing no such matter, at the which, with -divers other noblemen's hands, the Regent's was also made, a long time -before the bond of the King's murder was made_, and now they say that if -it can be proved by any bond that they consented to the King's death, the -late Regent is as guilty as they, and for testimony thereof (as Randolph -is credibly informed) have sent a bond to be seen in England, which is -either some new bond made among themselves, and the late Regent's hand -counterfeited at the same (which in some cases he knows has been done), or -the old bond at which his hand is, containing no such matter.' Randolph -adds, as an example of forgery of Moray's hand, the order for Lethington's -release by Kirkcaldy to whom Robert Melville attributed the forgery.[80] -Thus both sides could deal in charges of forging hands. - -But what is 'the old band,' _signed by Moray_ 'a long time before the bond -of the King's murder was made'? To this question we probably find a reply -in the long letter written by Archibald Douglas to Mary, in April, 1583, -when he (one of Darnley's murderers) was an exile, and was seeking, and -winning, Mary's favour. Douglas had fled to France after Riccio's murder, -but was allowed to return to Scotland, 'to deal with Earls Murray, Athol, -Bodvel, Arguile, and Secretary Ledington,' in the interests of a pardon -for Morton, Ruthven, and Lindsay. This must have been just after September -20, when the return of Lethington to favour occurred. But Murray, Atholl, -Bothwell, Argyll, and Lethington told Douglas that they had made a band, -with other noblemen, to this effect: that they 'were resolved to obey your -Majesty as their natural sovereign, _and have nothing to do with your -husband's command whatsoever_.' So the Lords also told Catherine de' -Medici. They wished to know, before interfering in Morton's favour, -whether he would also sign this anti-Darnley band, which Morton and his -accomplices did. Archibald Douglas then returned, with their signatures, -to Stirling, at the time of James's baptism, in mid December, 1566. Morton -and his friends were then pardoned on December 24.[81] This anti-Darnley -band, which does not allude to _murder_, must be that produced in 1570, -according to Randolph, by 'divers, since Moray's death, either to cover -their own doings, or to advance their own cause, seeking to make him -odious to the world.' We thus find Moray, and all the most powerful -nobles, banded against Darnley, some time between September and December -1566. - -Now, Claude Nau, inspired by Mary, attributes Darnley's murder to a band -'written by Alexander Hay, at that time one of the clerks of the Council, -and signed by the Earls of Moray, Huntly, Bothwell, and Morton, by -Lethington, James Balfour, and others.' Moray certainly did not sign the -murderous band kept in the green-covered coffer, nor, as he alleged at his -death, did Morton. But Nau seems to be confusing _that_ band with the band -of older date, to which, as Randolph admits, and as Archibald Douglas -insists, Moray, Morton, and others put their hands, Morton signing as late -as December 1566. - -Nau says: 'They protested that they were acting for the public good of the -realm, pretending that they were freeing the Queen from the bondage and -misery into which she had been reduced by the King's behaviour. They -promised to support each other, and to avouch that the act was done -justly, licitly, and lawfully by the leading men of the Council. They had -done it in defence of their lives, which would be in danger, they said, if -the King should get the upper hand and secure the government of the realm, -at which he was aiming.'[82] Randolph denies that there was any hint of -murder in the band signed by Moray. Archibald Douglas makes the gist of it -'that they would have nothing to do with your husband's command -whatsoever.' Nau speaks of 'the act,' but does not name murder explicitly -as part of the band. Almost certainly, then, there did exist, in autumn -1566, a band hostile to Darnley, and signed by Moray and Morton. It seems -highly probable that the old band, made long before the King's murder, and -of a character hostile to Darnley's influence, and menacing to him, is -that which Moray himself declares that he did sign, 'at the beginning of -October,' 1566. When Moray, in London, on January 19, 1569, was replying -to an account (the so-called 'Protestation of Argyll and Huntly') of the -conference at Craigmillar, in November 1566, he denied (what was not -alleged) that he signed any band _there_: at Craigmillar. 'This far the -subscriptioun of bandes be me is trew, that indeed I subscrivit ane band -with the Erlis of Huntlie, Ergile, and Boithvile in Edinburgh, at the -begynning of October the same yeir, 1566: quhilk was devisit in signe of -our reconciliatioun, in respect of the former grudgis and displesouris -that had been amang us. Whereunto I wes constreinit to mak promis, before -I culd be admittit to the Quenis presence or haif ony shew of hir -faveur....'[83] - -Now Moray had been admitted to Mary's presence two days after the death of -Riccio, before her flight to Dunbar. On April 25, 1566, Randolph writes -from Berwick to Cecil: 'Murray, Argyll, and Glencairn are come to Court. I -hear his (Moray's) credit shall be good. The Queen wills that all -controversies shall be taken up, in especial that between Murray and -Bothwell.'[84] On April 21, 1566, Moray, Argyll, Glencairn, and others -were received by Mary in the Castle, and a Proclamation was made to soothe -'the enmity that was betwixt the Earls of Huntly, Bothwell, and -Murray.'[85] Thenceforward, as we have proved in detail, Moray was -ostensibly in Mary's favour. Moray would have us believe that he only -obtained this grace by virtue of his promise to sign a band with Huntly, -Bothwell, and Argyll: the last had been on his own side in his rebellion. -But the band, he alleges, was not signed till October, 1566, though the -promise must have been given, at least his 'favour' with Mary was -obtained, in April. And Moray signed the band precisely at the moment when -Darnley was giving most notorious trouble, and had just been approached -and implored by Mary, the Council, and the French ambassador. That was the -moment when the Privy Council assured Catherine that they 'would never -consent' to Darnley's sovereignty. Why was that moment selected by Moray -to fulfil a promise more than four months old? Was the band not that -mentioned by Randolph, Archibald Douglas, and Nau, and therefore, in some -sense, an anti-Darnley band, not a mere 'sign of reconciliation'? The -inference appears legitimate, and this old band signed by Moray seems to -have been confused, by his enemies, with a later band for Darnley's -murder, which we may be sure that he never signed. He only 'looked through -his fingers.' - -On October 7, or 8, or 9, Mary left Edinburgh to hold a Border session at -Jedburgh. She appears to have been in Jedburgh by the 9th.[86] On October -7, Bothwell was severely wounded, in Liddesdale, by a Border thief. On -October 15, Mary rode to visit him at Hermitage.[87] Moray, says Sir John -Forster to Cecil (October 15), was with her, and other nobles. Yet -Buchanan says that she rode 'with such a company as no man of any honest -degree would have adventured his life and his goods among them.' Life, -indeed, was not safe with the nobles, but how Buchanan errs! Du Croc, -writing from Jedburgh on October 17, reports that Bothwell is out of -danger: 'the Queen is well pleased, his loss to her would have been -great.'[88] Buchanan's account of this affair is, that Mary heard at -Borthwick of Bothwell's wound, whereon 'she flingeth away like a mad -woman, by great journeys in post, in the sharp time of winter' (early -October!), 'first to Melrose, then to Jedburgh. There, though she heard -sure news of his life, yet her affection, impatient of delay, could not -temper itself; but needs she must bewray her outrageous lust, and in an -inconvenient time of the year, despising all incommodities of the way and -weather, and all dangers of thieves, she betook herself headlong to her -journey.' The 'Book of Articles' merely says that, after hearing of -Bothwell's wound, she 'took na kindly rest' till she saw him--a prolonged -_insomnia_. On returning to Jedburgh, she prepared for Bothwell's arrival, -and, when he was once brought thither, then perhaps by their excessive -indulgence in their passion, Buchanan avers, Mary nearly died. - -All this is false. Mary stayed at least five days in Jedburgh before she -rode to Hermitage, whither, says Nau, corroborated by Forster, Moray -accompanied her. She fell ill on October 17, a week before Bothwell's -arrival at Jedburgh. On October 25, she was despaired of, and some thought -she had passed away. Bothwell arrived, in a litter, about October 25. -Forster says October 15, wrongly. These were no fit circumstances for -'their old pastime,' which they took 'so openly, as they seemed to fear -nothing more than lest their wickedness should be unknown.' 'I never saw -her Majesty so much beloved, esteemed, and honoured,' du Croc had written -on October 17. - -[Illustration: House occupied by Queen Mary at Jedburgh. - -G. W. Wilson & Co. Aberdeen photo - -Walker & Cockerell. ph. sc.] - -Buchanan's tale is here so manifestly false, that it throws doubt on his -scandal about the Exchequer House. That Mary abhorred Darnley, and was -wretched, is certain. 'How to be free of him she sees no outgait,' writes -Lethington on October 24. He saw no chance of reconciliation.[89] That she -and Bothwell acted profligately together while he was ill at Hermitage, -and she almost dead at Jedburgh, is a grotesquely malevolent falsehood. -Darnley now visited Jedburgh: it is uncertain whether or not he delayed -his visit long after he knew of Mary's illness. Buchanan says that he was -received with cruel contempt.[90] In some pious remarks of hers when she -expected death, she only asks Heaven to 'mend' Darnley, whose misconduct -is the cause of her malady.[91] On November 20, Mary arrived at -Craigmillar Castle, hard by Edinburgh. Du Croc mentions her frequent -exclamation, 'I could wish to be dead,' and, from Darnley, and his own -observation, gathered that Darnley would never humble himself, while Mary -was full of suspicions when she saw him converse with any noble. For -disbelieving that reconciliation was possible du Croc had several reasons, -he says; he may have detected the passion for Bothwell, but makes no -allusion to that subject; and, when Darnley in December behaved sullenly, -his sympathy was with the Queen. In the 'Book of Articles' exhibited -against Mary in 1568, it is alleged that, at Kelso, on her return from -Jedburgh, she received a letter from Darnley, wept, told Lethington and -Moray that she could never have a happy day while united to her husband, -and spoke of suicide. Possibly Darnley wrote about his letter against her -to the Pope, and the Catholic Powers. But the anecdote is dubious. She -proceeded to Craigmillar Castle. - -Then came the famous conference at Craigmillar. Buchanan says (in the -'Detection') that, in presence of Moray, Huntly, Argyll, and Lethington, -she spoke of a divorce, on grounds of consanguinity, the Dispensation -'being conveyed away.' One of the party said that her son's legitimacy -would be imperilled. So far the 'Book of Articles' agrees with the -'Detection.' Not daring to 'disclose her purpose to make away her son' -(the 'Book of Articles' omits this), she determined to murder her husband, -and her son. A very different story is told in a document sent by Mary to -Huntly and Argyll, for their signatures, on January 5, 1569. This purports -to be a statement of what Huntly had told Bishop Lesley. He and Argyll -were asked to revise, omit, or add, as their recollection served, sign, -and return, the paper which was to be part of Mary's counter-accusations -against her accusers.[92] The document was intercepted, and was never seen -nor signed by Huntly and Argyll. The statement, whatever its value (it is -merely Lesley's recollection of remarks by Huntly), declares that Moray -and Lethington roused Argyll from bed, and suggested that, to induce Mary -to recall Morton (banished for Riccio's murder), it would be advisable to -oblige Mary by ridding her of Darnley. Huntly was next brought in, and, -last, Bothwell. They went to Mary's rooms, and proposed a divorce. She -objected that this would, or might, invalidate her son's legitimacy, and -proposed to retire to France. Lethington said that a way would be found, -and that Moray would 'look through his fingers.' Mary replied that nothing -must be done which would stain her honour and conscience. Lethington -answered that, if they were allowed to guide the matter, 'Your Grace shall -see nothing but good, and approved by Parliament.' - -Though Huntly and Argyll never saw this piece, they signed, in September, -1568, another, to like purpose. Starting from the same point, the desire -to win Morton's pardon, they say that they promised to secure a divorce, -either because the dispensation for Mary's marriage was not published -(conceivably the marriage occurred before the dispensation was granted) or -for adultery: or to bring a charge of treason against Darnley, 'or quhat -other wayis to dispeche him; quhilk altogidder hir Grace refusit, as is -manifestlie knawin.'[93] It is plain, therefore, that Huntly and Argyll -would have made no difficulty about signing the Protestation which never -reached them. - -While Buchanan's tale yields no reason for Mary's consent to pardon the -Riccio murderers (whom of all men she loathed), Huntly and Argyll supply a -partial explanation. In Buchanan's History, it is casually mentioned, -later, that Mary wished to involve Moray and Morton in the guilt of -Darnley's murder. But how had Morton returned to Scotland? Of _that_, not -a word.[94] In truth, both French and English influence had been used; -Bothwell, acting 'like a very friend,' says Bedford, and others had openly -added their intercessions. James's baptism was an occasion for an amnesty, -and this was granted on Christmas Eve. The pardon might well have been -given, even had no divorce or murder of Darnley been intended, but the -step was most threatening to Darnley's safety, as the exiles hated him -with a deadly hatred. On the whole, taking the unsigned 'Protestation' of -Huntly and Argyll with the document which they did sign, it seems -probable, or certain, that a conference as to getting rid of Darnley, in -some way, was held at Craigmillar, where Moray certainly was. - -Moray, in London, was shown the intercepted 'Protestation,' and denied -that anything was said, at Craigmillar, in his hearing 'tending to ony -unlawfull or dishonourable end.'[95] But, if the Protestation can be -trusted, nothing positively unlawful was proposed. Lethington promised -'nothing but good, and approved by Parliament.' Moray also denied having -signed a 'band,' except that of October 1566, but about a 'band' the -Protestation says nothing. Moray _may_ have referred to what (according to -the 'Diurnal,' pp. 127, 128) Hay of Talla said at his execution (January -3, 1568). He had seen a 'band' signed by Bothwell, Huntly, Argyll, -Lethington, and Sir James Balfour. The first four, at least, were at -Craigmillar. Buchanan, in the 'Detection,' gives Hay's confession, but not -this part of it. Much later, on December 13, 1573, Ormistoun confessed -that, about Easter, after the murder, Bothwell tried to reassure him by -showing him a 'contract subscryvit be four or fyve handwrittes, quhilk he -affirmit to me was the subscription of the erle of Huntlie, Argyll, the -Secretar Maitland, and Sir James Balfour.' The contract or band stated -that Darnley must be got rid off 'by ane way or uther,' and that all who -signed should defend any who did the deed. It was subscribed a quarter of -a year before the murder, that is, taking the phrase widely, after the -Craigmillar conference.[96] - -What did Lethington mean, at Craigmillar, by speaking of a method of -dealing with Darnley which Parliament would approve? He may have meant to -arrest him, for treason, and kill him if he resisted. That this was -contemplated, at Craigmillar, we proceed to adduce the evidence of Lennox. - -This hitherto unknown testimony exists, in inconsistent forms, among the -several indictments which Lennox, between July and December, 1568, drew up -to show to the English Commissioners who, at York and Westminster, -examined the charges against Mary. In the evidence which we have hitherto -seen, the plans of Mary's Council at Craigmillar are left vague, and -Mary's objections, as described by Huntly and Argyll, are spoken of as -final. Mention is made of only one conference, without any sequel. But -Lennox asserts that there was at least one other meeting, at Craigmillar, -between Mary and her advisers. His information is obviously vague, but he -first makes the following assertions. - -'In this mean time' (namely in December 1566, when the Court was at -Stirling for James's baptism), 'his father, being advertised ['credibly -informed'][97] that at Craigmillar the Queen and certain of her Council -_had concluded_ upon an enterprise to the great peril and danger of his -['Majesty's'] person, which was that he should have been _apprehended and -put in ward_, which rested' (was postponed) 'but only on the finishing of -the christening and the departure of the said ambassadors, which thing -being not a little grievous unto his father's heart, did give him warning -thereof; whereupon he, by the advice of sundry that loved him, departed -from her shortly after the christening, and came to his father to Glasgow, -being fully resolved with himself to have taken ship shortly after, and to -have passed beyond the seas, but that sickness prevented him, which was -the cause of his stay.' - -In this version, Lennox is warned, by whom he does not say, of a plan, -formed at Craigmillar, to arrest Darnley. The plan is not refused by the -Queen, but is 'concluded upon,' yet postponed till the christening -festivities are over. _Nothing is said about the design to kill Darnley if -he resists._ The scheme is communicated to Darnley by Lennox himself. - -Next comes what seems to be the second of Lennox's attempts at producing a -'discourse.' This can be dated. It ends with the remark that, after -Langside fight, Mary spoke with Ormistoun and Hob Ormistoun, 'who were of -the chiefest murderers of the King, her husband.' These men now live with -the Laird of Whithaugh, in Liddesdale, 'who keepeth in his house a -prisoner, one Andrew Carre, of Fawdonside, by her commandment.' This was -Andrew Ker of Faldonside, the most brutal of the murderers of Riccio. Now -on October 4, 1568, in a list of 'offences committed by the Queen's -party,' a list perhaps in John Wood's hand, we read that Whithaugh, and -other Elliots, 'took ane honest and trew gentleman, Ker of Faldonside, and -keep him prisoner by Mary's command;' while Whithaugh cherishes the two -Ormistouns.[98] This discourse of Lennox, then, is of, or about, October -4, 1568, and was prepared for the York Conference to inquire into Mary's -case, where it was not delivered. - -He says: 'How she used him (Darnley) at Craigmillar, my said Lord Regent -(Moray), who was there present, can witness. One thing I am constrainit to -declare, which came to my knowledge by credible persons, which was that -certain of her familiar and privy counsellors, of her faction and -Bothwell's, should present her a letter at that house, subscribed with -their hands, the effect of which letter was to apprehend the King my son's -person, and to put him in ward, and, _if he happened to resist them, to -kill him_: she answered that the ambassadors were come,[99] and the -christening drew near, so that the time would not then serve well for that -purpose, till the triumph was done, and the ambassadors departed to their -country.... Also I, being at Glasgow about the same time, and having -intelligence of the foresaid device for his apprehension at Craigmillar, -did give him warning thereof;' consequently, as he was also ill-treated at -Stirling, Darnley went to Glasgow, 'where he was not long till he fell -sick.' Lennox here adds the plot to kill Darnley if he resisted arrest. -His reference to certain of Mary's Privy Council, who laid the plot, -cannot have been grateful to Lethington, who was at York, where Lennox -meant to deliver his speech. - -The final form taken by Lennox's account of what occurred at Craigmillar -looks as if it were a Scots draft for the 'Brief Discourse' which he -actually put in, in English, at Westminster, on November 29, 1568. He -addresses Norfolk and the rest in his opening sentences. The Privy Council -who made the plot are they '_of thay dayis_,' which included Moray, -Argyll, Huntly, Lethington, and Bothwell. These Lords, or some of them, -either subscribe 'a lettre' of warrant for Darnley's capture alive or -dead, or ask Mary to sign one; Lennox is not certain which view is -correct. She answered that they must delay till the ambassadors departed. -'But seeing in the mean time this purpose divulgate,' she arrested the -'reportaris,' namely Hiegait, Walker, the Laird of Minto (we do not -elsewhere learn that he was examined), and Alexander Cauldwell. Perceiving -'that the truth was like to come to light, she left off further -inquisition.' - -This version does not state that Lennox, or any one else, revealed the -Craigmillar plot for his arrest to Darnley. It later describes a quarrel -of his with Mary at Stirling, and adds, 'Being thus handled, at the end of -the christening he came to me to Glasgow.' This tale of a plot to arrest, -and, if he resisted, to kill Darnley, corresponds with Paris's statement -that Bothwell told him, 'We were much inclined to do it lately, when we -were at Craigmillar.' - -This evidence of Lennox, then, avers that, after the known conference at -Craigmillar, which Lethington ended by saying that 'you shall see nothing -but good, and approved of by Parliament,' there was another conference. On -this second occasion some of the Privy Council suggested the arrest of -Darnley, who, perhaps, was to be slain if he resisted. Parliament might -approve of this measure, for there were reasons for charging Darnley with -high treason. Mary, says Lennox, accepted the scheme, but postponed it -till after the Baptism. Within two or three weeks Lennox heard of the -plan, and gave Darnley warning. But Lennox's three versions are hesitating -and inconsistent: nor does he cite his authority for the conspiracy to -kill Darnley. - - - - -V - -_BETWEEN THE BAPTISM AND THE MURDER_ - - -Mary passed from Craigmillar and Edinburgh to the baptism of her son James -at Stirling. The 17th December, 1566, was the crowning triumph of her -life, and the last. To the cradle came the Ambassadors of France and -England bearing gifts: Elizabeth, the child's godmother, sent a font of -enamelled gold. There were pageants and triumphs, fireworks, festivals, -and the chanting of George Buchanan's Latin elegiacs on Mary, the _Nympha -Caledoniae_, with her crowns of Virtue and of Royalty. Above all, Mary had -won, or taken, permission to baptize the child by the Catholic rite, and -Scotland saw, for the last time, the ecclesiastics in their splendid -vestments. Mary busied herself with hospitable kindnesses, a charming -hostess in that dark hold where her remote ancestor had dirked his guest -between the table and the hearth. But there was a strange gap in the -throng of nobles. The child's father, though in the Castle, did not attend -the baptism, was not among the guests, while the grandfather, Lennox, -remained apart at his castle in Glasgow. - -According to du Croc, who was at Stirling, Darnley announced his intention -to depart, two days before the christening, but remained and sulked. - -A month before the ceremony, du Croc had expected Darnley to sulk and stay -away. At Stirling he declined to meet Darnley, so bad had his conduct -been, and said that, if Darnley entered by one door of his house, he would -go out by the other. It has been averred by Camden, writing in the reign -and under the influence of James I., when King of England, that the -English ambassador, Bedford, warned his suite not to acknowledge Darnley -as King, and punished one of them, who, having known him in England, -saluted him. Nau says that Darnley refused to associate with the English, -unless they would acknowledge his title of King, and to do this they had -been forbidden by the Queen of England, their mistress,[100] who knew that -Darnley kept up a more or less treasonable set of intrigues with the -English Catholics.[101] Bedford, a sturdy Protestant, could not be a -_persona grata_ to Darnley: and, as to Darnley's kingship, his own father, -in 1568, rather represented him as an English subject. On the other side -we have only the evidence of Sir James Melville, gossiping long after the -event, to the effect that Bedford, when leaving Stirling, charged him with -a message to Mary. He bade her 'entertain Darnley as she had done at the -beginning, for her own honour and advancement of her affairs,' which -warning Melville repeated to her.[102] But there was an awkwardness as -between 'the King' and the English, nor do we hear that Bedford made any -advance to Darnley, whose natural sulkiness is vouched for by all -witnesses. - -As to what occurred at Stirling in regard to Darnley's ill-treatment, the -Lennox MSS. are copious. Mary, 'after an amiable and gentle manner,' -induced him to go to Stirling before her, without seeing the ambassadors. -At Stirling, 'she feigned to be in a great choler against the King's -tailors, that had not made such apparel as she had devised for him against -the triumph.' Darnley, to please her, kept out of the way of the -ambassadors. She dismissed his guards, Lennox sent men of his own, and -this caused a quarrel.[103] Darnley flushed with anger, and Mary said, 'If -he were a little daggered, and had bled as much as my Lord Bothwell had -lately done, it would make him look the fairer.' This anecdote (about -which, in June 1568, while getting up his case, Lennox made inquiries in -Scotland) is given both in English and Scots, in different versions. The -'Book of Articles' avers that Bothwell himself was in fear, and was -strongly guarded. - -While all at Stirling seemed gay, while Mary played the hostess admirably, -du Croc found her once weeping and in pain, and warned his Government -that 'she would give them trouble yet' (December 23).[104] Mary had causes -for anxiety of which du Croc was not aware. Strange rumours filled Court -and town. A man named Walker, a retainer of her ambassador at Paris, -Archbishop Beaton, reported that the Town Clerk of Glasgow, William -Hiegait, was circulating a tale to the effect that Darnley meant to seize -the child prince, crown him, and rule in his name. Now for months Darnley -had been full of mad projects; to seize Scarborough, to seize the Scilly -Islands, and the scheme for kidnapping James had precedents enough. - -Darnley was in frequent communication with the discontented Catholics of -the North and West of England, and his retainers, the Standens, were young -men yearning for adventures. 'Knowing I am an offender of the laws, they -professed great friendship,' wrote William Rogers to Cecil, with some -humour.[105] - -A rumour of some attempt against Mary reached Archbishop Beaton, in Paris, -at the end of 1566, through the Spanish Ambassador there, who may have -heard of it from the Spanish Ambassador in London, with whom the English -Catholics were perpetually intriguing. There is a good deal of evidence -that Darnley had been complaining of Mary to the Pope and the Catholic -Powers, as insufficiently zealous for the Church. Darnley, not Mary, was -the Scottish royal person on whom the Church ought to rely,[106] and Mary, -says Knox's continuator, saw his letters, by treachery. Consumed with -anger at his degraded position, so unlike the royalty for which he -hungered, and addicted to day dreams about descents on Western England, -and similar wild projects, Darnley may possibly, at this time, have -communicated to the English Catholics a project for restoring himself to -power by carrying off and crowning his child. This fantasy would drift -through the secret channels of Catholic diplomacy to the Spanish -Ambassador in Paris, who gave Beaton a hint, but declined to be explicit. -Mary thanked Beaton for his warning, from Seton, on February 18, nine days -after Darnley's death.[107] 'But alas! it came too late.' Mary added that -the Spanish ambassador in London had also given her warning. - -There may, then, have been this amount of foundation for the report which, -according to Walker, at Stirling, Hiegait was circulating about -mid-December 1566. Stirling was then full of 'honest men of the Lennox,' -sent thither by Lennox himself (as he says in one of his manuscript -discourses), because Darnley's usual guard had been withdrawn. Mary -objected to the presence of so many of Lennox's retainers, and there arose -that furious quarrel between her and her husband. Possibly Mary, having -heard Walker's story of Darnley's project, thought that his Lennox men -were intended to bear a hand in it. - -In any case Walker filled Mary's ears, at Stirling--as she wrote to -Archbishop Beaton, her ambassador in France, on January 20, 1567--with -rumours of 'utheris attemptatis and purposis tending to this fyne.' He -named Hiegait 'for his chief author,' 'quha,' he said, 'had communicat the -mater to hym, as apperyt, of mynd to gratify us; sayand to Walcar, "gif I -had the moyen and crydet with the Quenis Majestie that ze have, I wald not -omitt to mak hir previe of sic purpossis and bruitis that passes in the -cuntrie."' Hiegait also said that Darnley could not endure some of the -Lords, but that he or they must leave the country. Mary then sent for -Hiegait, before the Council, and questioned _him_. He (probably in fear of -Lennox) denied that he had told Walker the story of Darnley's project, but -he had heard, from Cauldwell, a retainer of Eglintoun's, that Darnley -himself was to be 'put in ward.' Eglintoun, 'a rank Papist,' was described -by Randolph as never a trustworthy Lennoxite, 'never good Levenax.' His -retainer, Cauldwell, being summoned, expressly denied that he ever told -the rumour about the idea of imprisoning Darnley, to Hiegait. But Hiegait -informed the Laird of Minto (a Stewart and a Lennoxite), who again told -Lennox, who told Darnley, by whose desire Cauldwell again spoke to -Hiegait. The trail of the gossip runs from Cauldwell (the estate of that -name is in Eglintoun's country, Ayrshire) to Hiegait, from him to Stewart -of Minto, from him to Lennox, and from Lennox to Darnley. Possibly -Eglintoun (the cautious Lord who slipped away when Ainslie's band was -being signed, and hid under straw, after the battle of Langside) was the -original source of the rumour of Darnley's intended arrest. This is a mere -guess. If there was a very secret plot, at Craigmillar, to arrest Darnley, -we cannot tell how it reached Hiegait. Mary 'found no manner of -concordance' in their answers, and she rebuked Walker and Hiegait in her -own name, and that of their master, Beaton himself.[108] These men, with -Minto, were allied with Lennox, and one of them may have been his -authority for the story of the second Craigmillar conference. - -We now see why it was that, in the height of her final triumph, the -christening festival at Stirling Mary wept and was ill at ease. Her -husband's conduct was intolerable: now he threatened to leave before the -ceremony, next he stayed on, a dismal figure behind the scenes. His guard -of Lennox men might aim at slaying Bothwell, or Mary might think, on -Walker's evidence, that they intended to kidnap her child. Worse followed, -when she and her Council examined Walker. Out came the tale of Hiegait, -and Queen and Council, if they had really plotted to arrest Darnley, knew -that their scheme was discovered and was abortive. Finally, on December -24, either in consequence of Lennox's warning, or because Morton, Lindsay, -and the other Riccio conspirators whom he betrayed were pardoned, Darnley -rode off to his father at Glasgow. There he fell ill, soon after his -arrival, but Lennox's MSS. never hint that he was poisoned at Stirling (as -Buchanan declares), or that he fell sick when he had ridden but a mile -from the town. That they deny. - -After Darnley's departure, Moray, with Bedford, the English Ambassador, -went to St. Andrews, and other places in Fife. Till January 2, 1567, when -she returned to Stirling, Mary was at Drummond Castle, and at -Tullibardine, where, says Buchanan, she and Bothwell made love in corners -'so that all were highly offended.' After January 13, she visited Calendar -House, and then went to Holyrood. - -It is said that she never wrote to Darnley till after January 14, when she -took her child to Edinburgh, with the worst purposes, Buchanan declares. -Then she wrote to Darnley, the Lennox Papers inform us, excusing herself, -and offering to visit him in his sickness at Glasgow. Darnley told her -messenger verbally, say the Lennox MSS., that the Queen must judge herself -as to the visit to him. 'But this much ye shall declare unto her, that I -wish Stirling to be Jedburgh, and Glasgow to be the Hermitage, and I the -Earl of Bothwell as I lie here, and then I doubt not but she would be -quickly with me undesired.' This was a tactless verbal message, and, if -given, must have proved to Mary that Darnley suspected her amour. -Moreover, this Lennoxian story, that Mary offered the visit, and that -Darnley replied with reserve, and with an insult to be verbally delivered, -agrees ill with what is said in the deposition (December, 1568) of -Lennox's retainer, Thomas Crawford. According to Crawford, 'after theire -metinge and shorte spekinge together she asked hym of hys lettres, wherein -he complained of the crueletye of som.' 'He answered that he complained -not without cause....' 'Ye asked me what I ment bye the crueltye specified -in my lettres, yt procedeth of you onelye that wille not accept mye -_offres_ and repentance.' Now, in the Lennox Papers this 'innocent lamb' -has nothing to repent of, and has made no offers. These came from Mary's -side.[109] - -The Lennox account goes on to say that later Mary sent 'very loving -messages and letters unto him to drive all suspicions out of his mind,' a -passage copied by Buchanan in his History. Darnley, therefore, after -Mary's visit to Glasgow, returned with her to Edinburgh, 'contrary to his -father's will and consent.' Lennox, however, here emphatically denies that -either he or Darnley suspected any murderous design on the part of the -Queen. Yet, in Letter II., she is made to say that he 'fearit his liff,' -as the passage is quoted in the 'Book of Articles.'[110] As to the story -that Darnley's illness at Glasgow was caused by poison; poison, of course, -was suspected, but, if the Casket Letters are genuine, Mary therein calls -him 'this pocky man,' and Bedford says that he had small-pox: a disease -from which Mary had suffered in early life.[111] He also reports that Mary -sent to Darnley her own physician, though Buchanan says 'All this while -the Queen would not suffer so much as a physician to come at him.' In the -'Book of Articles' she refuses to send her apothecary. Bedford never hints -at scandalous doings of Mary and Bothwell at Stirling. - -On January 20, from Edinburgh, Mary wrote that letter to Archbishop Beaton -in Paris, as to the Hiegait and Walker affair, which we have already -cited. She also expressed her desire that her son should receive the -titular captaincy of the Scots Guard in France, though, according to -Buchanan, she determined at Craigmillar to 'make away with' her child. -Nothing in Mary's letter of January 20, to Beaton, hints at her desire of -a reconciliation with Darnley. Yet, on or about the very day when she -wrote it, she set forth towards Glasgow. - -The date was January 20, as given by the Diary of Birrel, and in the -'Diurnal.' The undesigned coincidence of diaries kept by two Edinburgh -citizens is fairly good evidence.[112] Drury makes her arrive at Glasgow -on January 22. What occurred between Mary and her husband at Glasgow is -said to be revealed in two of her Casket Letters written to Bothwell. -Their evidence, and authenticity, are to be discussed later: other -evidence to the point we have none, and can only say, here, that, at the -end of January, Mary brought Darnley, his face covered with taffeta, to -the house of Kirk o' Field, just beside the wall of Edinburgh, where the -University buildings now stand. - -Here he was in an insecure and dangerous house, close to a palace of his -feudal foes, the Hamiltons. The Lennox MSS. declare that 'the place was -already prepared with [undermining and] trains of powder therein.'[113] We -return to this point, which was later abandoned by the prosecution. - -Darnley, say the Lennox MSS., wished to occupy the Hamilton House, near -Kirk o' Field, but Mary persuaded him that 'there passed a privy way [to] -between the palace and it,' Kirk o' Field, 'which she could take without -going through the streets.' The Lennox author adds that, on the night of -the murder, Bothwell and his gang 'came the secret way which she herself -was wont to come to the King her husband.' The story of the secret way -recurs in Lennox MSS., and, of course, is nonsense, and was dropped. There -was no subterranean passage from Holyrood to Kirk o' Field. Bothwell and -the murderers, in their attack on the Kirk o' Field, had no such -convenience for the carriage of themselves and their gunpowder. It is -strange that Lennox and his agents, having access to several of the -servants of Darnley, including Nelson who survived the explosion, accepted -at one time, or expected others to accept, this legend of a secret -passage. Edinburgh tradition holds that there was such a tunnel between -Holyrood and the Castle, which may be the basis of this fairy-tale. - -The tale of the secret passage, then, is told, in the Lennox MSS., as the -excuse given by Mary to Darnley for lodging him in Kirk o' Field, not in -the neighbouring house of the Hamiltons. But, in the 'Book of Articles,' -we read that the Archbishop of St. Andrews was then living in the Hamilton -House 'onely to debar the King fra it.' The fable of the secret way, -therefore, was dropped in the final version prepared by the accusers. - -Mary, whether she wrote the Casket Letters or not, was, demonstrably, -aware that there was a plot against Darnley, before she brought him to a -house accessible to his enemies. It is certain that, hating and desiring -to be delivered from Darnley, she winked at a conspiracy of which she was -conscious, and let events take their course. This was, to all appearance, -the policy of her brother James, 'the Good Regent Moray;' and one of -Mary's apologists, Sir John Skelton, is inclined to hold that this _was_ -Mary's attitude. He states the hypothesis thus: 'that Mary was not -entirely unaware of the measures which were being taken by the nobility to -secure in one way or other the removal of Darnley; that, if she did not -expressly sanction the enterprise, she failed, firmly and promptly, to -forbid its execution.' Hence she was in 'an equivocal position,' could not -act with firmness and dignity, and in accepting Bothwell could not be -accounted a free agent, yielded to force, and, with a heavy heart, -'submitted to the inevitable.'[114] - -[Illustration: THE OLD TOWER, WHITTINGHAM] - -That Mary knew of the existence of a plot is proved by a letter to her -from Morton's cousin, Archibald Douglas, whose character and career are -described in the second chapter, 'Minor Characters.' In a letter of 1583, -written by Douglas to win (as he did win) favour and support from Mary, -during his exile in England, he says that, in January, 1567, about the -18th or 19th, Bothwell and Lethington visited Morton at Whittingham, his -own brother's place, now the seat of Mr. A. J. Balfour. The fact of the -visit is corroborated by Drury's contemporary letter of January 23, -1567.[115] After they had conferred together, Morton sent Archibald -Douglas with Bothwell and Lethington to Edinburgh, to learn what answer -Mary would make to a proposal of a nature unknown to Archibald, so he -says. 'Which' (answer) 'being given to me by the said persons, as God -shall be my judge, was no other than these words, "Schaw to the Earl -Morton that the Queen will hear no speech of the matter appointed to -him,"' _i.e._ arranged with him. Now Morton's confession, made before his -execution, was to the effect that Bothwell, at Whittingham, asked him to -join the conspiracy to kill Darnley, but that he refused, unless Bothwell -could procure for him a written warrant from the Queen. Obviously it was -to get this warrant that Archibald Douglas accompanied Lethington and -Bothwell to Edinburgh. But Bothwell and Lethington (manifestly after -consulting Mary) told Douglas that 'the Queen will hear no speech of that -matter.' Douglas, though an infamous ruffian, could not have reported to -Mary, when attempting, successfully, to win her favour, a compromising -fact which she, alone of living people, must have known to be false. Mary -was not offended.[116] Taking, then, Morton's statement that he asked -Bothwell, at Whittingham, for Mary's warrant, with Douglas's statement to -Mary herself, that he accompanied Lethington and Bothwell from Whittingham -to Edinburgh, and was informed by them that the Queen 'would hear no -speech of the matter,' we cannot but believe that 'the matter' was mooted -to her. Therefore, in January, 1567, she was well aware that -_something_ was intended against Darnley by Bothwell, Lethington, and -others.[117] - -[Illustration: THE WHITTINGHAM TREE - -(_After a Drawing by Richard Doyle_)] - -Yet her next step was to seek Darnley in Glasgow, where he was safe among -the retainers of Lennox, and thence to bring him back to Edinburgh, where -his deadly foes awaited him. - -Now this act of Mary's cannot be regarded as merely indiscreet, or as a -half-measure, or as a measure of passive acquiescence. Had she not brought -Darnley from Glasgow to Edinburgh, under a semblance of a cordial -reconciliation, he might, in one way or another, have escaped from his -enemies. The one measure which made his destruction certain was the -measure that Mary executed, though she was well aware that a conspiracy -had been framed against the unhappy lad. Even if he wished to come to -Edinburgh, uninvited by her, she ought to have refused to bring him. - -We can only escape from these conclusions by supposing that Archibald -Douglas, destitute and in exile, hoped to enter into Mary's good graces by -telling her what she well knew to be a lie; namely that Bothwell and her -Secretary had declared that she would not hear of the matter proposed to -her. Douglas tells us even more. While seeking to conciliate Mary, in his -letter already cited, he speaks of 'the evil disposed minds of the most -part of your nobility against your said husband ... which I am assured was -sufficiently known to himself, _and to all that had judgment never so -little in that realm_.' Mary had judgment enough, and, according to the -signed declaration of her friends, Huntly and Argyll (Sept. 12, 1568), -knew that the scheme was, either to divorce Darnley, or convict him of -treason, 'or in what other ways to _dispatch him_.' These means, say -Huntly and Argyll, she 'altogether refused.' Yet she brought Darnley to -Kirk o' Field! - -Shall we argue that, pitying his illness, and returning to her old love, -she deemed him safest in her society? In that case she might have carried -him from Glasgow to Dumbarton Castle, or dwelt with him in the hold where -she gave birth to James VI.--in Edinburgh Castle. But she brought him to -an insecure house, among his known foes. - -Mary's conduct towards Darnley, after Craigmillar, and before his murder, -and her behaviour later as regards Bothwell, are always capable of being -covered by one or other special and specious excuse. On this occasion she -brings Darnley to Edinburgh that a tender mother may be near her child; -that a loving wife may attend a repentant husband, who cannot be so safe -anywhere as under the aegis of her royal presence. In each and every case -there is a special, and not an incredible explanation. But one cause, if -it existed, would explain every item of her conduct throughout, from -Craigmillar to Kirk o' Field: she hated Darnley. On the hypothesis of her -innocence, and accepting the special pleas for each act, Mary was a weak, -ailing, timid, and silly woman, with 'a heart of wax.' On the -hypothesis of her guilt, though ailing, worn, wretched, she had 'a heart -of diamond,' strong to scheme and act a Clytaemnestra's part, even _contre -son naturel_. The _naturel_ of Clytaemnestra, too, was good, says Zeus in -the Odyssey. But in her case, 'Love was a great master.' - -[Illustration: THE WHITTINGHAM TREE - -(_External view_)] - -Still, we have seen no contemporary evidence, or hint of evidence, that -love for Bothwell was Mary's master. Her conduct, from her recovery of -power, after Riccio's murder, to her reconciliation of Lethington with -Bothwell, is, on the face of it, in accordance with the interests and -wishes of her brother, Moray, who hated Bothwell. As the English envoy, -Randolph, had desired, she brought Moray to Court. She permitted him to -attend in the Castle while she was in child-bed, and 'refused Bothwell.' -She protected Moray from Bothwell's and Darnley's intrigues. She took -Moray's side, as to the readmission of Lethington to favour, though -Bothwell stormed. She even made Moray her confidant as to money received -from the Pope: perhaps Moray had his share! Lethington and Moray, not -Bothwell, seem to have had her confidence. At Moray's request she annulled -her restoration of consistorial jurisdiction to Archbishop Hamilton. Moray -and Lethington, not Bothwell, opened the proposals at Craigmillar. Such is -the evidence of history. On the other side are the scandals reported by -Buchanan, and, in details, Buchanan erred: for example, as to the ride to -Hermitage. - -If Mary knew too much, how much was known by 'the noble, stainless Moray'? - -As to Moray's foreknowledge of Darnley's murder, can it be denied? He did -not deny that he was at Craigmillar during the conference as to -'dispatching' Darnley. If the news of the plan for arresting or killing -him reached underlings like Hiegait and Walker, could it be hidden from -Moray, the man most in Mary's confidence, and likely to be best served by -spies? He glosses over his signature to the band of early October, -1566--the anti-Darnley band--as if it were a mere 'sign of reconciliation' -which he promised to subscribe 'before I could be admitted to the Queen's -presence, or have any show of her favour.' But, when he did sign, he had -possessed Mary's favour for more than three months, and she had even saved -him from a joint intrigue of Bothwell and Darnley. In January, 1569, Moray -declared that, except the band of early October, 1566, 'no other band was -proposed to me in any wise,' either before or after Darnley's murder. And -next he says that he would never subscribe any band, 'howbeit I was -earnestly urged and pressed thereto by the Queen's commandment.'[118] Does -he mean that no band was proposed to him, and yet that the Queen did press -him to sign a band? Or does he mean that he would never have signed, even -if the Queen had asked him to do so? We can never see this man's face; the -fingers through which he looks on at murder hide his shifty eyes. - - - - -VI - -_THE MURDER OF DARNLEY_ - - -It is not easy for those who know modern Edinburgh to make a mental -picture of the Kirk o' Field. To the site of that unhappy dwelling the -Professors now daily march, walking up beneath the frowning Castle, from -modern miles of stone and mortar which were green fields in Mary's day. -The students congregate from every side, the omnibuses and cabs roll by -through smoky, crowded, and rather uninteresting streets of shops: the -solid murky buildings of the University look down on a thronged and busy -populace which at every step treads on history, as Cicero says men do at -Athens. On every side are houses neither new enough to seem clean, nor old -enough to be interesting: there is not within view a patch of grass, a -garden, or a green tree. The University buildings cover the site of Kirk -o' Field, but the ghosts of those who perished there would be sadly at a -loss could they return to the scene. - -In Mary's time whoever stood on the grassy crest of the Calton Hill, -gazing on Edinburgh, beheld, as he still does, Holyrood at his feet, and, -crowning the highest point of the central part of the town, the tall -square tower of the church of St. Mary in the Fields, on the limit of the -landscape. In going, as Mary often went, from Holyrood to Kirk o' Field, -you walked straight out of the palace, and up the Canongate, through -streets of Court suburb, with gardens behind the houses. You then reached -the gate of the town wall, called the Nether Port, and entered the street -of the Nether Bow, which was a continuation of the High Street. By any one -of the lanes, or wynds, which cut the Nether Bow at right angles on the -left, you reached the Cowgate (the street of palaces, as Alesius, the -Reformer, calls it), running from the Castle parallel to the High Street -and its continuation, the Nether Bow. From the Cowgate, you struck into -one or other of the wynds which led to the grounds of what were, in Mary's -time, the ruined church and houses of the Dominican monastery, or Black -Friars, and to Kirk o' Field. - -Beyond this, all is very difficult to explain and understand. The church -of Kirk o' Field, and the quadrangle of houses tenanted, just as in Oxford -or Cambridge, by the Prebendaries and Provost of that collegiate church, -lay, at an early date, _outside_ of the walls of Edinburgh. This is proved -by the very name of the collegiate church, 'St. Mary in the Fields.' But -by 1531, a royal charter speaks of 'the College Church of the Blessed -Virgin Mary in the Fields, _within the walls_ of the burgh of Edinburgh,' -the city wall having been recently extended in that direction.[119] The -monastery of the Black Friars, close to Kirk o' Field, was also included, -by 1531, within the walls of the burgh. But the town wall which encircled -Kirk o' Field and the Black Friars on the south, was always in a ruinous -condition. In 1541, we find the Town Council demanding that 'ane honest -substantious wall' shall be made in another quarter.[120] In 1554, the -Provost and Prebendaries of Kirk o' Field granted part of their grounds to -the Duke of Chatelherault, because their own houses had been 'burned down -and destroyed by their auld enemies of England,' in the invasions of -1544-1547.[121] In 1544-1547, the town wall encircling Kirk o' Field on -the south must also have been partially ruined. Chatelherault built on the -ground thus acquired, quite close to Kirk o' Field, a large new house or -chateau from which, according to George Buchanan, Archbishop Hamilton sent -forth ruffians to aid in Darnley's murder. - -By 1557, we find that the town wall, at the point where it encircled the -Black Friars, in the vicinity of Kirk o' Field, was 'fallen down,' and was -to be 'reedified and mended.'[122] By August, 1559, the Town Council -protest against a common passage through the 'slap,' or 'slop,' the broken -gap, in the Black Friars 'yard dyke' (garden wall) 'at the east end of the -block-house.' This gap, therefore, is to be built up again, 'conform in -work to the town wall next adjacent,' but it appears that this was never -done. When Bothwell went to the murder, he got into the Black Friars -grounds, whence he made his way into Darnley's garden, either by climbing -through a 'slap' or gap in the wall, or by sending an accomplice through, -who opened the Black Friars gate. This ruinous condition of the town wall -was partly due to the habitual negligence of the citizens: partly to the -destruction which fell, in 1559-1560, on the religious houses and -collegiate churches. So, in February, 1560, we find the town treasurer -ordered to pull down the walls of the Black Friars, and use the stones to -'build the town walls therewith.'[123] On August 11, 1564, we again hear -of repairing slaps, or gaps, 'and in especial _the new wall at the -college_, so that no part thereof be climable.' The college may be Kirk o' -Field, where the burgesses already desired to build a college, the parent -of Edinburgh University. On the day after Darnley's murder (Feb. 11, 1567) -the treasurer was ordered 'to take away the hewen work of the back door of -the Provost's lodging of the Kirk o' Field, and to build up the same door -with lime and sand.' Conceivably this 'back door,' now to be built up and -closed, was that door in Darnley's house which opened through the town -wall. Finally, on May 7, 1567, the Treasurer was bidden 'to build _the -wall of the town decayed and fallen down on the south side_ of the Provost -of the Kirk o' Field's lodging, to be built up of lime and stone, -conform to the height and thickness of the _new wall_ elsewhere [ellis] -builded, and to pass lineally with the same to the wall of the church yard -of the said church, and to leave no door nor entry in the said new -wall.'[124] - -[Illustration: KIRK O' FIELD SITE IN 1646 - -25 is the Town Wall. _w_ indicates the University, including Hamilton -House - -_y_ indicates a rectangular ruin, Darnley's house (?)] - -All these facts prove that the old wall which enclosed Kirk o' Field and -the Black Friars on the south had fallen into disrepair, and that new -walls had for some time before the murder been in course of building. Now, -in the map of 1647, we find a very neat and regular wall, to the south of -the site that had been occupied by Kirk o' Field. Whereas, in Darnley's -time, there had been a gate called Kirk o' Field Port to the left, or -west, of the Kirk o' Field, by 1647 there was no such name, but, instead, -Potter Row Port, to the left, or west, of the University buildings; by -1647 these included Hamilton House, and the ground covered by Kirk o' -Field. This wall, extant in 1647, I take to be 'the new wall,' passing -lineally 'to the wall of the church yard' of Kirk o' Field. It supplied -the place of the wall which, in the chart of 1567 (p. 130), ran south and -north past the gable of Kirk o' Field. - -Thus Kirk o' Field, in February, 1567, had, to the south of it, an old -decayed town wall, much fallen down, and was thus _within_ that town wall. -But 'it is traditionally said,' writes the editor of Keith, Mr. Parker -Lawson, in 1845, 'that the house of the Provost of Kirk o' Field' (in -which house, or the one next to it, Darnley was blown up) 'stood as near -as possible _without_ the then city walls.'[125] Scott follows this -opinion in 'The Abbot.' Yet certainly Kirk o' Field was not without, but -within, the ruinous town wall mentioned in the Burgh Records of May 7, -1567. How are we to understand this discrepancy? - -The accompanying chart, drawn from a coloured design sent to the English -Government in February, 1567, ought to be _reversed_, as in a mirror. So -regarded, we are facing Kirk o' Field, and are looking from south to -north. At our left hand, or westward, is the gate or port in the town -wall, called 'the Kirk o' Field Port.' If we pass through it, if the chart -be right we are in Potter Row. Just from the Port of Kirk o' Field, the -town wall runs due north, for a few yards: then runs due east, enclosing -the church yard of Kirk o' Field, on the north, and the church itself, -shown in ruins, the church, as usual, running from east to west. After -running west to east for some fifty yards, the town wall, battlemented and -loopholed, turns at a right angle, and runs due south to north, being thus -continued till it reaches the northern limit of the plan. Now this wall, -here running due south to north, is not the 'wall of the town decayed and -fallen down on the south side of the Provost of Kirk o' Field's lodgings,' -as described in the Burgh Records of May 7, 1567. This wall, on the other -hand, leaves the collegiate quadrangle of Kirk o' Field inside it, on the -_east_, and the ruined gable of Darnley's house, a gable running from east -to west, abuts on this wall, having a door through the wall into the -Thieves' Row. It is true that one of Darnley's servants, Nelson, who -escaped from the explosion, declared that the gallery of Darnley's house, -and the gable which had a window 'through the town wall,' ran _south_. - -But, by the contemporary chart, the only part of Darnley's house which was -in contact with the town wall ran east to west, and impinged on the town -wall, which here ran south to north. Again, in the map of 1647, the wall -of that date no longer runs south to north, but is continued 'lineally' -from that short part of the town wall, in the chart of 1567, which _did_ -run west to east, forming there the northern wall of the church yard of -Kirk o' Field. This continuation was ordered to be made by the Town -Council on May 7, 1567, three months after Darnley's murder. Further, in -1646, Professor Crawford wrote that the lodgings of the Provost of Kirk o' -Field, in 1567, 'had a garden on the _south_, betwixt it and the _present_ -town wall.'[126] - -Now the ruins of Darnley's house, in the map of 1647, have a space of -garden between them and 'the _present_ town wall,' the wall of 1647. But, -in 1567, the gable of Darnley's house actually impinged on, and had a -window and a door through the town wall on, the _west_ according to the -chart. - -The chart, then, _reversed_, shows the whole position thus. On our left, -the west, is the ruined Kirk o' Field church, the church yard being -bordered, on the north, by the town wall, here running, for a short way, -east and west. After the town wall turns at a right angle and runs south -to north, it is continued west and east by a short prolongation of some -ten yards, having a gate in it. Next, running west to east, are two tall -houses, forming the south side of a quadrangle. These Crawford (1646) -seems to have regarded as the Provost's lodgings. The east side of the -quadrangle consists of four small houses, as does the north side. The west -side of the quadrangle was Darnley's house. It was in the shape of an -inverted L, thus [L]. The long limb faced the quadrangle, the short limb -touched the town wall, and had a door through it, into the Thieves' Row. -Beyond the Thieves' Row were gardens, in one of which Darnley's body and -that of his servant, Taylor, were found after the explosion. Mary's room -in the short limb of the [L] had a garden door, opening into Darnley's -garden. Behind Darnley's garden were the grounds of the Black Friars -monastery. On the night of the murder Bothwell conveyed the gunpowder into -the Black Friars grounds, entering by the gate or through the broken Black -Friars wall to the north side of the quadrangle, and thence into Darnley's -garden, and so, by Mary's garden door, into Mary's chamber: as the -depositions of the accomplices declare. - -[Illustration: - -1. Kirk o' Field Port - -2. Church of St. Mary-in-the-Fields - -3. Thieves' Row - -4. Door from Darnley's House into Thieves' Row - -5. Ruins of Darnley's House - -6. Darnley's Body - -7. Darnley's Garden - -8. Grounds of the Black Friars - -9. Hamilton House - -10. Potter Row - -11. Town Wall] - -The whole quadrangle lay amidst wide waste spaces of gardens and trees, -with scattered cottages, and with Hamilton House, a hostile house, hard -by. Such was the situation of Kirk o' Field, Church and College -quadrangle, as shown by the contemporary plan. The difficulties are caused -by the wall, in the chart, running south to north, having Darnley's house -abutting on it at right angles. The old ruined wall, on the other hand, -was to the south of the quadrangle, as was the wall of 1647. When or why -the wall running from south to north was built, I do not know, possibly -after 1559, out of the stones of the Black Friars.[127] The new work was -done under James Lindsay, treasurer in 1559, and Luke Wilson, treasurer in -1560. Perhaps the wall running south to north was the work of these two -treasurers. At all events, there the wall was, or there it is in the -contemporary design, to the confusion of antiquaries, bewildered between -the south to north wall of the chart, as given, and the new wall seen in -the map of 1647, a wall which was to the south of Kirk o' Field, while, in -the map of 1647, there is no trace of the south to north wall of the chart -of 1567. - -Having located Darnley's house, as forming the west side of a small -college quadrangle among gardens and trees, we now examine the interior -of his far from palatial lodgings. - -The two-storied house (the arched vaults on which it probably stood not -counting as a story?) was just large enough for the invalid, his servants, -and his royal nurse. There was a 'hall,' probably long and not wide, there -was a lower chamber, used by Mary, which could be entered either from the -garden, or from the passage, opened into by the front door, from the -quadrangle. Mary's room had two keys, and one must have locked the door -from the passage; the other, the door into the garden. If the former was -kept locked, so that no one could enter the room by the usual way, the -powder could be introduced, without exciting much attention, by the door -opening on the garden. In the chamber above Mary's, where Darnley lay, -there were also a cabinet and a garderobe. There was a cellar, probably -the kind of vaulted crypt on which houses of the period were built, like -Queen Mary's House in St. Andrews. From the 'cellar' the door, which we -have mentioned, led through the town wall into the Thieves' Row. Whoever -has seen Queen Mary's House at Jedburgh (much larger than Kirk o' Field), -or the Queen's room at St. Andrews, knows that royal persons, in Scotland, -were then content with very small apartments. A servant named Taylor used -to share Darnley's sleeping-room, as was usual; three others, including -Nelson, slept in a 'little gallery,' which apparently ran at right angles -from Darnley's chamber to the town wall. He had neither his own guard, nor -a guard of Lennox men, as at Stirling. - -If the rooms were small, the tapestries and velvet were magnificent, and -in odd contrast with Mary's alleged economic plan of taking a door from -the hinges and using it as a bath-cover. This last anecdote, by Nelson, -appears to be contradicted by Hay of Tala. 'Paris locked the door that -passes up the turnpike to the King's chamber.'[128] The keys appear to -have wandered into a bewildering variety of hands: a superfluous jugglery, -if Bothwell, as was said, had duplicate keys. - -Mary often visited Darnley, and the Lennox documents give us copious, if -untrustworthy, information as to his manner of life. They do not tell us, -as Buchanan does, that Mary and the vast unwieldy Lady Reres used to play -music and sing in the garden of Kirk o' Field, in the balmy nights of a -Scotch February! But they do contain a copy of a letter, referred to by -Buchanan, which Darnley wrote to Lennox three days before his death. - - 'My Lord,--I have thought good to write to you by this bearer of my - good health, I thank God, which is the sooner come through the good - treatment of such as hath this good while concealed their good will; I - mean of my love the Queen, which I assure you hath all this while, and - yet doth, use herself like a natural and loving wife. I hope yet that - God will lighten our hearts with joy that have so long been afflicted - with trouble. As I in this letter do write unto your Lordship, so I - trust this bearer can satisfy you the like. Thus thanking almighty God - of our good hap, I commend your Lordship into his protection. - - 'From Edinburgh the vii of February, - 'Your loving and obedient son, - 'HENRY REX.' - -The Queen, we are told, came in while Darnley was writing, read the -letter, and 'kissed him as Judas did the Lord his Master.' - -'The day before his death she caused the rich bed to be taken down, and a -meaner set up in its place, saying unto him that that rich bed they should -both lie in the next night, but her meanings were to save the bed from the -blowing up of the fire of powder.'[129] There has been a good deal of -controversy about this odd piece of economy, reported also by Thomas -Nelson, Darnley's surviving servant. Where was the bed to be placed for -the marriage couch? Obviously not in Holyrood, and Mary's own bed in the -room below Darnley's is reported by Buchanan to have been removed.[130] -The lost bed which was blown up was of velvet, 'violet brown,' with gold, -had belonged to Mary of Guise, and had been given to Darnley, by Mary, in -the previous autumn. - -Mary's enemies insist that, apparently on the night of Friday, February 7, -she wrote one of the Casket Letters to Bothwell. The Letter is obscure, as -we shall see, but is interpreted to mean that her brother, Lord Robert -Stuart, had warned Darnley of his danger, that Darnley had confided this -to Mary, that Mary now asked Bothwell to bring Lord Robert to Kirk o' -Field, where she would confront him with Darnley. The pair might come to -blows, Darnley might fall, and the gunpowder plot would be superfluous. -This tale, about which the evidence is inconsistent, is discussed -elsewhere. But, in his MSS., Lennox tells the story, and adds, 'The Lord -Regent' (Moray) 'can declare it, who was there present.' Buchanan avers -that Mary called in Moray to sever the pair, in hopes that he would be -slain or compromised: not a plausible theory, and not put forward in the -'Book of Articles.' - -Mary twice slept in the room under Darnley's, probably on the 5th and 7th -of February. In the Lennox MSS. the description of Darnley's last night -varies from the ordinary versions. 'The present night of his death she -tarried with him till eleven of the clock, which night she gave him a -goodly ring,' the usual token of loyalty. This ring is mentioned in a -contemporary English ballad, and by Moray to de Silva (August 3, 1567), -also in the 'Book of Articles.' Mary is usually said to have urged, as a -reason for not sleeping at Kirk o' Field on the fatal night, her sudden -recollection of a promise to be present at Holyrood, at the marriage of -her servant, Sebastian. This, indeed, is her own story, or Lethington's, -in a letter written in Scots to her ambassador in France, on February 10, -or 11, 1567. But, in the Lennox MSS., it is asserted that Bothwell and -others reminded her of her intention to ride to Seton, early next morning. -Darnley then 'commanded that his great horses should have been in a -readiness by 5 o'clock in the morning, for that he minded to ride them at -the same hour.' After Mary had gone, he remembered, says Lennox, a word -she had dropped to the effect that nearly a year had passed since the -murder of Riccio, a theme on which she had long been silent. She was -keeping her promise, given over Riccio's newly dug grave, that 'a fatter -than he should lie anear him 'ere the twelvemonth was out.' His servant -comforted him, and here the narrator regrets that Darnley did not -'consider and mark such cruel and strange words as she had said unto him,' -for example, at Riccio's grave. He also gives a _precis_ of 'her letter -written to Bothwell from Glasgow before her departure thence.' This is the -mysterious letter which was never produced or published: it will be -considered under 'External Evidence as to the Casket Letters.' - -After singing, with his servants, Psalm V., Darnley drank to them, and -went to bed. Fifty men, says the Lennox author, now environed the house, -sixteen, under Bothwell, 'came the secret way by which she herself was -wont to come to the King her husband' (a mere fairy tale), used the -duplicate keys, 'opened the doors of the garden and house,' and so entered -his chamber, and suffocated him 'with a wet napkin stipt in vinegar.' They -handled Taylor, a servant, in the same way, and laid Darnley in a garden -at some distance with 'his night gown of purple velvet furred with -sables.' None of the captured murderers, in their confessions, knew -anything of the strangling, which was universally believed in, but cannot -easily be reconciled with the narratives of the assassins. But had they -confessed to the strangling, others besides Bothwell would have been -implicated, and the confessions are not worthy of entire confidence.[131] - -The following curious anecdote is given by the Lennox MSS. After Mary's -visit to Bothwell at Hermitage (October, 1566) her servants were wondering -at her energy. She replied: 'Troth it was she was a woman, but yet was she -more than a woman, in that she could find in her heart to see and behold -that which any man durst do, and also could find in her heart to do -anything that a man durst do, if her strength would serve her thereto. -Which appeared to be true, for that some say she was present at the murder -of the King, her husband, in man's apparel, which apparel she loved -oftentimes to be in, in dancing secretly with the King her husband, and -going in masks by night through the streets.' These are examples of the -sayings and reports of her servants, which, on June 11, 1568, Lennox urged -his friends to collect. This romantic tale proved too great for the belief -of Buchanan, if he knew it. But Lethington told Throckmorton in July, -1567, that the Lords had proof against Mary not only in her handwriting, -but by 'sufficient witnesses.' Doubtless they saw her on the scene in male -costume! Naturally they were never produced. - -If an historical event could be discredited, like a ghost story, by -discrepancies in the evidence, we might maintain that Darnley never was -murdered at all. The chief varieties of statement are concerned (1) with -the nature of his death. Was he (_a_) taken out of the house and -strangled, or (_b_) strangled in trying to escape from the house, or (_c_) -strangled in the house, and carried outside, or (_d_) destroyed by the -explosion and the fall? Next (2), accepting any of the statements which -represent Darnley as being strangled (and they are, so far, unanimous at -the time of the event), who were the stranglers? Were they (_a_) some of -Bothwell's men, (_b_) men of Balfour's or Huntly's, or (_c_) servants of -Archbishop Hamilton, as the Lennox faction aver, or (_d_) Douglases under -Archibald Douglas? Finally (3) was Kirk o' Field (_a_) undermined by the -murderers, in readiness for the deed, before Darnley's arrival from -Glasgow, or (_b_) was the powder placed in the Queen's bedroom, under -Darnley's, on the night of the crime; or (_c_) was it then placed in the -vaults under the room on the first floor which was occupied by the Queen? - -The reader will find that each of these theories was in turn adopted by -the accusers, and that selections were made, later, by the accusers of -Morton, and Archibald Douglas, and Archbishop Hamilton, just as happened -to suit the purpose of the several prosecutors at the moment. Moreover it -is not certain that the miscreants who blew up the house themselves knew -the whole details of the crime. - -Our plan must be, first, to compare the contemporary descriptions of the -incident. Taking, first, the 'Diurnal of Occurrents,' we find that the -explosion took place at 'two hours before none;' which at that time meant -2 A.M. The murderers opened the door with false keys, and strangled -Darnley, and his servant, Taylor, 'in their naked beds,' then threw the -bodies into a garden, 'beyond the Thief Row' (see the sketch, p. 131), -returned, and blew up the house, 'so that there remained not one stone -upon another undestroyed.' The names of the miscreants are given, 'as -alleged,' Bothwell, Ormistoun of that ilk; Hob Ormistoun his uncle; -Hepburn of Bowton, and young Hay of Tala. All these underlings were later -taken, confessed, and were executed. The part of the entry in the -'Diurnal' which deals with them, at least, is probably not contemporary. -The men named professed to know nothing of the strangling. For what it is -worth the entry corroborates the entire destruction of the house, which -would imply a mine, or powder in the vaulted cellars. The contemporary -drawing shows the whole house utterly levelled with the ground.[132] - -Birrel, in his Diary, says, 'The house was raised from the ground with -powder, and the King, if he had not been cruelly strangled, after he fell -out of the air, with his garters, he had lived.' An official account says, -'Of the whole lodging, walls and other, there is nothing remaining, no, -not one stone above another, but all either carried far away, or dung in -dross to the very groundstone.'[133] This could only be done by a mine, -but the escape of Nelson proves exaggeration. This version is also in -Mary's letter to Archbishop Beaton (February 10, or 11), written in Scots, -probably by Lethington, and he, of course, may have exaggerated, as may -the Privy Council in their report to the same effect.[134] Clernault, a -Frenchman who carried the news, averred that a mine was employed. Sir -James Melville says that Bothwell 'made a train of powder, or had one made -before, which came under the house,' but Darnley was first strangled 'in a -low stable,' by a napkin thrust into his mouth.[135] The Lennox MSS. say -that Darnley was suffocated 'with a wet napkin steeped in vinegar.' The -Savoyard Ambassador, Moretta, on returning to France, expressed the -opinion that Darnley fled from the house, when he heard the key of the -murderers grate in the keyhole, that he was in his shirt, carrying his -dressing gown, that he was followed, dragged into a little garden outside -his own garden wall (the garden across the Thieves' Row), and there -strangled. Some women heard him exclaim, 'Pity me, kinsmen, for the love -of him who pitied all the world.'[136] His kinsmen were Archibald and -other Douglases. Buchanan, in his 'Detection,' speaks of 'the King's -lodging, _even from the very foundation_, blown up.' In the 'Actio,' or -Oration, printed with the 'Detection,' the writer, whoever he was, says, -'they had _undermined the wall_,' and that Mary slept under Darnley's -room, lest the servants should hear 'the noise of the underminers -working.' - -The 'Detection' and 'Actio' were published to discredit Mary, long after -the murderers had confessed that there was no mine at all, that the powder -was laid in Mary's room. In the 'Book of Articles,' the powder is placed -'in the laich house,' whether that means the arched ground floor, or -Mary's chamber; apparently the latter, as we read, 'she lay in the house -under the King, where also thereafter the powder was placed.'[137] This is -made into conformity with the confessions of Bothwell's men, according to -whom but nine or ten were concerned in the deed. But Moray himself, two -months after the murder, told de Silva that 'it is undoubted that over -thirty or forty persons were concerned' (the fifty of the Lennox Paper) -'and _the house ... was entirely undermined_.'[138] When Morton, long -afterwards, was accused of and executed for the deed, the dittay ran that -the powder was under the 'angular stones and within the vaults.' In the -mysterious letter, attributed to Mary, and cited by Moray and the Lennox -Papers, the 'preparation' of the Kirk o' Field is at least hinted at. The -'Book of Articles' avers that, 'from Glasgow, by her letters and -otherwise,' Mary 'held him' (Bothwell) 'continually in remembrance of the -said house,' which she _did_, in the letter never produced, but not in any -of the Casket Letters, unless it be in a note, among other suspicious -notes, 'Of the ludgeing in Edinburgh.'[139] The Lennox MSS., as we saw, -say 'the place was already prepared with "undermining and" trains of -powder therein.' The whole of the narratives, confirmed by Moray, and by -the descriptions of the ruin of the house, prove that the theory of a -prepared mine was entertained, till Powrie, Tala, and Bowton made their -depositions, and, in the 'Actio,' an appendix to Buchanan's 'Detection,' -and the indictment of Morton, even after that. But when the accusers, of -whom some were guilty themselves, came to plead against Mary, they -naturally wished to restrict the conspiracy to Bothwell and Mary. The -strangling disappears. The murderers are no longer thirty, or forty, or -fifty. The powder is placed in Mary's own room, not in a mine. All this -altered theory rests on examinations of prisoners. - -What are they worth? They were taken in the following order: Powrie, June -23, Dalgleish, June 26, before the Privy Council. Powrie was again -examined in July before the Privy Council, and Hay of Tala on September -13. A note of news says that Tala was taken in Fife on September 6, 1567 -(annotated) '7th (Nicolas and Bond).'[140] Tala 'can _bleke_ [blacken] -some great men with it'--the murder. But as Mr. Hosack cites Bedford to -Cecil, September 5, 1567, Hay of Tala 'opened the whole device of the -murder, ... and went so far as to touch a great many not of the smallest,' -such as Huntly, Argyll, Lethington, and others, no doubt.[141] Even Laing, -however, admits that 'the evidence against Huntly was suppressed carefully -in Hay's deposition.'[142] In Dec.-Jan. 1567-68, anonymous writings say -that, if the Lords keep Tala and Bowton alive, they could tell them who -subscribed the murder bond, and pray the Lords not to seem to lay all the -weight on Mary's back. A paper of Questions to the Lords of the Articles -asks why Tala and Bowton 'are not compelled openly to declare the manner -of the King's slaughter, and who consented thereunto.'[143] - -The authors of these Questions had absolute right on their side. Moray no -more prosecuted the quest for all murderers of Darnley than Mary had done. -To prove this we need no anonymous pamphlets or placards, no contradictory -tattle about secret examinations and dying confessions. When Mary's case -was inquired into at Westminster (December, 1568), Moray put in as -evidence the deposition of Bowton, made in December, 1567. Bothwell, said -Bowton, had assured him that the crime was devised 'by some of the -noblemen,' 'other noblemen had entrance as far as he in that matter.'[144] -This was declared by Bowton in Moray's own presence. The noble and -stainless Moray is not said to ask 'What noblemen do you mean?' No torture -would have been needed to extract their names from Bowton, and Moray -should at once have arrested the sinners. But some were his own allies, -united with him in accusing his sister. So no questions were asked. The -papers which, between Dec.-Jan. 1567-68, did ask disagreeable questions -must have been prior to January 3, 1568, when Tala, Bowton, Dalgleish, and -Powrie, after being 'put to the knowledge of an assize,' were executed; -their legs and arms were carried about the country by boys in baskets! -According to the 'Diurnal,' Tala incriminated, before the whole people -round the scaffold, Bothwell, Huntly, Argyll, Lethington, and Balfour, -with divers other nobles, and the Queen. On January 7, Drury gave the same -news to Cecil, making Bowton the confessor, and omitting the charge -against Mary. The incriminated noblemen at once left Edinburgh, 'which,' -says the 'Diurnal,' 'makes the matter ... the more probable.'[145] -Meanwhile Moray 'looked through his fingers,' and carried the incriminated -Lethington with him, later, as one of Mary's accusers, while he purchased -Sir James Balfour! - -What, we ask once more, in these circumstances, are the examinations of -the murderers worth, after passing through the hands of the accomplices? -On December 8, 1568, Moray gave in the written records of the examinations -to the English Commissioners. We have, first, Bothwell's servant, Powrie, -examined before the Lords of the Secret Council (June 23, July 3, 1567). -He helped to carry the powder to Kirk o' Field on February 9, but did not -see what was done with it. Dalgleish, examined at Edinburgh on June 26, -1567, before Morton, Atholl, the Provost of Dundee, and Kirkcaldy, said -nothing about the powder. Tala was examined, on September 13, at -Edinburgh, before Moray, Morton, Atholl, the Lairds of Loch Leven and -Pitarro, James Makgill, and the Justice Clerk, Bellenden. No man -implicated, except Morton, was present. Tala said that Bothwell arranged -to lay the powder in Mary's room, under Darnley's. This was done; the -powder was placed in 'the nether house, under the King's chamber,' the -plotters entering by the back door, from the garden, of which Paris had -the key. Thus there would be no show at the front door, in the -quadrangle, of men coming and going: they were in Mary's room, but did not -enter by the front door. Next, on December 8, Bowton was examined at -Edinburgh before Moray, Atholl, Lindsay, Kirkcaldy of Grange, and -Bellenden. He implicated Morton, Lethington, and Balfour, but, at -Westminster, Moray suppressed the evidence utterly. (See Introduction, pp. -xiii-xviii, for the suppressions). Next we have the trial of Bowton, Tala, -Powrie, and Dalgleish, on January 3, 1568, before Sir Thomas Craig and a -jury of burgesses and gentlemen. The accused confessed to their previous -depositions. The jury found them guilty on the depositions alone, found -that 'the whole lodging was raised and blown in the air, and his Grace -[Darnley] was murdered treasonably, and most cruelly slain and destroyed -by them therein.' When Mr. Hosack asserts that these depositions 'were -taken before the Lords of the Secret Council, namely Morton, Huntly, -Argyll, Maitland, and Balfour,' he errs, according to the documents cited. -Only Powrie is described as having been examined 'before the Lords of the -Secret Council.' Mr. Hosack must have known that Huntly and Argyll were -not in Edinburgh on June 23, when Powrie was examined.[146] We can only -say that Powrie's depositions, made before the Lords of the Secret -Council, struck the keynote, to which all later confessions, including -that of Bothwell's valet, Paris, correspond.[147] Thus vanish, for the -moment, the mine and the strangling, while the deed is done by powder in -Mary's own chamber. Nobody is now left in the actual crime save Bothwell, -Bowton, Tala, Powrie, Dalgleish, Wilson, Paris, Ormistoun, and Hob -Ormistoun. They knew of no strangling.[148] - -But on February 11, 1567, two women, examined by a number of persons, -including Huntly, stated thus: Barbara Mertine _heard_ thirteen men, and -_saw_ eleven, pass up the Cowgate, and _saw_ eleven pass down the Black -Friars wynd, after the explosion. She called them traitors. May Crokat (by -marriage Mrs. Stirling), in the service of the Archbishop of St. Andrews -(whose house was adjacent to Kirk o' Field), heard the explosion, thought -it was in 'the house above,' ran out, saw eleven men, caught one by his -silk coat, and 'asked where the crack was.' They fled.[149] The avenging -ghost of Darnley pursued his murderers for twenty years, and, in their -cases, we have later depositions, and letters. Thus, as to the men -employed, Archibald Douglas, that reverend parson and learned Lord of -Session, informed Morton that he himself 'was at the deed doing, and came -to the Kirk o' Field yard with the Earls of Bothwell _and Huntly_.' -Douglas, at this time (June, 1581), had fled from justice to England: -Morton was underlying the law. Morton's confession was made, in 1581, on -the day of his execution, to the Rev. John Durie and the Rev. Walter -Balcanquell, who wrote down and made known the declaration. On June 3, -1581, Archibald Douglas's servant, Binning, was also executed. He -confessed that Archibald lost one of his velvet mules (dress shoes) on the -scene, or on the way from the murder. Powrie had 'deponed' that three of -Bothwell's company wore 'mulis,' whether for quiet in walking, or because -they were in evening dress, having been at Bastian's wedding masque and -dance. Douglas, in a collusive trial before a jury of his kinsmen, in -1586, was acquitted, and showed a great deal of forensic ability.[150] - -It is thus abundantly evident that the depositions of the murderers put in -by Mary's accusers did not tell the whole truth, whatever amount of truth -they may have told. We cannot, therefore, perhaps accept their story of -placing the powder in Mary's room, where it could hardly have caused the -amount of damage described: but that point may be left open. We know that -Bothwell's men were not alone in the affair, and the strangling of -Darnley, and the removal of his body, with his purple velvet sable-lined -dressing gown (attested by the Lennox MSS.), may have been done by the men -of Douglas and Huntly. - -The treatment of the whole topic by George Buchanan is remarkable. In the -'Book of Articles,' levelled at Mary, in 1568, Darnley is blown up by -powder placed in Mary's room. In the 'Detection,' of which the first draft -(in the Lennox MSS.) is of 1568, reference for the method of the deed is -made to the depositions of Powrie and the others. In the 'History,' there -are _three_ gangs, those with Bothwell, and two others, advancing by -separate routes. They strangle Darnley and Taylor, and carry their bodies -into an adjacent garden; the house is then blown up 'from the very -foundations.' Buchanan thus returns to the strangling, omitted, for -reasons, in the 'Detection.' Darnley's body is unbruised, and his -dressing-gown, lying near him, is neither scorched nor smirched with dust. -A light burned, Buchanan says, in the Hamilton House till the explosion, -and was then extinguished; the Archbishop, contrary to custom, was lodging -there, with 'Gloade,' says a Lennox MS. 'Gloade' is--Lord Claude -Hamilton![151] While Buchanan was helping to prosecute Mary, he had not a -word to say about the strangling of Darnley, and about the dressing-gown -and slippers laid beside the corpse, though all this was in the papers of -Lennox, his chief. Not a word had he to say about the three bands of men -who moved on Kirk o' Field, or the fifty men of the Lennox MS. The crime -was to be limited to Bothwell, his gang, and the Queen, as was convenient -to the accusers. Later Buchanan brought into his 'History' what he kept -out of the 'Detection' and 'Book of Articles,' adding a slur on -Archbishop Hamilton. - -Finally, when telling, in his 'History,' how the Archbishop was caught at -Dumbarton, and hanged by Lennox, without trial, Buchanan has quite a fresh -version. The Archbishop sent six or eight of his bravoes, with false keys -of the doors (what becomes of Bothwell's false keys?) to Kirk o' Field. -They strangle Darnley, and lay him in a garden, and then, on a given -signal, other conspirators blow up the house. Where is Bothwell? The -leader of the Archbishop's gang told this, under seal of confession, to a -priest, a very respectable man (_viro minime malo_). This respectable -priest first blabbed in conversation, and then, when the Archbishop was -arrested, gave evidence derived from the disclosure of a Hamilton under -seal of confession. The Archbishop mildly remarked that such conduct was -condemned by the Church. Later, the priest was executed for celebrating -the Mass (this being his third conviction), and he repeated the story -openly and fully. The tale of the priest was of rather old standing. When -collecting his evidence for the York Commission of October, 1568, Lennox -wrote to his retainers to ask, among other things, for the deposition of -the priest of Paisley, 'that heard and testified the last exclamation of -one Hamilton, which the Laird of Minto showed to Mr. John Wood,' who was -then helping Lennox to get up his case (June 11, 1568).[152] Buchanan has -yet another version, in his 'Admonition to the Trew Lordis:' here the -Archbishop sends only four of his rogues to the murder. - -Buchanan's plan clearly was to accuse the persons whom it was convenient -to accuse, at any given time; and to alter his account of the method of -the murder so as to suit each new accusation. Probably he was not -dishonest. The facts 'were to him ministered,' by the Lords, in 1568, and -also by Lennox. Later, different sets of facts were 'ministered' to him, -as occasion served, and he published them without heeding his -inconsistencies. He was old, was a Lennox man, and an advanced Liberal. - -Of one examination, which ought to have been important, we have found no -record. There was a certain Captain James Cullen, who wrote letters in -July 13 to July 18, 1560, from Edinburgh Castle, to the Cardinal of -Lorraine. He was then an officer of Mary of Guise, during the siege of -Leith.[153] In the end of 1565, and the beginning of 1566, Captain Cullen -was in the service of Frederic II. of Denmark, and was trying to enlist -English sailors for him.[154] Elizabeth refused to permit this, and -Captain Cullen appears to have returned to his native Scotland, where he -became, under Bothwell, an officer of the Guard put about Mary's person, -after Riccio's murder. On February 28, 1567, eighteen days after Darnley's -murder, Scrope writes that 'Captain Cullen with his company have the -credit nearest her' (Mary's) 'person.' On May 13, Drury remarks, 'It was -Captain Cullen's persuasion, for more surety, to have the King strangled, -and not only to trust to the powder,' the Captain having observed, in his -military experience, that the effects of explosions were not always -satisfactory. 'The King was long of dying, and to his strength made debate -for his life.'[155] - -To return to honest Captain Cullen: after Bothwell was acquitted, and had -issued a cartel offering Trial by Combat to any impugner of his honour, -some anonymous champion promised, under certain conditions, to fight. This -hero placarded the names of three Balfours, black John Spens, and others, -as conspirators; as 'doers' he mentioned, with some companions, Tala, -Bowton, Pat Wilson, and James Cullen. On April 25, the Captain was named -as a murderer in Elizabeth's Instructions to Lord Grey.[156] On May 8, -Kirkcaldy told Bedford that Tullibardine had offered, with five others, to -fight Ormistoun, 'Beynston,' Bowton, Tala, Captain Cullen, and James -Edmonstone, who, says Tullibardine, were at the murder. On June 16, 1567, -the day after Mary's capture at Carberry, Scrope writes, 'The Lords have -taken Captain Cullen, who, after some strict dealing [torture], has -revealed the King's murder with the whole matter thereof.'[157] Scrope was -mistaken. He had probably heard of the capture of Blackader, who was -hanged on June 24, denying his guilt. He had no more chance than had James -Stewart of the Glens with a Campbell jury. His jury was composed of Lennox -men, Darnley's clansmen. Our Captain had not been taken, but on September -15 Moray told Throckmorton that Kirkcaldy, in Shetland, had captured -Cullen, 'one of the very executors, he may clear the whole action.'[158] - -Did Captain Cullen clear the whole action? We hear no more of his -embarrassing revelations. But we do know that he was released and returned -to the crimping trade: he fought for the Castle in 1571, was taken in a -cupboard and executed. He had a pretty wife, the poor Captain, coveted and -secured by Morton. - - - - -VII - -_THE CONFESSIONS OF PARIS_ - - -Fatal depositions, if trustworthy, are those of the valet lent by Bothwell -to Mary, on her road to Glasgow, in January, 1567. The case of Paris is -peculiar. He had escaped with Bothwell, in autumn, 1567, to Denmark, and, -on October 30, 1568, he was extradited to a Captain Clark, a notorious -character. On July 16, 1567, the Captain had killed one Wilson, a seaman -'much esteemed by the Lords,' of Moray's faction. They had quarrelled -about a ship that was ordered to pursue Bothwell.[159] Nevertheless, in -July, 1568, Clark was Captain of the Scots in Danish service, and was -corresponding with Moray.[160] Clark could easily have sent Paris to -England in time for the meetings of Commissioners to judge on Mary's case, -in December-January, 1568-1569. But Paris was not wanted: he might have -proved an awkward witness. About August 30, 1569, Elizabeth wrote to Moray -asking that Paris might be spared till his evidence could be taken. To -spare him was now impossible: Paris was no more. He had arrived from -Denmark in June, 1569, when Moray was in the North. Why had he not arrived -in December, 1568, when Mary's case was being heard at Westminster? He had -been examined on August 9, 10, 1569, and was executed on August 15 at St. -Andrews. A copy of his deposition was sent to Cecil, and Moray hoped it -would be satisfactory to Elizabeth and to Lennox.[161] - -In plain truth, the deposition of Paris was not wanted, when it might have -been given, at the end of 1568, while Moray and Lethington and Morton were -all working against Mary, before the same Commission. Later, differences -among themselves had grown marked. Moray and Lethington had taken opposed -lines as to Mary's marriage with Norfolk in 1569, and the terms of an -honourable settlement of her affairs. Lethington desired; Moray, in his -own interest as Regent, opposed the marriage. A charge of guilt in -Darnley's murder was now hanging over Lethington, based on Paris's -deposition. The cloud broke in storm, he was accused by the useful -Crawford, Lennox's man, in the first week of September, 1569. Three weeks -earlier, Moray had conveniently strengthened himself by taking the so long -deferred evidence of Paris. Throughout the whole affair the witnesses were -very well managed, so as to produce just what was needed, and no more. -While Lethington and other sinners were working with Moray, then only -evidence to the guilt of Bothwell and Mary was available. When Lethington -became inconvenient, witness against him was produced. When Morton, much -later (1581), was 'put at,' new evidence of _his_ guilt was not lacking. -Captain Cullen's tale did not fit into the political combinations of -September, 1567, when the poor Captain was taken. It therefore was not -adduced at Westminster or Hampton Court. It was judiciously burked. - -Moray did not send the 'authentick' record of Paris's deposition to Cecil -till October, 1569, though it was taken at St. Andrews on August 9 and -10.[162] When Moray at last sent it, he had found that Lethington -definitely refused to aid him in betraying Norfolk. The day of -reconciliation was ended. So Moray sent the 'authentick' deposition of -Paris, which he had kept back for two months, in hopes that Lethington -(whom it implicated) might join him in denouncing Norfolk after all. - -Paris, we said, was examined (there is no record showing that he ever was -tried) at St. Andrews. On the day of his death, Moray caused Sir William -Stewart, Lyon King at Arms, by his own appointment, to be burned for -sorcery. Of _his_ trial no record exists. He had been accused of a -conspiracy against Moray, whom he certainly did not admire, no proof had -been found, and he was burned as a wizard, or consulter of wizards.[163] -The deposition of Paris on August 10 is in the Record Office, and is -signed at the end of each page with his mark. _We are not told who heard -the depositions made._ We are only told that when it was read to him -before George Buchanan, John Wood (Moray's man), and Robert Ramsay, he -acknowledged its truth: Ramsay being the writer of 'this declaration,' -that is of the deposition. He wrote French very well, and was a servant of -Moray. There is another copy with a docquet asserting its authenticity, -witnessed by Alexander Hay, Clerk of the Privy Council, who, according to -Nau, wrote the old band against Darnley (October, 1566), and who was a -correspondent of Knox.[164] Hay does not seem to mean that the deposition -of Paris was taken in his presence, but that II. is a correct copy of -Number I. If so, he is not 'guilty of a double fraud,' as Mr. Hosack -declares. Though he omits the names of the witnesses, Wood, Ramsay, and -Buchanan, he does not represent himself as the sole witness to the -declaration. He only attests the accuracy of the copy of Number I. Whether -Ramsay, Wood, and Buchanan examined Paris, we can only infer: whether they -alone did so, we know not: that he was hanged and quartered merely on the -strength of his own deposition, we think highly probable. It was a great -day for St. Andrews: a herald was burned, a Frenchman was hanged, and a -fourth of his mortal remains was fixed on a spike in a public place. - -Paris said, when examined in August, 1569, that on Wednesday or Thursday -of the week of Darnley's death, Bothwell told him in Mary's room at Kirk -o' Field, Mary being in Darnley's, that '_we Lords_' mean to blow up the -King and this house with powder. But Bowton says, that till the Friday, -Bothwell meant to kill Darnley 'in the fields.'[165] Bothwell took Paris -aside for a particular purpose: he was suffering from dysentery, and said, -'Ne scais-tu point quelque lieu la ou je pouray aller...?' 'I never was -here in my life before,' said Paris. - -Now as Bothwell, by Paris's own account (derived from Bothwell himself), -had passed an entire night in examining the little house of Kirk o' Field, -how could he fail to know his way about in so tiny a dwelling? Finally, -Paris found _ung coing ou trou entre deux portes_, whither he conducted -Bothwell, who revealed his whole design. - -Robertson, cited by Laing, remarks that the narrative of Paris 'abounds -with a number of minute facts and particularities which the most dexterous -forger could not have easily assembled and connected together with any -appearance of probability.' The most bungling witness who ever perjured -himself could not have brought more impossible inconsistencies than Paris -brings into a few sentences, and he was just as rich in new details, when, -in a second confession, he contradicted his first. In the insanitary, and, -as far as listeners were concerned, insecure retreat 'between two doors,' -Bothwell bluntly told Paris that Darnley was to be blown up, because, if -ever he got his feet on the Lords' necks, he would be tyrannical. The -motive was political. Paris pointed out the moral and social -inconveniences of Bothwell's idea. 'You fool!' Bothwell answered, 'do you -think I am alone in this affair? I have Lethington, who is reckoned one of -our finest wits, and is the chief undertaker in this business; I have -Argyll, Huntly, Morton, Ruthven, and Lindsay. These three last will never -fail me, for I spoke in favour of their pardon, and I have the signatures -of all those whom I have mentioned, and we were inclined to do it lately -when we were at Craigmillar; but you are a dullard, not fit to hear a -matter of weight.' If Bothwell said that Morton, Ruthven, and Lindsay -signed the band, he, in all probability, lied. But does any one believe -that the untrussed Bothwell, between two doors, held all this talk with a -wretched valet, arguing with him seriously, counting his allies, real or -not, and so forth? Paris next (obviously enlightened by later events) -observed that the Lords would make Bothwell manage the affair, 'but, when -it is once done, they may lay the whole weight of it on you' (which, when -making his deposition, he knew they had done), 'and will be the first to -cry _Haro!_ on you, and pursue you to death.' Prophetic Paris! He next -asked, What about a man dearly beloved by the populace, and the French? -'No troubles in the country when _he_ governed for two or three years, all -was well, money was cheap; look at the difference now,' and so forth. -'Who is the man?' asked Bothwell. 'Monsieur de Moray; pray what side does -he take?' - -'He won't meddle.' - -'Sir, he is wise.' - -'Monsieur de Moray, Monsieur de Moray! He will neither help nor hinder, -but it is all one.' - -Bothwell, by a series of arguments, then tried to make Paris steal the key -of Mary's room. He declined, and Bothwell left the appropriate scene of -this prolonged political conversation. It occupies more than three closely -printed pages of small type. - -Paris then devotes a page and a half to an account of a walk, and of his -reflections. On Friday, Bothwell met him, asked him for the key, and said -that _Sunday_ was the day for the explosion. Now, in fact, _Saturday_ had -been fixed upon, as Tala declared.[166] Paris took another walk, thought -of looking for a ship to escape in, but compromised matters by saying his -prayers. On Saturday, after dinner, Bothwell again asked for the key: -adding that Balfour had already given him a complete set of false keys, -and that they two had passed a whole night in examining the house. So -Paris stole the key, though Bothwell had told him that he need not, if he -had not the heart for it. After he gave it to Bothwell, Marguerite -(Carwood?) sent him back for a coverlet of fur: Sandy Durham asked him for -the key, and he referred Sandy to the _huissier_, Archibald Beaton. This -Sandy is said in the Lennox MSS. to have been warned by Mary to leave the -house. He was later arrested, but does not seem to have been punished. - -On Sunday morning, Paris heard that Moray had left Edinburgh, and said -within himself, 'O Monsieur de Moray, you are indeed a worthy man!' The -wretch wished, of course, to ingratiate himself with Moray, but his want -of tact must have made that worthy man wince. Indeed Paris's tactless -disclosures about Moray, who 'would neither help nor hinder,' and did -sneak off, may be one of the excellent reasons which prevented Cecil from -adding Paris's deposition, when he was asked for it, to the English -edition of Buchanan's 'Detection.'[167] When the Queen was at supper, on -the night of the crime, with Argyll (it really was with the Bishop of -Argyll) and was washing her hands after supper, Paris came in. She asked -Paris whether he had brought the fur coverlet from Kirk o' Field. Bothwell -then took Paris out, and they acted as in the depositions of Powrie and -the rest, introducing the powder. Bothwell rebuked Tala and Bowton for -making so much noise, which was heard above, as they stored the powder in -Mary's room. Paris next accompanied Bothwell to Darnley's room, and -Argyll, silently, gave him a caressing dig in the ribs. After some loose -babble, Paris ends, 'And that is all I know about the matter.' - -This deposition was made 'without constraint or interrogation.' But it was -necessary that he should know more about the matter. Next day he was -_interrogue_, doubtless in the boot or the pilniewinks, or under threat of -these. He _must_ incriminate the Queen. He gave evidence now as to -carrying a letter (probably Letter II. is intended) to Bothwell, from Mary -at Glasgow, in January, 1567. His story may be true, as we shall see, if -the dates put in by the accusers are incorrect: and if another set of -dates, which we shall suggest, are correct. - -Asked as to familiarities between Bothwell and Mary, he said, on -Bothwell's information, that Lady Reres used to bring him, late at night, -to Mary's room; and that Bothwell bade him never let Mary know that Lady -Bothwell was with him in Holyrood! Paris now remembered that, in the long -conversation in the hole between two doors, Bothwell had told him not to -put Mary's bed beneath Darnley's, 'for that is where I mean to put the -powder.' He disobeyed. Mary made him move her bed, and he saw that she was -in the plot. Thereon he said to her, 'Madame, Monsieur de Boiduel told me -to bring him the keys of your door, and that he has an inclination to do -something, namely to blow the King into the air with powder, which he will -place here.' - -This piece of evidence has, by some, been received with scepticism, which -is hardly surprising. Paris places the carrying of a letter (about the -plot to make Lord Robert kill Darnley?) on Thursday night. It ought to be -Friday, if it is to agree with Cecil's Journal: 'Fryday. She ludged and -lay all nycht agane in the foresaid chalmer, and frome thence wrayt, that -same nycht, the letter concerning the purpose of the abbott of -Halyrudhouse.' On the same night, Bothwell told Paris to inform Mary that -he would not sleep till he achieved his purpose, 'were I to trail a pike -all my life for love of her.' This means that the murder was to be on -Friday, which is absurd, unless Bothwell means to wake for several nights. -Let us examine the stories told by Paris about the key, or keys, of Mary's -room. In the first statement, Paris was asked by Bothwell at the -Conference between Two Doors, for the _key_ of Mary's room. This was on -Wednesday or Thursday. On Friday, Bothwell asked again for the _key_, and -said the murder was fixed for Sunday, which it was not, but for Saturday. -On Saturday, Bothwell again demands _that key_, after dinner. He says that -he has duplicates, from James Balfour, of all the keys. Paris takes the -_key_, remaining last in Mary's room at Kirk o' Field, as she leaves it to -go to Holyrood. Paris keeps the _key_, and returns to Kirk o' Field. Sandy -Durham, Darnley's servant, asks for the key. Paris replies that keys are -the affair of the Usher. 'Well,' says Durham, 'since you don't want to -give it to me!' So, clearly, Paris kept it. On Sunday night, Bothwell bade -Paris go to the Queen's room in Kirk o' Field, 'and when Bowton, Tala, and -Ormistoun shall have entered, and done what they want to do, you are to -leave the room, and come to the King's room and thence go where you -like.... The rest can do without you' (in answer to a remonstrance), 'for -they have keys enough.' Paris then went into the kitchen of Kirk o' Field, -and borrowed and lit a candle: meanwhile Bowton and Tala entered the -Queen's room, and deposited the powder. Paris does not _say_ that he let -them in with the _key_, which he had kept all the time; at least he never -mentions making any use of it, though of course he did. - -In the second statement, Paris avers that he took the _keys_ (the number -becomes plural, or dual) on Friday, not on Saturday, as in the first -statement, and _not_ after the Queen had left the room (as in the first -statement), but while she was dressing. He carried them to Bothwell, who -compared them with other, new, false keys, examined them, and said 'They -are all right! take back these others.' During the absence of Paris, the -keys were missed by the Usher, Archibald Beaton, who wanted to let Mary -out into the garden, and Mary questioned Paris _aloud_, on his return. -This is not probable, as, by his own second statement, he had already told -her, on Wednesday or Thursday, that Bothwell had asked him for the keys, -as he wanted to blow Darnley sky high. She would, therefore, know why -Paris had the keys of her room, and would ask no questions.[168] On -Saturday, after dinner, Bothwell bade him take the _key_ of Mary's room, -and Mary also told him to do so. He took it. Thus, in statement II., he -has his usual De Foe-like details, different from those equally minute in -statement I. He takes the keys, or key, at a different time, goes back -with them in different circumstances, is asked for them by different -persons, and takes a key _twice_, once on Friday, once on Saturday, though -Bothwell, having duplicates that were 'all right' (_elles sont bien_), did -not need the originals. As to these duplicates, Bowton declared that, -after the murder, he threw them all into a quarry hole between Holyrood -and Leith.[169] Tala declared that Paris had a key of the back door.[170] -Nelson says that Beaton, Mary's usher, kept the keys: he and Paris.[171] - -Paris, of course under torture or fear of torture, said whatever might -implicate Mary. On Friday night, in the second statement, Paris again -carried letters to Bothwell; if he carried them both on Thursday and -Friday, are both notes in the Casket Letters? The Letter of Friday was -supposed to be that about the affair of Lord Robert and Darnley. On -Saturday Mary told Paris to bid Bothwell send Lord Robert and William -Blackadder to Darnley's chamber 'to do what Bothwell knows, and to speak -to Lord Robert about it, for it is better thus than otherwise, and he will -only have a few days' prison in the Castle for the same.' Bothwell replied -to Paris that he would speak to Lord Robert, and visit the Queen. This was -on Saturday _evening_ (_au soyr_), after the scene, whatever it was or was -not, between Darnley and Lord Robert on Saturday _morning_.[172] As to -_that_, Mary 'told her people in her chamber that Lord Robert had enjoyed -a good chance to kill the King, because there was only herself to part -them.' Lennox in his MSS. avers that Moray was present, and 'can declare -it.' Buchanan says that Mary called in Moray to separate her wrangling -husband and brother, hoping that Moray too would be slain! Though the -explosion was for Sunday night, Mary, according to Paris, was still urging -the plan of murder by Lord Robert on Saturday night, and Bothwell was -acquiescing. - -The absurd contradictions which pervade the statements of Paris are -conspicuous. Hume says: 'It is in vain at present to seek improbabilities -in Nicholas Hubert's dying confession, and to magnify the smallest -difficulty into a contradiction. It was certainly a regular judicial -paper, given in regularly and judicially, and ought to have been canvassed -at the time, if the persons whom it concerned had been assured of their -own innocence.' They never saw it: it was authenticated by no judicial -authority: it was not 'given in regularly and judicially,' but was first -held back, and then sent by Moray, when it suited his policy, out of -revenge on Lethington. Finally, it was not 'a dying confession.' Dying -confessions are made in prison, or on the scaffold, on the day of death. -That of Paris 'took God to record, at the time of his death' (August 15), -'that this murder was by your' (the Lords') 'counsel, invention, and -drift committed,' and also declared that he 'never knew the Queen to be -participant or ware thereof.' So says Lesley, but we have slight faith in -him.[173] He speaks in the same sentence of similar dying confessions by -Tala, Powrie, and Dalgleish. - -I omit the many discrepant accounts of dying confessions accusing or -absolving the Queen. Buchanan says that Dalgleish, in the Tolbooth, -confessed the Exchequer House _fabliau_, and that this is duly recorded, -but it does not appear in his Dying Confession printed in the 'Detection.' -In his, Bowton says that 'the Queen's mind was acknowledged thereto.' The -Jesuits, in 1568, were informed that Bowton, at his trial, impeached -Morton and Balfour, and told Moray that he spared to accuse him, 'because -of your dignity.'[174] These statements about dying confessions were -bandied, in contradictory sort, by both sides. The confession of Morton, -attested, and certainly not exaggerated, by two sympathetic Protestant -ministers, is of another species, and, as far as it goes, is evidence, -though Morton obviously does not tell all he knew. The part of Paris's -statement about the crime ends by saying that Huntly came to Bothwell at -Holyrood, late on the fatal night, and whispered with him, as Bothwell -changed his evening dress, after the dance at Holyrood, for a cavalry -cloak and other clothes. Bothwell told Paris that Huntly had offered to -accompany him, but that he would not take him. Morton, in his dying -confession, declared that Archibald Douglas confessed that he and Huntly -were both present: contradicting Paris as to Huntly. - -The declarations of Paris were never published at the time. On November 8, -1571, Dr. Wilson, who was apparently translating something--the -'Detection' of Buchanan, or the accompanying Oration ('Actio'), into sham -Scots--wrote to Cecil, 'desiring you to send unto me "Paris" closely -sealed, and it shall not be known from whence it cometh.' Cecil was -secretly circulating libels on Mary, but 'Paris' was not used. His -declarations would have clashed with the 'Detection' as written when only -Bothwell and Mary were to be implicated. The truth, that there was a great -_political_ conspiracy, including some of Mary's accusers, and perhaps -Morton, Lindsay, and Ruthven (for so Paris makes Bothwell say), would have -come out. The fact that Moray 'would neither help nor hinder,' and sneaked -off, would have been uttered to the world. The glaring discrepancies would -have been patent to criticism. So Cecil withheld documents unsuited to his -purpose of discrediting Mary.[175] - -The one valuable part of Paris's declarations concerns the carrying of a -Glasgow letter. And that is only valuable if we supply the accusers with -possible dates, in place of their own impossible chronology, and if we -treat as false their tale[176] that Bothwell 'lodged in the town' when he -returned from Calendar to Edinburgh. The earlier confessions, especially -those of Tala, were certainly mutilated, as we have seen, and only what -suited the Lords came out. That of Paris was a tool to use against -Lethington, but, as it also implicated Morton, Lindsay, and Ruthven, with -Argyll and Huntly, who might become friends of Morton and Moray, Paris's -declaration was a two-edged sword, and, probably, was little known in -Scotland. In England it was judiciously withheld from the public eye. -Goodall writes (1754): 'I well remember that one of our late criminal -judges, of high character for knowledge and integrity, was, by reading it -[Paris's statement], induced to believe every scandal that had been thrown -out against the Queen.' A criminal judge ought to be a good judge of -evidence, yet the statements of Paris rather fail, when closely inspected, -to carry conviction. - -Darnley, in fact, was probably strangled by murderers of the Douglas and -Lethington branches of the conspiracy. On the whole, it seems more -probable that the powder was placed in Mary's room than not, though all -contemporary accounts of its effects make against this theory. As touching -Mary, the confessions are of the very slightest value. The published -statements, under examination, of Powrie, Dalgleish, Tala, and Bowton do -not implicate her. That of Bowton rather clears her than otherwise. Thus: -the theory of the accusers, supported by the declaration of Paris, was -that, when the powder was 'fair in field,' properly lodged in Mary's room, -under that of Darnley, Paris was to enter Darnley's room as a signal that -all was prepared. Mary then left the room, in the time required 'to say a -paternoster.' But Bowton affirmed that, as he and his fellows stored the -powder, Bothwell 'bade them make haste, before the Queen came forth of the -King's house, for if she came forth before they were ready, they would not -find such commodity.' This, for what it is worth, implies that no signal, -such as the entrance of Paris, had been arranged for the Queen's -departure. The self-contradictory statements of Paris can be torn to -shreds in cross-examination, whatever element of truth they may contain. -The 'dying confessions' are contradictorily reported, and all the reports -are worthless. The guilt of some Lords, and their alliance with the other -accusers, made it impossible for the Prosecution to produce a sound case. -As their case stands, as it is presented by them, a jury, however -convinced, on other grounds, of Mary's guilt, would feel constrained to -acquit the Queen of Scots. - - - - -VIII - -_MARY'S CONDUCT AFTER THE MURDER_ - - -Nothing has damaged Mary's reputation more than her conduct after the -murder of Darnley. Her first apologist, Queen Elizabeth, adopted the line -of argument which her defenders have ever since pursued. On March 24, -1567, Elizabeth discussed the matter with de Silva. Her emissary to spy -into the problem, Killigrew, had dined in Edinburgh at Moray's house with -Bothwell, Lethington, Huntly, and Argyll. All, except Moray, were -concerned in the crime, and this circumstance certainly gave force to -Elizabeth's reasoning. She told de Silva, on Killigrew's report, that -grave suspicions existed 'against Bothwell, and others who are with the -Queen,' the members, in fact, of Moray's little dinner party to Killigrew. -Mary, said Elizabeth, 'did not dare to proceed against them, in -consequence of the influence and strength of Bothwell,' who was Admiral, -and Captain of the Guard of 500 Musketeers. Elizabeth added that, after -Killigrew left Scotland, Mary had attempted to take refuge in the Castle, -but had been refused entry by the Keeper, who feared that Bothwell would -accompany Mary and take possession. This anecdote is the more improbable -as Killigrew was in London by March 24, and the Earl of Mar was deprived -of the command of the Castle on March 19.[177] To have retired to the -Castle, as on other occasions of danger, and to have remained there, would -have been Mary's natural conduct, had the slaying of Darnley alarmed and -distressed her. Those who defend her, however, can always fall back, like -Elizabeth, on the theory that Bothwell, Argyll, Huntly, and Lethington -overawed her; that she could not urge the finding of the murderers, or -even avoid their familiar society, any more than Moray could rescue or -avenge Darnley, or abstain from sharing his salt with Bothwell.[178] De -Silva inferred from Moray's talk, that he believed Bothwell to be -guilty.[179] - -The first efforts of Mary and the Council were to throw dust in the eyes -of France and Europe. The Council met on the day of Darnley's death. There -were present Hamilton, Archbishop of St. Andrews, Atholl, Caithness, -Livingstone, Cassilis, Sutherland, the Bishop of Galloway (Protestant), -the Bishop of Ross, the treasurer, Flemyng, Bellenden, Bothwell, Argyll, -Huntly, and Lethington. Of these the last four were far the most powerful, -and were in the plot. They must have dictated the note sent by express to -France with the news. The line of defence was that the authors of the -explosion had just failed to destroy 'the Queen and most of the nobles and -lords in her suite, who were with the King till near midnight.' This was -said though confessedly the explosion did not occur till about two in the -morning. The Council add that Mary escaped by not staying all night at -Kirk o' Field. God preserved her to take revenge. Yet all the Court knew -that Mary had promised to be at Holyrood for the night, and the -conspirators must have seen her escort returning thither with torches -burning.[180] The Lennox MSS., in a set of memoranda, insist that Mary -caused a hagbut to be fired, as she went down the Canongate, for a signal -to Bothwell and his gang. They knew that she was safe from any explosion -at Kirk o' Field. - -On the same day, February 10 (11?), Mary, or rather Lethington for Mary, -wrote, in Scots, the same tale as that of her Council, to Beaton, her -ambassador in Paris. She had just received his letter of January 27, -containing a vague warning of rumoured dangers to herself. The warning she -found 'over true' (it probably arose from the rumour that Darnley and -Lennox meant to seize the infant Prince). The explosion had been aimed at -her destruction; so the letter said. 'It wes dressit alsweill for us as -for the King:' she only escaped by chance, or rather because 'God put it -in our hede' to go to the masque. Now all the world concerned knew that -Mary was not in Kirk o' Field at two in the morning, and Mary knew that -all the world knew.[181] To be sure she did not actually write this -letter. Who had an interest in this supposed plot of general destruction -by gunpowder? Not Lennox and Darnley, of course; not the Hamiltons, not -Mary and the Lords who were to be exploded. Only the extreme Protestants, -whose leader, Moray, left on the morning of the affair, could have -benefited by the gunpowder plot. In Paris, on February 21, the deed was -commonly regarded as the work of 'the heretics, who desire to do the same -by the Queen.'[182] - -This was the inference--namely, that the Protestants were guilty--which -the letters of Mary and the Council were meant to suggest. To defend Mary -we must suppose that she, and the innocent members of Council, were -constrained by the guilty members to approve of what was written, or were -wholly without guile. The secret was open enough. According to Nau, Mary's -secretary, she had remarked, as she left Kirk o' Field at midnight, 'Jesu, -Paris, how begrimed you are!' The story was current. Blackwood makes Mary -ask 'why Paris smelled so of gunpowder.' Had Mary wished to find the -guilty, the begrimed Paris would have been put to the torture at once. The -sentinels at the palace would have been asked who went in and out after -midnight. Conceivably, Mary was unable to act, but, if her secretary tells -truth as to the begrimed Paris, she could have no shadow of doubt as to -Bothwell's guilt. A few women were interrogated, as was Nelson, Darnley's -servant, but the inquiry was stopped when Nelson said that Mary's servants -had the keys. Rewards were offered for the discovery of the guilty, but -produced only anonymous placards, denouncing some who were guilty, as -Bothwell, and others, like 'Black Mr. James Spens,' against whom nothing -was ever proved. - -[Illustration: PLACARD OF MARCH 1567. MARY AS A MERMAID] - -It were tedious and bewildering to examine the gossip as to Mary's private -demeanour. If she had Darnley buried beside Riccio, she fulfilled the -prophecy which, Lennox tells us, she made over Riccio's new-made grave, -when she fled from Holyrood after the murder of the Italian: 'ere a -twelvemonth was over, a fatter than he should lie beside him.' What she -did at Seton and when (Lennox says that, at Seton, she called for the tune -_Well is me Since I am free_), whether she prosecuted her amour with -Bothwell, played golf, indulged in the unseasonable sport of archery or -not, is matter of gossip. Nor need we ask how long she sat under -candle-light, in darkened, black-hung chambers.[183] She assuredly made no -effort to avenge her husband. Neither the strong and faithful -remonstrances of her ambassador in France, nor the menace of Catherine de -Medicis, nor the plain speaking of Elizabeth, nor a petition of the godly, -who put this claim for justice last in a list of their own demands, and -late (April 18), could move Mary. Bothwell 'ruled all:' Lethington, -according to Sir James Melville, fell into the background of the Court. He -had taken nothing by the crime, for which he had signed the band, and it -is quite conceivable that Bothwell, who hated him, had bullied him into -signing. He may even have had no more direct knowledge of what was -intended, or when, than Moray himself. He can never have approved of the -Queen's marriage with Bothwell, which was fatal to his interests. He was -newly married, and was still, at least, on terms with Mary which warranted -him in urging her to establish Protestantism--or so he told Cecil. But to -Bothwell, Mary was making grants in money, in privileges, and in beautiful -old ecclesiastical fripperies: chasubles and tunicles all of cloth of -gold, figured with white, and red, and yellow.[184] Lennox avers, in the -Lennox Papers, that the armour, horses, and other effects of Darnley were -presented by Mary to Bothwell. Late in March Drury reported that, in the -popular belief, Mary was likely to marry him. - -From the first Lennox had pleaded for the arrest and trial of Bothwell and -others whom he named, but who never were tried. Writers like Goodall have -defended, Laing and Hill Burton have attacked, the manner of Bothwell's -Trial (April 12). Neither for Lennox nor for Elizabeth, would Mary delay -the process. As usual in Scotland, as when Bothwell himself, years before, -or when John Knox still earlier, or when, later, Lethington, was tried, -either the accused or the accuser made an overwhelming show of armed -force. It was 'the custom of the country,' and Bothwell, looking dejected -and wretched, says his friend, Ormistoun, was 'cleansed' in the promptest -manner, Lennox merely entering a protest. The Parliament on April 19 -restored Huntly and others to forfeited lands, ratified the tenures of -Moray, and offended Mary's Catholic friends by practically establishing -the Kirk. On the same night, apparently after a supper at Ainslie's -tavern, many nobles and ecclesiastics signed a band ('Ainslie's band'). It -ran thus: Bothwell is, and has been judicially found, innocent of -Darnley's death. The signers therefore bind themselves, 'as they will -answer to God,' to defend Bothwell to the uttermost, and to advance his -marriage with Mary. If they fail, may they lose every shred of honour, and -'be accounted unworthy and faithless Traytors.' - -A copy of the names of the signatories, as given to Cecil by John Read, -George Buchanan's secretary, 'so far as John Read might remember,' exists. -The names are Murray (who was not in Scotland), Argyll, Huntly, Cassilis, -Morton, Sutherland, Rothes, Glencairn, Caithness, Boyd, Seton, Sinclair, -Semple, Oliphant, Ogilvy, Ross-Halkett, Carlyle, Herries, Home, -Invermeath. 'Eglintoun subscribed not, but slipped away.'[185] Names of -ecclesiastics, as Lesley, Bishop of Ross, appear in copies where Moray's -name does not.[186] It is argued that Moray may have signed before leaving -Scotland, that this may have been a condition of his license to depart. -Mary's confessor told de Silva that Moray did not sign.[187] That the -Lords received a warrant for their signatures from Mary, they asserted at -York (October, 1568), but was the document mentioned later at Westminster? -That they were coerced by armed force, was averred later, but not in -Kirkcaldy's account of the affair, written on the day following. No -Hamilton signs, at least if we except the Archbishop; and Lethington, with -his friend Atholl, seems not even to have been present at the Parliament. - -On April 21 (Monday), Mary went to Stirling to see her son, and try to -poison him, according to a Lennox memorandum. On the 23rd, she went to -Linlithgow; on the 24th, Bothwell, with a large force, seized her, Huntly, -and Lethington, at a disputed place not far from Edinburgh. He then -carried her to his stronghold of Dunbar. Was Mary playing a collusive -part? had she arranged with Bothwell to carry her off? The Casket Letters -were adduced by her enemies to prove that she was a party to the plot. As -we shall see when examining the Letters if we accept them they leave no -doubt on this point. But precisely here the darkness is yet more obscured -by the enigmatic nature of Mary's relations with Lethington, who, as -Secretary, was in attendance on her at Stirling and Linlithgow. It will -presently be shown that, as to Lethington's policy at this moment, and for -two years later, two contradictory accounts are given, and on the view we -take of his actions turns our interpretation of the whole web of intrigue. - -Whether Mary did or did not know that she was to be carried off, did -Lethington know? If he did, it was his interest to ride from Stirling, by -night, through the pass of Killiecrankie, to his usual refuge, the safe -and hospitable house of Atholl, before the abduction was consummated. -Bothwell's success in wedding Mary would mean ruin to Lethington's -favourite project of uniting the crowns on the head of Mary or her child. -It would also mean Lethington's own destruction, for Bothwell loathed him. -To this point was he brought by his accession to the band for Darnley's -murder. His natural action, then, if he knew of the intended abduction, -was to take refuge with Atholl, who, like himself, had not signed -Ainslie's band. If Lethington was ignorant, others were not. Bothwell had -chosen his opportunity with skill. He had an excellent excuse for -collecting his forces. The Liddesdale reivers had just spoiled the town of -Biggar, 'and got much substance of coin (corn?), silks, and horses,' so -wrote Sir John Forster to Cecil on April 24.[188] On the pretext of -punishing this outrage, Bothwell mustered his forces; but politicians less -wary than Lethington, and more remote from the capital, were not deceived. -They knew what Bothwell intended. Lennox was flying for his life, and was -aboard ship on the west coast, but, as early as April 23, he wrote to tell -his wife that Bothwell was to seize Mary. A spy in Edinburgh (Kirkcaldy, -by the handwriting), and Drury in Berwick, knew of the scheme on April 24, -the day of the abduction. If Mary did not suspect what Lennox knew before -the event, she was curiously ignorant, but, if Lethington was ignorant, so -may she have been.[189] - -What were the exact place and circumstances of Mary's arrest by Bothwell, -whether he did or did not offer violence to her at Dunbar, whether she -asked succour from Edinburgh, we know not precisely. At all events, she -was so far compromised, actually violated, says Melville,[190] that, not -being a Clarissa Harlowe, she might represent herself as bound to marry -Bothwell. Meanwhile Lethington was at Dunbar with her, a prisoner 'under -guard,' so Drury reports (May 2). By that date, many of the nobles, -including Atholl, had met at Stirling, and, despite their agreement to -defend Bothwell, in Ainslie's band, Argyll and Morton, as well as Atholl -and Mar, had confederated against him, Atholl probably acting under advice -secretly sent by Lethington. 'The Earl Bothwell thought to have slain him -in the Queen's chamber, had not her Majesty come between and saved him,' -says Sir James Melville, who had been released on the day after his -capture between Linlithgow and Edinburgh.[191] Different rumours prevailed -as to Lethington's own intentions. He was sometimes thought to be no -unwilling prisoner, and even to have warned Atholl not to head the -confederacy against Bothwell (May 4).[192] Mary wrote to quiet the banded -Lords at Stirling (about May 3), and Lethington succeeded in getting a -letter delivered in which he expressed his desire to speak with Cecil, -declaring that Mary meant to marry Bothwell. He had only been rescued from -assassination by Mary, who said that, 'if a hair of Lethington's head -perished, she would cause Huntly to forfeit lands, goods, and life.'[193] -Could the Queen who protected Lethington be in love with Bothwell? - -Mary, then, was, in one respect at least, no passive victim, at Dunbar, -and Lethington owed his life to her. He explained that his letters, -apparently in Bothwell's interest, were extorted from him, 'but -immediately by a trusty messenger he advertised not to give credit to -them.'[194] Meantime he had arranged to escape, as he did, later. 'He will -come out to shoot with others, and between the marks he will ride upon a -good nag to a place where both a fresh horse and company tarries for -him.'[195] Lethington made his escape, but not till weeks later, when he -fled first to Callendar, then to the protection of Atholl; he joined the -Lords, and from this moment the question is, was he, under a pretext of -secret friendship, Mary's most deadly foe (as she herself, Morton, and -Randolph declared) or her loyal servant, working cautiously in her -interests, as he persuaded Throckmorton and Sir James Melville to believe? - -My own impression is that Mary, Morton, and Randolph were right in their -opinion. Lethington, under a mask of gratitude and loyalty, was urging, -after his escape, the strongest measures against Mary, till circumstances -led him to advise 'a dulce manner,' because (as he later confessed to -Morton)[196] Mary was likely to be restored, and to avenge herself on him. -Mary, he knew, could ruin him by proving his accession to Darnley's -murder. His hold over her would be gone, as soon as the Casket Letters -were produced before the English nobles: he had then no more that he could -do, but she kept her reserve of strength, her proof against him. His bolt -was shot, hers was in her quiver. This view of the relations (later to be -proved) between Lethington and the woman whose courage saved his life, -explains the later mysteries of Mary's career, and part of the problem of -the Casket Letters. - -Meanwhile, in the first days of May, the Queen rushed on her doom. Despite -the protestations of her confessor, who urged that a marriage with -Bothwell was illegal: despite the remonstrances of du Croc, who had been -sent from France to advise and threaten, despite the courageous -denunciation of Craig, the Protestant preacher, Mary hurried through a -collusive double process of divorce, proclaimed herself a free agent, -created Bothwell Duke of Orkney, and, on May 15, 1567, wedded him by -Protestant rites, the treacherous Bishop of Orkney, later one of her -official prosecutors, performing the ceremony.[197] To her or to -Lethington's own letter of excuse to the French Court, we return later. - -Mary, even on the wedding-day, was miserable. Du Croc, James Melville, and -Lethington, who had not yet escaped, were witnesses of her wretchedness. -She called out for a knife to slay herself.[198] Mary was 'the most -changed woman of face that in so little time without extremity of sickness -they have seen.' A Highland second-sighted woman prophesied that she -should have five husbands. 'In the fifth husband's time _she shall be -burned_, which death divers speak of to happen to her, and it is said she -fears the same.' This dreadful death was the legal punishment of women who -killed their husbands. The fires of the stake shone through Mary's dreams -when a prisoner in Loch Leven. Even Lady Reres, now supplanted by a sister -of Bothwell's, and the Lady of Branxholme, 'both in their speech and -writing marvellously rail, both of the Queen and Bothwell.'[199] - -A merry bridal! - -Mary's defenders have attributed her sorrow to the gloom of a captive, -forced into a hated wedlock. De Silva assigned her misery to a galling -conscience. We see the real reasons of her wretchedness, and to these we -must add the most poignant, Bothwell's continued relations with his wife, -who remained in his Castle of Crichton. He, too, was 'beastly suspicious -and jealous.' No wonder that she called for a knife to end her days, and -told du Croc that she never could be happy again. - -Meanwhile the Lords, from the first urged on by Kirkcaldy, who said (April -26) that he must avenge Darnley or leave the country, were banded, and -were appealing to Elizabeth for help, which she, a Queen, hesitated to -lend to subjects confederated against a sister Queen. Kirkcaldy was the -dealer with Bedford, who encouraged him, but desired that the Prince -should be brought to England. Robert Melville dealt with Killigrew (May -27). Bothwell, to soothe the preachers, attended sermons, Mary invited -herself to dinner with her reluctant subjects; the golden font, the -christening gift of Elizabeth, was melted down and coined for pay to the -guard of musketeers (May 31). Huntly asked for leave to go to the north. -Mary replied bitterly that he meant to turn traitor, like his father. This -distrust of Huntly is clearly expressed in the Casket Letters.[200] On May -30, Mary summoned an armed muster of her subjects. On June 6, Lethington -carried out his deferred scheme, and fled to the Lords. On the 7th, Mary -and Bothwell retired to Borthwick Castle. On June 11, the Lords advanced -to Borthwick. Bothwell fled to Dunbar.[201] The Lords then retired to -Dalkeith, and thence, on the same night, to Edinburgh. Thither Mary had -sent a proclamation, which is still extant, bidding the citizens to arm -and free her, not from Bothwell, but from the Lords. An unwilling captive -would have hurried to their protection. The burgesses permitted the Lords -to enter the town. Mary at once, on hearing of this, sent the son of Lady -Reres to the commander of Edinburgh Castle, bidding him fire his guns on -the Lords. He disobeyed. She then fled in male apparel to Dunbar, -Bothwell meeting her a mile from Borthwick (June 11). On June 12, the -Lords seized the remains of the golden font, and the coin already struck. -On the 13th, James Beaton joined Mary and Bothwell at Dunbar, and found -them mustering their forces. He returned, with orders to encourage the -Captain of the Castle, but was stopped. - -Next day (14th) the Lords made a reconnaissance towards Haddington, and -Atholl, with Lethington, rode into Edinburgh, at the head of 200 horse. -Lethington then for three hours dealt with the Keeper of the Castle, Sir -James Balfour, his associate in the band for Darnley's murder. Later, -according to Randolph, they opened a little coffer of Bothwell's which had -a covering of green cloth, and was deposited in the Castle, and took out -the band. Was this coffer the Casket? Such coffers had usually velvet -covers, embroidered. Lethington won over Balfour, who surrendered the -Castle presently. This was the deadliest stroke at Mary, and it was dealt -by him whose life she had just preserved. - -Next day the Lords marched to encounter Bothwell, met him posted on -Carberry Hill, and, after many hours of manoeuvres and negotiations, very -variously reported, the Lords allowed Bothwell to slip away to Dunbar (he -was a compromising captive), and took Mary, clad unqueenly in a 'red -petticoat, sleeves tied with points, a velvet hat and muffler.' She -surrendered to Kirkcaldy of Grange: on what terms, if on any, is not to -be ascertained. She herself in Nau's MS. maintains that she promised to -join in pursuing Darnley's murderers, and 'claimed that justice should be -done upon certain persons of their party now present, who were guilty of -the said murder, and were much astonished to find themselves discovered.' -But, by Nau's own arrangement of his matter, Mary can only have thus -accused the Lords (there is other evidence that she did so) _after_ -Bothwell, at parting from her, denounced to her Morton, Balfour, and -Lethington, giving her a copy of the murder band, signed by them, and -bidding her 'take good care of that paper.' She did 'take good care' of -some paper, as we shall see, though almost certainly not the band, and not -obtained at Carberry Hill.[202] She asked for an interview with Lethington -and Atholl, both of whom, though present, denied that they were of the -Lords' party. Finally, after parting from Bothwell, assuring him that, if -found innocent in the coming Parliament, she would remain his loyal wife, -she surrendered to Kirkcaldy, 'relying upon his word and assurance, which -the Lords, in full Council, as he said, had solemnly warranted him to -make.' So writes Nau. James Beaton (whose narrative we have followed) -merely says that she made terms, which were granted, that none of her -party should be 'invaded or pursued.'[203] Sir James Melville makes the -Lords' promise depend on her abandonment of Bothwell.[204] - -Whatever be the truth as to Mary's surrender, the Lords later excused -their treatment of her not on the ground that they had given no pledge, -but on that of her adhesion to the man they had asked her to marry. -According to Nau, Lethington persuaded the Lords to place her in the house -then occupied by Preston, the Laird of Craigmillar, Provost of Edinburgh. -She asked, at night, for an interview with Lethington, but she received no -answer. Next morning she called piteously to Lethington, as he passed the -window of her room: he crushed his hat over his face, and did not even -look up. The mob were angry with Lethington, and Mary's guards dragged her -from the window. On the other hand, du Croc says that Lethington, on -hearing her cries, entered her room, and spoke with her, while the mob was -made to move on.[205] Lethington told du Croc that, when Mary called to -him, and he went to her, she complained of being parted from Bothwell. He, -with little tact, told her that Bothwell much preferred his wife. She -clamoured to be placed in a ship with Bothwell, and allowed to drift at -the wind's will.[206] Du Croc said to Lethington that he hoped the pair -would drift to France, 'where the king would judge righteously, for the -unhappy facts are only too well proved.' This is a very strong opinion -against Mary. Years later, when Lethington was holding Edinburgh Castle -for Mary, he told Craig that, after Carberry 'I myself made the offer to -her that, if she would abandon my Lord Bothwell, she should have as -thankful obedience as ever she had since she came to Scotland. But no ways -would she consent to leave my Lord Bothwell.'[207] Lethington's word is of -slight value. - -To return to Nau, or to Mary speaking through Nau, on June 16 Lethington -did go to see her: 'but in such shame and fear that he never dared to lift -his eyes to her face while he spoke with her.' He showed great hatred of -Bothwell, and said that she could not be allowed to return to him: Mary, -marvelling at his 'impudence,' replied that she was ready to join in the -pursuit of Darnley's murderers: who had acted chiefly on Lethington's -advice. She then told him plainly that he, Morton, and Balfour had chiefly -prevented inquiry into the murder. _They_ were the culprits, as Bothwell -had told her, showing her the signatures to the murder band, when parting -from her at Carberry. She reminded Lethington that she had saved his life. -If Lethington persecuted her, she would tell what she knew of him. He -replied, angrily, that she would drive him to extremities to save his own -life, whereas, if matters were allowed to grow quiet, he might one day be -of service to her. If he were kept talking, and so incurred the suspicion -of the Lords, her life would be in peril. To 'hedge,' Lethington used to -encourage Mary, when she was in Loch Leven. But he had, then, no -'assurance' from her, and, on a false alarm of her escape, mounted his -horse to fly from Edinburgh.[208] Thus greatly do the stories of Mary and -of Lethington differ, concerning their interview after Carberry. Perhaps -Mary is the more trustworthy. - -On June 17, 1567, John Beaton wrote to his brother, Mary's ambassador in -Paris. He says that no man was allowed to speak to Mary on June 16, but -that, in the evening, she asked a girl to speak to Lethington, and pray -him to have compassion on her, 'and not to show himself so extremely -opposed to her as he does.'[209] Beaton's evidence, being written the day -after the occurrences, is excellent, and leaves us to believe that, in the -darkest of her dark hours in Scotland, insulted by the populace, with -guards placed in her chamber, destitute of all earthly aid, Mary found in -extreme opposition to her the man who owed to her his lands and his life. - -And why was Lethington thus 'extremely opposed'? First, Mary, if free, -would join Bothwell, his deadly foe. Secondly, he knew from her own lips -that Mary knew his share in Darnley's murder, and had proof. While she -lived, the sword hung over Lethington. He, therefore, insisted on her -imprisonment in a place whence escape should have been impossible. He is -even said to have advised that she should be secretly strangled. Years -later, when time had brought in his revenges, and Lethington and Kirkcaldy -were holding the Castle for Mary, her last hope, Lethington explained his -change of sides in a letter to his opponent, Morton. Does Morton hate him -because he has returned to the party of the Queen? He had advised Morton -to take the same course, 'being assured that, with time, she would recover -her liberty (as yet I have no doubt but she will). I deemed it neither -wisdom for him nor me to deserve particular ill will at her hands.' This -was a frank enough explanation of his own change of factions. If ever Mary -came to her own, Lethington dreaded her feud. We shall see that as soon as -she was imprisoned, Lethington affected to be her secret ally. Morton -replied that 'it was vain in Lethington to think that he could deserve -more particular evil will at Mary's hands than he had deserved -already.'[210] - -Lethington could not be deeper in guilt towards Mary than he was, despite -his appearance of friendship. The 'evil will' which he had incurred was -'particular,' and could not be made worse. In the same revolution of -factions (1570-73) Randolph also wrote to Lethington and Kirkcaldy asking -them why they had deserted their old allies, Morton and the rest, for the -Queen's party. 'You yourselves wrote against her, and were the chiefest -causes of her apprehension, and imprisonment' (at Loch Leven), 'and -dimission of her crown.... So that you two were her chiefest occasion of -all the calamities, _as she hath said_, that she is fallen into. You, Lord -of Lethington, _by your persuasion and counsel to apprehend her, to -imprison her, yea, to have taken presently the life from her_.'[211] To -this we shall return. - -When we add to this testimony Mary's hatred of Lethington, revealed in -Nau's MS., a hatred which his death could not abate, though he died in her -service, we begin to understand. Sir James Melville and Throckmorton were -(as we shall see) deluded by the 'dulce manner' of Lethington. But, in -truth, he was Mary's worst enemy, till his bolt was shot, while hers -remained in her hands. Then Lethington, in 1569, went over to her party, -as a charge of Darnley's murder, urged by his old partisans, was hanging -over his head. - -Meanwhile, after Mary's surrender at Carberry, the counsel of Lethington -prevailed. She was hurried to Loch Leven, after two dreadful days of tears -and frenzied threats and entreaties, and was locked up in the Castle on -the little isle, the Castle of her ancestral enemies, the Douglases. There -she awaited her doom, 'the fiery death.' - - - - -IX - -_THE EMERGENCE OF THE CASKET LETTERS_ - - -I. First hints of the existence of the letters - -The Lords, as we have seen, nominally rose in arms to punish Bothwell -(whom they had acquitted), to protect their infant Prince, and to rescue -Mary, whom they represented as Bothwell's reluctant captive. Yet their -first success, at Carberry Hill, induced them, not to make Bothwell -prisoner, but to give him facilities of escape. Their second proceeding -was, not to release Mary, but to expose her to the insults of the -populace, and then to immure her, destitute and desperate, in the island -fortress of the Douglases. - -These contradictions between their conduct and their avowed intentions -needed excuse. They could not say, 'We let Bothwell escape because he knew -too much about ourselves: we imprisoned the Queen for the same good -reason.' They had to protect themselves, first against Elizabeth, who -bitterly resented the idea that subjects might judge princes: next, -against the possible anger of the rulers of France and Spain; next, -against the pity of the mobile populace. There was also a chance that -Moray, who was hastening home from France, might espouse his sister's -cause, as, indeed, at this moment he professed to do. Finally, in the -changes of things, Mary, or her son, might recover power, and exact -vengeance for the treasonable imprisonment of a Queen. - -The Lords, therefore, first excused themselves (as in Lethington's -discourses with du Croc) by alleging that Mary refused to abandon -Bothwell. This was, no doubt, true, though we cannot accept Lethington's -word for the details of her passionate behaviour. Her defenders can fall -back on the report of Drury, that she was at this time with child, as she -herself informed Throckmorton, while Nau declares that, in Loch Leven, she -prematurely gave birth to twins. Mary always had a plausible and possible -excuse: in this case she could not dissolve her marriage with Bothwell -without destroying the legitimacy of her expected offspring. Later, in -1569, when she wished her marriage with Bothwell to be annulled, the Lords -refused assent. In the present juncture, of June, 1567, with their Queen a -captive in their hands, the Lords needed some better excuse than her -obstinate adherence to the husband whom they had selected for her. They -needed a reason for their conduct that would have a retro-active effect: -namely, positive proof of her guilt of murder. - -No sooner was the proof wanted than it was found. Mary was imprisoned on -June 16: her guilty letters to Bothwell, the Casket Letters, with their -instigations to Darnley's murder and her own abduction, were secured on -June 20, and were inspected, and entrusted to Morton's keeping, on June -21. To Morton's declaration about the discovery and inspection of the -Casket and Letters, we return in chronological order: it was made in -December, 1568, before the English Commissioners who examined Mary's case. - -The Lords were now, with these letters to justify them, in a relatively -secure position. They could, and did, play off France against England: -both of these countries were anxious to secure the person of the baby -Prince, both were obliged to treat with the Lords who had the alliance of -Scotland to bestow. Elizabeth wavered between her desire, as a Queen, to -help a sister Queen, and her anxiety not to break with the dominant -Scottish party. The Lords had hanged a retainer of Bothwell, Blackader, -taken after Carberry, who denied his guilt, and against whom nothing was -proved: but he had a Lennox jury. Two other underlings of Bothwell, his -porter Powrie and his 'chamber-child' Dalgleish, were taken and examined, -but their depositions, as reported by the Lords themselves, neither -implicated Mary, nor threw any light on the date at which the idea of an -explosion was conceived. It was then believed to have been projected -before Mary went to bring Darnley from Glasgow. This opinion reflected -itself in what was conceivably the earlier forged draft, never publicly -produced, of the long 'Glasgow Letter' (II.) Later information may have -caused that long letter to be modified into its present shape, or, as -probably, induced the Lords to fall back on a partly genuine letter, our -Letter II. - -The Lords did by no means make public use, at first, of the Letters which -they had found, and were possibly garbling. We shall later make it clear, -it is a new point, that, on the very day of the reading, the Lords sent -Robert Melville post haste to Elizabeth, doubtless with verbal information -about their discovery. Leaving Edinburgh on June 21, the day of the -discovery, Melville was in London on June 23 or 24, dispatched his -business, and was in Berwick again on June 28. He carried letters for -Moray in France, but, for some reason, perhaps because the letters were -delayed or intercepted, Moray had to be summoned again. Meanwhile the -Lords, otherwise, kept their own counsel.[212] For reasons of policy they -let their good fortune ooze out by degrees. - -On June 25, Drury, writing from Berwick, reports that 'the Queen has had a -_box_,' containing papers about her intrigues with France. 'It is -promised Drury to have his part of it.' This rumour of a 'box' _may_ refer -to the capture of the Casket.[213] On June 29, Drury again wrote about the -'box,' and the MSS. in it, 'part in cipher deciphered.' Whether this 'box' -was the Casket, a false account of its contents being given to Drury, is -uncertain. We hear no more of it, nor of any of Mary's own papers and -letters to her: no letters to her from Bothwell are reported. - -The earliest known decided reference to the Letters is that of the Spanish -Ambassador, de Silva, writing from London on July 12, 1567. He says that -du Croc, the French Ambassador to Mary, has passed through town on his -return from Scotland. The French Ambassador in London, La Forest, reports -to de Silva that Mary's 'adversaries assert positively that they know she -had been concerned in the murder of her husband, which was proved by -letters under her own hand, copies of which were in his [whose?] -possession.'[214] Major Martin Hume writes, in his Preface to the -Calendar, 'The many arguments against their genuineness, founded upon the -long delay in their production, thus disappear.' - -It does not necessarily follow, however, that the letters of which du Croc -probably carried copies (unless La Forest merely bragged falsely, to vex -his Spanish fellow diplomatist) were either wholly genuine, or were -identical with the letters later produced. It is by no means certain that -Lethington and Sir James Balfour had not access, before June 21, to the -Casket, which was in Balfour's keeping, within Edinburgh Castle. Randolph -later wrote (as we have already seen) that the pair had opened a little -'coffer,' with a green cloth cover, and taken out the band (which the pair -had signed) for Darnley's murder.[215] Whether the Casket was thus early -tampered with is uncertain. But, as to du Croc's copies of the Letters, -the strong point, for the accusers, is, that, when the Letters were -published, in Scots, Latin, and French, four years later, we do not hear -that any holders of du Croc's copies made any stir, or alleged that the -copies did not tally with those now printed, in 1571-1573, by Mary's -enemies. This point must be kept steadily in mind, as it is perhaps the -chief objection to the theory which we are about to offer. But, on -November 29, 1568, when Mary's accusers were gathered in London to attack -her at the Westminster Conference, La Forest's successor, La Mothe -Fenelon, writes to Charles IX. that they pretend to possess incriminating -letters '_escriptes et signees de sa main_;' written and _signed_ by her -hand. Our _copies_ are certainly not signed, which, in itself, proves -little or nothing, but Mary's contemporary defenders, Lesley and -Blackwood, urge that there was not even a pretence that the Letters were -signed, and this plea of theirs was not answered. - -My point, however, is that though La Forest, according to de Silva, had -copies in July 1567, his successor at the English Court, doubtless well -instructed, knows nothing about them, as far as his despatch shows. But he -does say that the accusers are in search of evidence to prove the Letters -authentic, not forged.[216] He says (November 28) to Catherine de' Medici, -that he thinks the proofs of Mary's accusers 'very slender and extremely -impertinent,' and he has been consulted by Mary's Commissioners.[217] - -Of course it is possible that La Mothe Fenelon was not made acquainted -with what his predecessor, La Forest, knew: but this course of -secretiveness would not have been judicious. For the rest, the Court of -France was not in the habit of replying to pamphlets, like that which -contained copies of the Letters. It is unlikely that the copies given to -La Forest were destroyed, but we have no hint or trace of them in France. -Conceivably even if they differed (as we are to argue that they perhaps -did) from the Letters later produced, the differences, though proof of -tampering, did not redound to Mary's glory. At the time when France was -negotiating Alencon's marriage with Elizabeth, and a Franco-English -alliance (January-July, 1572), in a wild maze of international, personal, -and religious intrigue, while Catherine de' Medici was wavering between -massacre of the Huguenots and alliance with them, it is far from -inconceivable that La Forest's copies of the Letters were either -overlooked, or not critically and studiously compared with the copies now -published. To vex Elizabeth by criticism of two sets of copies of Letters -was certainly not then the obvious policy of France: though the published -Letters were thrust on the French statesmen. - -The letters of La Mothe Fenelon, and of Charles IX., on the subject of -Buchanan's 'Detection,' contain no hint that they thought the Letters, -therein published, spurious. They only resent their publication against a -crowned Queen.[218] The reader, then, must decide for himself whether La -Forest's copies, if extant, were likely to be critically scanned and -compared with the published Letters, in 1571, or in the imbroglio of 1572; -and whether it is likely that, if this was done, and if the two copies did -not tally, French statesmen thought that, in the circumstances, when -Elizabeth was to be propitiated, and the Huguenots were not to be -offended, it was worth while to raise a critical question. If any one -thinks that this course of conduct--the critical comparison of La Forest's -copies with the published copies, and the remonstrance founded on any -discrepancies detected--was the natural inevitable course of French -statecraft, at the juncture--then he must discredit my hypothesis. For my -hypothesis is, that the Letters extant in June and July, 1567, were not -wholly identical with the Letters produced in December, 1568, and later -published. It is hazarded without much confidence, but certain -circumstances suggest that it may possibly be correct. - -To return to the management of the Letters in June-July, 1567. The Lords, -Mary's enemies, while perpetually protesting their extreme reluctance to -publish Letters to Mary's discredit, had now sent the rumour of them all -through Europe. Spain, and de Silva, were at that time far from friendly -to Mary. On July 21, 1567, de Silva writes: 'I mentioned to the Queen -[Elizabeth] that I had been told that the Lords held certain letters -proving that the Queen [Mary] had been cognisant of the murder of her -husband.' (The Letters, if they prove anything, prove more than that.) -'She told me it was not true, _although Lethington had acted badly in the -matter_, and if she saw him she would say something that would not be at -all to his taste.' Thus Elizabeth had heard the story about Letters (from -Robert Melville, as we indicate later?) and--what had she heard about -Lethington?[219] On June 21, the very day of the first inspection of the -Letters, Lethington had written to Cecil.[220] On June 28, Lethington -tells Cecil that, by Robert Melville's letters, he understands Cecil's -'good acceptance of these noblemen's quarrel' for punishment of Darnley's -murder and preservation of the Prince, 'and her Majesty's' (Elizabeth's) -'gentle answer by Cecil's furtherance.'[221] Yet, to de Silva, Elizabeth -presently denounced the ill behaviour of Lethington in the matter, and, -appearing to desire Mary's safety, she sent Throckmorton to act in her -cause. To the Lords and Lethington, by Robert Melville, she sent a gentle -answer: Melville acting for the Lords. To Mary she averred (June 30) that -Melville 'used much earnest speech on your behalf' (probably accusing -Lethington of fraud as to the Letters), 'yet such is the general report of -you to the contrary ... that we could not be satisfied by him.'[222] -Melville, we must remember, was acting for the Lords, but he is described -as 'heart and soul Mary's.' He carried the Lords' verbal report of the -Letters--but he also discredited it, blaming Lethington. Why did he not do -so publicly? At the time it was unsafe: later he and Lethington were -allies in the last stand of Mary's party. - -We do not know how much Elizabeth knew, or had been told; or how much she -believed, or what she meant, by her denunciation of Lethington, as regards -his conduct in the affair of the Letters. But we do know that, on June 30, -the Lords gave the lie, as in later proclamations they repeatedly did, to -their own story that they had learned the whole secret of Mary's guilt on -June 21. On June 30, they issued, under Mary's name, and under her signet, -a summons against Bothwell, for Darnley's murder, and 'for taking the -Queen's most noble person by force to her Castle of Dunbar, detaining her, -_and for fear of her life making her promise to marry him_.'[223] The -Lords of Council in Edinburgh, at this time, were Morton (confessedly -privy to the murder, and confessedly banded with Bothwell to enable him to -marry Mary), Lethington, a signer of the band for Darnley's murder; -Balfour, who knew all; Atholl, Home, James Makgill, and the Justice Clerk, -Bellenden--who had been in trouble for Riccio's murder.[224] The same men, -several guilty, were spreading _privately_ the rumour of Mary's wicked -Letters: and, at the same hour, were _publicly_ absolving her, in their -summons to Bothwell. As late as July 14, they spoke to Throckmorton of -Mary, 'with respect and reverence,' while alleging that 'for the Lord -Bothwell she would leave her kingdom and dignity to live as a simple -damsel with him.' Who can believe one word that such men spoke? - -They assured Throckmorton that du Croc 'carried with him matter little to -the Queen's' (Mary's) 'advantage:' possibly, though not certainly, an -allusion to his copies of the Letters of her whom they spoke of 'with -respect and reverence,' and promised 'to restore to her estate'--if she -would abandon Bothwell.[225] - -'I never saw greater confusion among men,' says Throckmorton, 'for often -they change their opinions.' They were engaged in 'continual preaching and -common prayer.' On July 21, they assured Elizabeth that Mary was forced to -be Bothwell's wife 'by fear and other unlawful means,' and that he kept -his former wife in his house, and would not have allowed Mary to live with -him for half a year. Yet Mary was so infatuated that, after her surrender, -'he offered to give up realm and all, so she might enjoy him.' This -formula, we shall see later, the Lords placed thrice in Mary's mouth, -first in a reported letter of January, 1567 (never produced), next in a -letter of Kirkcaldy to Cecil (April 20), and now (July 21).[226] - -At this time of Throckmorton's mission, Lethington posed to him thus. 'Do -you not see that it does not lie in my power to do that I would fainest -do, which is to save the Queen, my mistress, in estate, person, and in -honour?' He declared that the preachers, the populace, and the chief -nobles wished to take Mary's life.[227] Lethington thus drove his bargain -with Throckmorton. 'If Elizabeth interferes,' he said in sum, 'Mary dies, -despite my poor efforts, and Elizabeth loses the Scottish Alliance.' But -Throckmorton believed that Lethington really laboured to secure Mary's -life and honour. His true object was to keep her immured. Randolph, as we -saw, accuses him to his face of advising Mary's execution, or -assassination. By his present course with Throckmorton he kept Elizabeth's -favour: he gave himself out as Mary's friend. - -The Lords at last made up their minds. On July 25, Lindsay was sent to -Loch Leven to extort Mary's abdication, consent to the coronation of her -son, and appointment of Moray, or failing him, other nobles, to the -Regency. 'If they cannot by fair means induce the Queen to their purpose, -they mean to charge her with tyranny for breach of those statutes which -were enacted in her absence. Secondly they mean to charge her with -incontinence with Bothwell, and others. Thirdly, they mean to charge her -with the murder of her husband, _whereof they say they have proof by the -testimony of her own handwriting_, which they have recovered, as also by -sufficient _witnesses_.' The witnesses were dropped. Probably they were -ready to swear that Mary was at the murder in male costume, as in a legend -of the Lennox Papers! Lethington brought this news to Throckmorton between -ten and eleven at night.[228] It was the friendly Lethington who told -Throckmorton about the guilty Letters. - -The Lords had, at last, decided to make use of the Letters attributed to -Mary, and of the 'witnesses,' and by these, or other modes of coercion, -they extorted her assent (valueless, so Throckmorton and Robert Melville -let her know, because she was a prisoner) to their proposals.[229] Despite -their knowledge of the Letters, the Lords, in proclamations, continued to -aver that Bothwell had ravished her by fear, force, and other unlawful -means, the very means of coercing Mary which they themselves were -employing. The brutality, hypocrisy, and low vacillating cunning of the -Lords, must not blind us to the fact that they certainly, since late in -June, held new cards, genuine or packed. - -It is undeniable that the first notices of the Letters, by de Silva, prove -that the Lords, about the date assigned by Morton, did actually possess -themselves of useful documents. Their vacillations as to how and when they -would play these cards are easily explained. Their first care was to -prejudice the Courts of France, Spain, and Elizabeth against Mary by -circulating the tale of their discovery. If they had published the papers -at once, they might then have proceeded to try and to execute, perhaps (as -the Highland seeress predicted) to _burn_ Mary. The preachers urged them -to severity, but some of them were too politic to proceed to extremes, -which might bring in Elizabeth and France as avengers. But, if Mary was to -be spared in life, to publish the Letters at once would ruin their value -as an 'awe-bond.' They could only be used as a means of coercing Mary, -while they were unknown to the world at large. If the worst was known, -Mary would face it boldly. Only while the worst was not generally known -could the Letters be used to 'blackmail' her. Whether the Letters were, in -fact, employed to extort Mary's abdication is uncertain. She was advised, -as we said, by Throckmorton and Robert Melville, that her signature, while -a captive, was legally invalid, so she signed the deeds of abdication, -regency, and permission to crown her son. For the moment, till Moray -arrived, and a Parliament was held, the Lords needed no more. Throckmorton -believed that he had saved Mary's life: and Robert Melville plainly told -Elizabeth so.[230] - -Thus it is clear that the Lords held documents, genuine, or forged, or in -part authentic, in part falsified. Their evasive use of the papers, their -self-contradictions in their proclamations, do not disprove this fact. But -were the documents those which they finally published? This question, on -which we may have new light to throw, demands a separate investigation. - - - - -X - -_THE CASKET LETTERS_ - - -II. A POSSIBLY FORGED LETTER - -Were the documents in the possession of the Lords, after June 21, those -which they later exhibited before Elizabeth's Commissioners at Westminster -(December, 1568)? Here we reach perhaps the most critical point in the -whole inquiry. A Letter to Bothwell, attributed to Mary, was apparently in -the hands of the Lords (1567-1568), a Letter which was highly -compromising, _but never was publicly produced_. We first hear of this -Letter by a report of Moray to de Silva, repeated by de Silva to Philip of -Spain (July, 1567). - -Before going further we must examine Moray's probable sources of -information as to Mary's correspondence. From April 7, to the beginning of -July, he had been out of Scotland: first in England; later on the -Continent. As early as May 8, Kirkcaldy desired Bedford to forward a -letter to Moray, bidding him come to Normandy, in readiness to return, -(and aid the Lords,) now banding against Bothwell.[231] 'He will haste -him after he has seen it.' Moray did not 'haste him,' his hour had not -come. He was, however, in touch with his party. On July 8, a fortnight -after the discovery of the Casket, Robert Melville, at 'Kernye' in Fife, -sends 'Jhone a Forret' to Cecil. John is to go on to Moray, and -(Lethington adds, on July 9) a packet of letters for Moray is to be -forwarded 'with the greatest diligence that may be.' Melville says, as to -'Jhone a Forret' (whom Cecil, in his endorsement, calls 'Jhon of -Forrest'), 'Credit the bearer, who knows all occurrents.' Can 'Jhone a -Forret' be a cant punning name for John Wood, sometimes called 'John a -Wood,' by the English, a man whom Cecil knew as Moray's secretary? John -Wood was a Fifeshire man, a son of Sir Andrew Wood of Largo, and from Fife -Melville was writing. Jhone a Forret is, at all events, a bearer whom, as -he 'knows all occurents,' Cecil is to credit.[232] This Wood is the very -centre of the secret dealings of Mary's enemies, of the Lords, and Lennox. -Cecil, Elizabeth, and Leicester are asked to 'credit' him, later, as Cecil -'credited' 'Jhone a Forret.' - -Up to this date (July 8) when letters were sent by the Lords to Moray, he -was, or feigned to be, friendly to his sister. On that day a messenger of -his, from France, was with Elizabeth, who told Cecil that Moray was vexed -by Mary's captivity in Loch Leven, and that he would be 'her true servant -in all fortunes.' He was sending letters to Mary, which the Lords were -not to see.[233] His messenger was Nicholas Elphinstone, who was not -allowed to give Mary his letters.[234] After receiving the letters sent to -him from Scotland on July 8, Moray turned his back on his promises of -service to Mary. But, before he received these letters, Archbishop Beaton -had told Alava that Moray was his sister's mortal enemy and by him -mistrusted.[235] Moray's professions to Elizabeth may have been a blind, -but his letters for Mary's private eye have a more genuine air. - -Moray arrived in England on July 23. - -About July 22, Mary's confessor, Roche Mameret, a Dominican, had come to -London. He was much grieved, he said to de Silva, by Mary's marriage with -Bothwell, which, as he had told her, was illegal. 'He swore to me solemnly -that, till the question of the marriage with Bothwell was raised, he never -saw a woman of greater virtue, courage, and uprightness....' Apparently he -knew nothing of the guilty loves, and the Exchequer House scandal. 'She -swore to him that she had contracted the marriage' with the object of -settling religion by that means, though Bothwell was so stout a Protestant -that he had twice married Catholic brides by Protestant rites! 'As -regarded the King's murder, her confessor has told me' (de Silva) 'that -she had no knowledge whatever of it.' Now de Silva imparted this fact to -Moray, when he visited London, as we saw, in the end of July, 1567, and -after Moray had seen Elizabeth. He gave de Silva the impression that -'although he always returned to his desire to help the Queen, this is not -altogether his intention.' Finally, Moray told de Silva 'something that he -had not even told this Queen, although she had given him many remote hints -upon the subject.' The secret was that Mary had been cognisant of -Darnley's murder. 'This had been proved beyond doubt by a letter which the -Queen had written to Bothwell, containing more than three double sheets -(_pliegos_) of paper, written with her own hand and _signed_ with her -name; in which she says in substance that he is not to delay putting into -execution that which he had been ordered (_tenia ordenado_), because her -husband used such fair words to deceive her, and bring her to his will, -that she might be moved by them if the other thing were not done quickly. -She said that she herself would go and fetch him [Darnley], and would stop -at a house on the road where she would try to give him a draught; but if -this could not be done, she would put him in the house _where the -explosion was arranged for the night upon which one of her servants was to -be married_. He, Bothwell, was to try to get rid of his wife either by -putting her away or poisoning her, since he knew that she, the Queen, had -risked all for him, her honour, her kingdom, her wealth, _which she had in -France_, and her God; contenting herself with his person alone.... Moray -said he had heard of this letter from a man who had read it....'[236] - -As to 'hearing of' this epistle, the reader may judge whether, when the -Lords sent 'Jhone a Forret' (probably John Wood) to Moray, and also sent a -packet of letters, they did not enclose copies of the Casket Letters as -they then existed. Is it probable that they put Moray off with the mere -hearsay of Jhone a Forret, who 'knows all occurrents'? If so, Jhone, and -Moray, and de Silva, as we shall prove, had wonderfully good verbal -memories, like Chicot when he carried in his head the Latin letter of -Henri III. to Henri of Navarre. - -Mr. Froude first quoted de Silva's report of Moray's report of this -bloodthirsty letter of Mary's: and declared that Moray described -accurately the long Glasgow Letter (Letter II.).[237] But Moray, as Mr. -Hosack proved, described a letter totally and essentially different from -Letter II. That epistle, unlike the one described by Moray, is _not_ -signed. We could not with certainty infer this from the want of signatures -to our copies; their absence might be due to a common custom by which -copyists did not add the writer's signature, when the letter was otherwise -described. But Mary's defenders, Lesley and Blackwood, publicly complained -of the absence of signatures, and were not answered. This point is not -very important, but in the actual Casket Letter II. Mary does not say, as -in Moray's account, that there is danger of Darnley's 'bringing her round -to his will.' She says the reverse, 'The place will hold,' and, therefore, -she does not, as in Moray's report, indicate the consequent need of hurry. -She does not say that 'she herself will go and fetch him;' she was there -already: this must be an error of reporting. She does not speak of 'giving -him a draught' in a house on the road. She says nothing of a house where -'the explosion was arranged.' No explosion had been arranged, though some -of the earlier indictments drawn up by Lennox for the prosecution declare -that this was the case: 'The place was already prepared with [undermining -and] trains of powder therein.'[238] This, however, was the early theory, -later abandoned, and it occurs in a Lennox document which contains a -letter of Darnley to the Queen, written three days before his death. The -Casket Letter II. says nothing about poisoning or divorcing Lady Bothwell, -nor much, in detail, about Mary's abandonment of her God, her wealth _in -France_, and her realm, for her lover. On the other hand she regards God -as on her side. In short, the letter described by Moray to de Silva agrees -in no one point with any of the Letters later produced and published: -except in certain points provocative of suspicion. Mr. Froude thought that -it did harmonise, but the opinion is untenable. - -De Silva's account, however, is only at third hand. He merely reports what -Moray told him that _he_ had heard, from 'a man who had read the letter.' -We might therefore argue that the whole reference is to the long Casket -Letter II., but is distorted out of all knowledge by passing through three -mouths. This natural theory is no longer tenable. - -In the Lennox Papers the writer, Lennox, breaks off in his account of -Darnley's murder to say, 'And before we proceed any further, I cannot omit -to declare and call to remembrance her Letter written to Bothwell from -Glasgow before her departure thence, together with such cruel and strange -words "unto" him, which he her husband should have better considered and -marked, but that "the" hope "he" had to win her "love" now did blind him; -together that it lieth not in the power of man to prevent that which the -suffering will of God determineth. The contents of her letter to the said -Bothwell was to let him understand that, although the flattering and sweet -words of him with whom she was then presently, the King her husband, has -almost overcome her, yet the remembering the great affection which she -bore unto him [Bothwell] there should no such sweet baits dissuade her, or -cool her said affection from him, but would continue therein, yea though -she should thereby abandon her God, put in adventure the loss of her dowry -in France, "hazard" such titles as she had to the crown of England, as -heir apparent thereof, and also the crown of the realm; wishing him then -present in her arms; therefore bid him go forward with all things, -according to their enterprize, and that the place and everything might be -finished as they had devised, against her coming to Edinburgh, which -should be shortly. And for the time of execution thereof she thought it -best to be the time of Bastian's marriage, which indeed was the night of -the King her husband's murder. She wrote also in her letter that the said -Bothwell should "in no wise fail" in the meantime to dispatch his wife, -and to give her the drink as they had devised before.'[239] - -Except as regards the draught to be given to Darnley, in a house by the -way, and Mary's promise 'to go herself and fetch him,' this report of the -letter closely tallies, not with Casket Letter II., but with what the man -who had read it told Moray, and with what Moray told de Silva. Did there -exist, then, such a compromising letter accepted by Moray's informant, the -'man who read the letter,' and recorded by Lennox in a document containing -copy of a letter from Darnley to himself? - -This appears a natural inference, but it is suggested to me that the brief -reports by Moray and Lennox are 'after all not so very different' from -Letter II. 'If we postulate a Scots translation' (used by Moray and -Lennox) '_with the allusions explained by a hostile hand in the margin_, -then those who professed to give a summary of its "more than three double -pages" in half a dozen lines' (there are thirty-seven lines of Lennox's -version in my hand, and Mary wrote large) 'would easily take the striking -points, not from the Letter, though it was before their eyes, but from the -explanations; which were, of course, much more impressive than that -extraordinary congeries of inconsequences,' our Letter II. - -To this we reply that, in Moray's and Lennox's versions, we have -expansions and additions to the materials of Letter II. All the tale about -poisoning Darnley in a house on the way is not a hostile 'explanation,' -but an addition. All the matter about poisoning or divorcing Lady Bothwell -is not an explanation, but an addition. Marginal notes are brief -summaries, but if Moray and Lennox quoted marginal notes, these were so -expansive that they may have been longer than the Letter itself. - -Take the case of what Mary, as described in the Letter, is to forfeit for -Bothwell's sake. Lennox is in his catalogue of these goods more copious -than Moray: and Letter II., in place of these catalogues, merely says -'honour, conscience, hazard, nor greatness.' Could a marginal annotator -expand this into the talk about God, her French dowry, her various titles -and pretensions? Marginal notes always abbreviate: Moray and Lennox -expand; and they clearly, to my mind, cite a common text. Lennox has in -his autograph corrected this passage and others. - -Moray's and Lennox's statements about the poisoning, about the divorce or -poisoning for Lady Bothwell, about Bastian (whose marriage Letter II. -mentions as a proof of Darnley's knowledge of Mary's affairs), about the -'finishing and preparing of the place' (Kirk o' Field), about 'the house -on the way,'--can all these be taken from marginal glosses, containing -mere gossip certainly erroneous? If so, never did men display greater -stupidity than Lennox and Moray. Where it was important to quote a letter, -both (according to the theory which has been suggested) neglect the Letter -and cite, not marginal abbreviations, but marginal _scholia_ containing -mere tattle. If Moray truly said that he had only 'heard of the Letter -from a "man who had read it,"' is it conceivable that the man merely cited -the marginal glosses to Moray, while Lennox also selected almost nothing -but the same glosses? But, of all impossibilities, the greatest is that -the author of the glosses expanded 'honour, conscience, hazard, and -greatness' (as in Letter II.) into the catalogue beginning with God, in -which Moray and Lennox abound. 'Honour, conscience, hazard, and -greatness,' explain themselves. They need no such long elaborate -explanation as the supposed scholiast adds on the margin. Where we do find -such contemporary marginal notes, as on the Lennox manuscript copy of the -Casket Sonnets, they are brief and simply explain allusions. Thus Sonnet -IV. has, in the Lennox MSS., - - 'un fascheux sot qu'elle aymoit cherement:' - -_elle_ being Lady Bothwell. - -The marginal note is 'This is written of the Lord of Boyn, who was alleged -to be the first lover of the Earl of Bothwell's wife.'[240] We must -remember that Lennox was preparing a formal indictment, when he reported -the same Letter as Moray talked of to de Silva; and that, when the Casket -Letters were produced, his discrepancies from Letter II. might perhaps be -noticed even in an uncritical age. He would not, therefore, quote the -_scholia_ and neglect the Letter. - -The passage about Lady Bothwell's poison or divorce is perhaps mirrored -in, or perhaps originated, Lesley's legend that she was offered a writing -of divorce to sign, with a bowl of poison to drink if she refused. In -fact, she received a valuable consideration in land, which she held for -some forty years, as Countess of Sutherland.[241] Suppose that the -annotator recorded this gossip about the poisoning of Lady Bothwell on the -margin. Could a man like Moray be so foolish as to recite it _viva voce_ -as part of the text of a letter? - -Once more, the hypothetical marginal notes of explanation explain -nothing--to Moray and Lennox. They knew from the first about Bastian's -marriage, and the explosion. The passage about poisoning Darnley 'in a -house by the way' does not explain, but contradicts, the passage in Letter -II., where Mary does not say that she is poisoning Darnley, but suggests -that Bothwell should find 'a more secret way by medicine,' later. Lennox -and Moray, again, of all people, did not need to be told, by an annotator, -what Mary's possessions and pretensions were. Finally, the lines about -poisoning or divorcing Lady Bothwell are not a note explanatory of -anything that occurs in Letter II., nor even an annotator's added piece of -information; for Lennox cites them, perhaps, from the Letter before him, -'_She wrote also in her letter_, that the said Bothwell should in no wise -fail to give his wife the drink as they had devised'--The Mixture as -Before! Thus there seems no basis for the ingenious theory of -_marginalia_, supposed to have been cited, instead of the Letter, by -Lennox and Moray. - -It has again been suggested to me, by a friend interested in the problem -of the Casket Letters, that Moray and Lennox are both reporting mere -gossip, reverberated rumours, in their descriptions of the mysterious -Letter. It is hinted that Lennox heard of the Letters, perhaps from -Buchanan, before Lennox left Scotland. In that case Lennox heard of the -Letters just two months before they were discovered. He left Scotland on -April 23, the Casket was opened on June 21. Buchanan certainly was not -Moray's informant: Jhone a Forret carried the news. - -As to the idea that Moray and Lennox both report a fortuitous congeries of -atoms of gossip, Moray and Lennox both (1) begin their description with -Mary's warning that Darnley's flatteries had almost overcome her. - -(2) Both speak to the desirability of speedy performance, but Lennox does -not, like Moray, assign this need to the danger of Mary's being won over. - -(3) Moray does, and Lennox does not, say that Mary 'will go and fetch' -Darnley, which cannot have been part of a letter purporting to be written -at Glasgow. - -(4) Moray does, and Lennox does not, speak of poisoning Darnley on the -road. From a letter of three sheets no two persons will select absolutely -the same details. - -(5) Moray and Lennox both give the same catalogue, Lennox at more length, -of all that Mary sacrifices for Bothwell. - -(6) Both Moray and Lennox make Mary talk of the house where the explosion -is already arranged: at least Lennox talks of its being 'prepared,' which -may merely mean made inhabitable. - -(7) Both make her say that the night of Bastian's marriage will be a good -opportunity. - -(8) Both make Mary advise Bothwell to poison his wife, Moray adding the -alternative that he may divorce her. - -(9) Lennox does, and Moray does not, mention the phrase 'wishing him then -in her arms,' which occurs in Casket Letter II. The fact does not -strengthen the case for the authenticity of Letter II. - -As to order of sequence in these nine items, they run, - - 1. Moray 1. Lennox 1. - 2. Moray 2. Lennox 2. - 3. Moray 3. (an error) Lennox 0. - 4. Moray 4. Lennox 0. - 5. Moray 8. = = Lennox 5. - 6. Moray 6. Lennox 6. - 7. Moray 7. Lennox 7. - 8. Moray 5. = = Lennox 8. - 9. Moray 0. Lennox 9. - -Thus, in four out of nine items (Moray 3 being a mere error in reporting), -the sequence in Moray's description is the same as the sequence in that of -Lennox. In one item Moray gives a fact not in Lennox. In one Lennox gives -a fact not in Moray. In the remaining items, Moray and Lennox give the -same facts, but that which is fifth in order with Lennox is eighth in -order with Moray. - -Mathematicians may compute whether these coincidences are due to a mere -fortuitous concurrence of atoms of gossip, possessing a common basis in -the long Glasgow Letter II., and in the facts of the murder, and -accidentally shaken into the same form, and almost the same sequence, in -the minds of two different men, _at two different times_. - -My faith in fortuitous coincidence is not so strong. Is it possible that -the report of Lennox and the report of Moray, both of them false, as far -as regards Letter II., or any letter ever produced, have a common source -in a letter at one time held by the Lords, but dropped by them? - -The sceptic, however, will doubtless argue, 'We do not know the date of -this discourse, in which Lennox describes a letter to very much the same -effect as Moray does. May not Lennox have met Moray, in or near London, -when Moray was there in July, 1567? May not Moray have told Lennox what he -told de Silva, and even more copiously? What he told was (by his account) -mere third-hand gossip, but perhaps Lennox received it from him as gospel, -and sat down at once, and elaborated a long "discourse," in which he -recorded as fact Moray's tattle. By this means de Silva and Lennox would -offer practically identical accounts of the long letter; accounts which, -indeed, correspond to no known Casket Letter, but err merely because -Moray's information was hearsay, casual, and unevidential.' 'Why,' my -inquirer goes on, 'do you speak of Lennox and Moray giving their -descriptions of the Letter _at two different times_?' - -The answer to the last question may partly be put in the form of another -question. Why should Lennox be making a long indictment, of seven folio -pages, against Mary, in July, 1567, when Moray was passing through town on -his way from France to Scotland? Mary was then a prisoner in Loch Leven. -Lennox, though in poverty, was, on July 16, 1567, accepted as a -Joint-Regent by Mary, if Moray did not become Regent, alone.[242] On July -29, 1567, James VI. was crowned, a yearling King, and it was decided that -if Moray, who had not yet arrived in Scotland, refused to be Regent alone, -Lennox should be joined with him and others on a Commission of -Regency.[243] Moray, of course, did not refuse power, nor did Lennox go to -Scotland. But, even if Lennox had really been made a co-Regent when Moray -held his conversation about the Letter with de Silva, he would have had, -at that moment, no need to draw up his 'discourse' against Mary. The Lords -had subdued her, had extorted her abdication, and did not proceed to -accuse their prisoner. Again, even if they had meant to try her at this -time, that would not explain Lennox's supposed conduct in then drawing up -against her an indictment, including the gossip about her Letter, which -(on the hypothesis) he had, at that hour, obtained from Moray, in London. -This can easily be proved: thus. The document in which Lennox describes -the Letter was never meant for a _Scottish_ court of justice. It is -carefully made out _in English_, by an English scribe, and is elaborately -corrected in Lennox's hand, as a man corrects a proof-sheet. Consequently, -this early 'discourse' of Lennox's, with its description of the murderous -letter, never produced, was meant, not for a Scottish, but for an English -Court, or meeting of Commissioners. None such could be held while Mary was -a prisoner in Scotland: and no English indictment could then be made by -Lennox. He must have expected the letter he quoted to be produced: which -never was done. - -Therefore Lennox did not weave this discourse, and describe the mysterious -Letter, while Moray was giving de Silva a similar description, at London, -in July, 1567. Not till Mary fled into England, nearly a year later, May -15, 1568, not till it was determined to hold an inquiry in England (about -June 30, 1568), could Lennox construct an indictment in English, to go -before English Commissioners. Consequently his description of the letter -was not written at the same time (July, 1567) as Moray described the -epistle to de Silva. The exact date when Lennox drew up his first -Indictment, including his description of the Letter described by Moray, is -unknown. But it contains curious examples of 'the sayings and reports' of -Mary's own _suite_, as to words spoken by her in their own ears. Therefore -it would seem to have been written _after_ June 11, 1568, when Lennox -wrote to Scotland, asking his chief clansmen to collect 'the sayings of -her servants and their reports.'[244] Again, as late as August 25, 1568, -Lennox had not yet received permission from Elizabeth to go to the meeting -of the Commission of Inquiry which it was then intended to hold at -Richmond. Elizabeth 'flatly denied him,' though later she assented.[245] -Thus Lennox's composition of this indictment with its account of the -mysterious epistle, may be provisionally dated between, say, July 1 (when -he might have got a letter of information from Scotland in answer to his -request for information) and August 25, 1568. - -But an opponent, anxious to make the date of Lennox's knowledge of the -poisonous letter seem early, may say, 'Probably Lennox, in July, 1567, -when Moray was in London, met him. Probably Moray told Lennox what he -would not tell Elizabeth. Probably Lennox then wrote down Moray's -secondhand hearsay gossip about the letter, kept it, and, later, in 1568, -copied it into his discourse to go before English Commissioners. Moray's -verbal report is his only source, and Moray's was hearsay gossip. We have, -so far, no proof that the letter described by Lennox and Moray ever -existed. - -To this I reply that we know nothing of communication between Lennox and -Moray in July, 1567, but we do know when Lennox began to collect evidence -for the 'discourse,' in which this mysterious letter is cited. In June, -1568, Mary complained to Elizabeth that Lady Lennox was hounding Lennox on -to prosecute her. Mary had somehow got hold of letters of Wood and of Lady -Lennox.[246] We also infer that, when Lennox first took up his task, he -may have already seen Scots translations of the Casket Letters as they -then existed. We know too that he had now an adviser who should not have -allowed him to make a damaging error in his indictment, such as quoting a -non-existent letter. This adviser was John Wood. After Mary's flight into -England (May 16, 1568) Moray had sent, on May 21, his agent, John Wood -('Jhone a Forret'?), to London, where he was dealing with Cecil on June 5, -1568.[247] Now Wood carried with him Scots translations of the Casket -Letters, as they then existed. This is certain, for, on June 22, Moray -sent to the English Council the information that Wood held these -translations, and Moray made the request that the 'judges' in the case -might see the Scots versions, and say whether, if the French originals -corresponded, they would be reckoned adequate proof of Mary's guilt.[248] - -The judges, that is the Commissioners who sat at York in October, -apparently did not, in June, see Wood's copies: their amazement on seeing -them later, at York, is evidence to that. But Lennox, perhaps, did see the -Scots versions in Wood's hands. On June 11, from Chiswick, as has been -said, Lennox wrote three letters to Scotland; one to Moray, one to his -retainers, the Lairds of Houstoun and Minto, men of his own clan; and one -to other retainers, Thomas Crawford, Robert Cunningham, and Stewart of -Periven. To Moray he said that of evidence against Mary 'there is -sufficiency in her own hand-writ, _by the faith of her letters_, to -condemn her.' But he also wanted to collect extraneous evidence, in -Scotland. - -Here Lennox writes as one who has seen, or been told the contents of, the -Casket Letters on which he remarks. And well might he have seen them, for -his three despatches of June 11 are 'all written on the same sheets, _and -in the same hand_,' as two letters written and sent, on the following day, -by John Wood, from Greenwich, to Moray and Lethington. Thus Wood, or his -secretary, wrote out all five epistles.[249] Consequently Wood, who had -translations of the Casket Letters, was then with Lennox, and was likely -to be now and then with him, till the Conference at York in October. On -October 3, just before the Conference at York, Lady Lennox tells Cecil -that she means to speak to Mr. John Wood, if he is at Court, for he knows -who the murderers are.[250] And Wood carried to Lennox, at York, Lady -Lennox's despatches.[251] Being allied with Wood, as the Chiswick and -Greenwich letters of June 11, 12, prove, and writing to Wood's master, -Moray, about Mary's Casket Letters, it is hardly probable that Lennox had -not been shown by Wood the Scots versions of the Casket Letters, then in -Wood's custody. And when, about this date or later, Lennox composed the -long indictment against Mary, and quoted the letter already cited by -Moray, it is hardly credible that he described the long poisonous document -from mere hearsay, caught from Moray in the previous year. It is at least -as likely, if not much more so, that his description of the long letter -was derived from a translation of the letter itself, as it then existed in -the hands of Wood. Is it probable that Wood (who was known to have in his -custody the Letters to which Lennox refers, in his epistle to Moray of -June 11) could withhold them from the father of the murdered Darnley, a -noble who had been selected by the Lords as a co-Regent with Moray, and -who was, like himself, a correspondent of Moray and an eager prosecutor of -the Queen? If then Wood did in June, 1568, show to Lennox the Casket -Letters as they then existed, when Lennox presently described the long -murderous letter, he described what he had seen, namely a _piece de -conviction_ which was finally suppressed. And that it was later than his -meeting with Wood, on June 11, 1568, that Lennox prepared his elaborate -discourse, is obvious, for what reason had he to compose an indictment -before, in June or later, it became clear that Mary's case would be tried -in England? - -Not till June 8 did Elizabeth send to Moray, bidding him 'impart to her -plainly all that which shall be meet to inform her of the truth for their -defence in such weighty crimes' as their rebellion against Mary.[252] -Mary, Elizabeth declared, 'is content to commit the ordering of our case -to her,' and Moray has consented, through Wood, 'to declare to us your -whole doings.' Elizabeth therefore asks for Moray's evidence against Mary. -From that date, June 8, the negotiations for some kind of trial of Mary -went on till October, 1568. In that period, Lennox must have written the -discourse in which he cites the false letter, and in that period he had -the aid of Wood, in whose hands the Scots translations were. - -The inference that Lennox borrowed his description of a long poisonous -epistle from a forged letter, a very long letter, then in Wood's custody -with the rest, and occupying the place later taken by Letter II., is -natural, and not illogical, but rather is in congruence with the relations -between Wood and Lennox. The letter described had points in common with -Letter II. (as when Mary wishes Bothwell in her arms) and with the Casket -Sonnets. It certainly was not a genuine document, and certainly raises a -strong presumption that fraud was being attempted by Mary's enemies. But -we need not, for that reason, infer that Letter II. is a forgery. It may -be genuine, and may have been in the hands of Mary's enemies. Yet they may -have tried to improve upon it and make it more explicit, putting forward -to that end the epistle quoted by Lennox and Moray. If so they later fell -back on Letter II., possibly garbled it, and suppressed their first -version. - -Lennox, as we shall see, did not rest on his earlier form of the -indictment, with its description of Mary's letter about poisoning Darnley -and Lady Bothwell, which he originally drew up, say in July-August, 1568. -In his letters from Chiswick he asked for all sorts of evidence from -Scotland. He got it, and, then, dropping his first indictment (which -contained only parts of such matter), he composed a second. That second -document was perhaps still unfinished, or imperfect, just before the -meeting of Commissioners at York (October 6, 1568). - -That the second indictment, about October 1, 1568, was still in the -making, I at first inferred from the following passage which occurs in a -set of pieces of evidence collected for Lennox, but without date. 'Ferder -your h. sall have advertisement of, as I can find, but it is gude that -this mater' (Lennox's construction of a new indictment) 'be not endit -quile' (until) 'your h. _may haif copie of the letter_, quhilk I sall haif -at _York_, so sone as I may haif a traist berar' (a trusty bearer to carry -the copy to Lennox). So I read the letter, but Father Pollen, no doubt -correctly, in place of 'York' reads 'your h.;' that is, 'Your Honour,' a -common phrase. The date yielded by 'York' therefore vanishes. We can, -therefore, only infer that this correspondent, writing not to Lennox, it -appears, but to some one, Wood perhaps, engaged in getting up the case, -while sending him information for his indictment, advises that it be not -finished till receipt of a copy of a certain letter, which is to be sent -by a trusty bearer. It may be our Letter II. We can have no certainty. In -his new indictment, substituted for his former discourse, Letter II. is -the only one to which Lennox makes distinct allusion. - -He now omits the useful citations of the mysterious epistle which he had -previously used; and, instead, quotes Letter II. The old passages cited -were more than good enough for Lennox's purpose, but they are no longer -employed by him. There can be no doubt as to which of his discourses is -the earlier and which the later. That containing the report of Mary's -letter which agrees with Moray's report to de Silva, lacks the numerous -details about Hiegait, Crawford, Mary's taunts to Darnley, their quarrel -at Stirling, and so forth, and we know that, on June 11, 1568, Lennox had -sent to Scotland asking for all these particulars. They all duly appear in -the second discourse which contains reference to Letter II. They are all -absent from the discourse which contains the letter about the scheme for -poisoning Darnley and Lady Bothwell. Therefore that indictment is the -earlier: written on evidence of Darnley's servants, and from 'the sayings -and reports' of Mary's servants. - -For what reason should Lennox drop the citations from the poisonous -letter, which he quoted in his earlier discourse, if such a letter was to -be produced by the Lords? The words were of high value to his argument. -But drop them he did in his later discourse, and, in place of them, quoted -much less telling lines from Letter II. - -All this is explained, if Letter II. was a revised and less explicit -edition of the letter first reported on by Lennox; or if the letter first -quoted was an improved and more vigorous version of a genuine Letter II. -Mr. Hosack, when he had only Moray's account of the mysterious letter -before him, considered it fatal to the authenticity of Letter II., which -he thought a cleverly watered-down version of the mysterious letter, and, -like it, a forgery. Mr. Hosack's theory is reinforced by Lennox's longer -account of the mysterious epistle. But he overlooked the possibility that -Letter II. may not be a diluted copy of the forgery, but a genuine -original on which the forgery was based. It may be asked, if the Letter -touched on by Lennox and Moray was a forged letter, why was it dropped, -and why was another substituted before the meeting of Commissioners at -York? As we have only brief condensed reports of the Letter which never -was produced, our answer must be incomplete. But Moray's description of -the document speaks of 'the house where the explosion was arranged,' -before Mary left Edinburgh for Glasgow. Now, according to one confession, -taken after the finding of the Casket, namely on December 8, 1567, the -explosion was not dreamed of 'till within two days before the -murder.'[253] Therefore Mary could not, on reflection, be made to write -that the gunpowder plot was arranged before January 21, 1567, for that -contradicted the confession, and the confession was put in as evidence. - -The proceedings of Mary's accusers, therefore, may have taken the -following line. First, having certainly got hold of a silver casket of -Mary's, about June 21, 1567, they either added a forgery, or, perhaps, -interpolated, as her Lords said, 'the most principal and substantious' -clauses. They probably gave copies to du Croc: and they told Throckmorton -that they had not only letters, but _witnesses_ of Mary's guilt. These -witnesses doubtless saw Mary at the murder 'in male apparel,' as Lennox -says some declared that she was. But these witnesses were never produced. -They sent, probably, by 'Jhone a Forret,' copies to Moray, one of which, -the mysterious letter, in July, 1567, he partly described to de Silva. In -June, 1568, they sent translated copies into England with Wood. These were -not seen by Sussex, Norfolk, and Sadleyr (the men who, later, sat as -Commissioners at York), but Wood, perhaps, showed them, or parts of them, -to Lennox, who cited portions of the mysterious Letter in his first -indictment. But, when Moray, Morton, Lethington, and the other -Commissioners of the Lords were bound for the Inquiry at York, they looked -over their hand of cards, re-examined their evidence. They found that the -'long letter' cited by Moray and Lennox contradicted the confession of -Bowton, and was altogether too large and mythical. They therefore -manufactured a subtler new edition, or fell back upon a genuine Letter II. -If so, they would warn Lennox, or some one with Lennox, in framing his new -indictment, to wait for their final choice as to this letter. He did -wait, received a copy of it, dropped the first edition of the letter, and -interwove the second edition, which may be partly genuine, with his -'discourse.' - -This is, at least, a coherent hypothesis. There is, however, another -possible hypothesis: admirers of the Regent Moray may declare. Though -capable of using his sister's accomplices to accuse his sister, 'the noble -and stainless Moray' was not capable of employing a forged document. On -returning to Scotland he found that, in addition to the falsified Letter, -there existed the genuine Letter II., really by Mary. Like a conscientious -man, he insisted that the falsified Letter should be suppressed, and -Letter II. produced. - -This amiable theory may be correct. It is ruined, however, if we are right -in guessing that, when Moray sent Wood into England with Scots versions of -the Letters (May, 1568), he may have included among these a copy of the -falsified Letter, which was therefore cited by Lennox. - -There is another point of suspicion, suggested by the Lennox Papers. In -Glasgow Letter II., Mary, writing late at night, is made to say, 'I cannot -sleep as thay do, and as I wald desyre, _that is in zour armes_, my deir -lufe.' In the Lennox account of the letter quoted by Moray to de Silva, -she '_wishes him then present in her arms_.' In the Lennox Paper she -speaks of Darnley's 'sweet baits,' '_flattering_ and sweet words,' which -have 'almost overcome her.' In the English text of Letter II., Darnley -'used so many kinds of _flatteries_ so coldly and wisely as you would -marvel at.' His speeches 'would make me but to have pity on him.' Finally, -in the Lennox version of the unproduced Letter, Mary represents herself as -ready to 'abandon her God, put in adventure the loss of her dowry in -France, hazard such titles as she had to the crown of England, as heir -apparent thereof, and also to the crown of the realm.' Nothing of this -detailed kind occurs, we have seen, in the Letters, as produced. Similar -sentiments are found, however, in the first and second Casket Sonnets. 'Is -he not in possession of my body, of my heart which recoils neither from -pain, nor dishonour, nor uncertainty of life, nor offence of kindred, nor -worse woe? For him I esteem all my friends less than nothing.... I have -hazarded for him name and conscience; for him I desire to renounce the -world ... in his hands and in his power I place my son' (which she did not -do), 'my honour, my life, my realm, my subjects, my own subject soul.' - -It is certainly open, then, to a defender of Mary to argue that the -Letters and Sonnets, as produced and published, show traces of the ideas -and expressions employed in the letter described by Moray, and by Lennox. -Now that letter, certainly, was never written by Mary. It had to be -dropped, for it was inconsistent with a statement as to the murder put -forward by the prosecution; Bowton's examination. - -In short, the letter cited by Moray, and by Lennox, the long letter from -Glasgow, looks like a sketch, later modified, for Letter II., or a forgery -based on Letter II., and suggests that forgeries were, at some period, -being attempted. As the Glasgow Letter (II.), actually produced, also -contains (see 'The Internal Evidence') the highly suspicious passage -tallying verbally with Crawford's deposition, there is no exaggeration in -saying that the document would now carry little weight with a jury. -Against all this we must not omit to set the failure to discredit the -Letters, when published later, by producing the contemporary copies -reported by de Silva to be in the hands of La Forest, or du Croc, as early -as July, 1567. But the French Government (if ever it had the copies) was -not, as we have said, when Buchanan's 'Detection' was thrust on the -courtiers, either certain to compare La Forest's copies and the published -Letters critically, or to raise a question over discrepancies, if they -existed. In any case neither Charles IX., nor La Mothe Fenelon, in 1571, -wrote a word to suggest that they thought the Casket Papers an imposture. - - - - -XI - -_THE LETTERS AT THE CONFERENCE OF YORK_ - - -In tracing the history of the mysterious letter cited by Moray in July, -1567, and by Lennox about July, 1568, we have been obliged to diverge from -the chronological order of events. We must return to what occurred -publicly, as regards the Letters, after Throckmorton was told of their -existence, by Lethington in Scotland in July, 1567. Till May, 1568, Mary -remained a prisoner in Loch Leven. For some time after July, 1567, we hear -nothing more of the Letters. Elizabeth (August 29) bade Throckmorton tell -Mary's party, the Hamiltons, that 'she well allows their proceedings as -far as they concern the relief of the Queen.' On August 30, Moray asked -Cecil to move Elizabeth 'to continue in her good will of him and his -proceedings!'[254] Elizabeth, then, was of both parties: but rather more -inclined to that of Mary, despite Throckmorton's report as to Mary's -Letters. They are next alluded to by Drury, writing from Berwick on -October 28, 1567. 'The writings which comprehended the names and consents -of the chief for the murdering of the King is turned into ashes, the same -not unknown to the Queen (Mary) and the same which concerns her part kept -to be shown.'[255] - -On December 4, the Lords of the Privy Council, 'and other barons and men -of judgement,' met in Edinburgh. They were mainly members of the -Protestant Left.[256] Their Declaration (to be reported presently) was the -result, they tell us, of several days of reasoning and debate. Nor is it -surprising that they found themselves in a delicate posture. Some of them -had been in the conspiracy; others had signed the request to Bothwell that -he would marry the Queen, and had solemnly vowed to defend his quarrel, -and maintain his innocence. Yet if they would gain a paper and -Parliamentary security for their lives and estates (subject to be -attainted and forfeited if ever Mary or her son came to power, and wished -to avenge Darnley's murder and the Queen's imprisonment), they must prove -that, in imprisoning Mary, they had acted lawfully. This they -demonstrated, though 'most loth to do so,' by asking Parliament to approve -of all their doings since Darnley's death (which included their promise to -defend Bothwell, and their advice to Mary to marry him). And Parliament -was to approve, because their hostile acts 'was in the said Queen's own -default, in as far as by divers her private letters, written and -subscribed with her own hand, and sent by her to James, Earl Bothwell, -chief executor of the said horrible murder, as well before the committing -thereof as thereafter, and by her ungodly and dishonourable proceeding in -a private marriage with him; ... it is most certain that she was privy, -art and part, and of the actual device and deed of the forementioned -murder, ... and therefore justly deserves whatsoever has been attempted or -shall be used toward her for the said cause....' - -From the first, it seems, 'all men in their hearts were fully persuaded of -the authors' of the crime. Bothwell, to be sure, had been acquitted, both -publicly and privately, by his peers and allies. Moray had invited an -English envoy to meet him, at a dinner where all the other guests were -murderers. People, however, only 'awaited until God should move the hearts -of some to enter in the quarrel of avenging the same'--which they did by -letting Bothwell go free, and entrapping Mary! The godly assemblage then -explains how 'God moved the hearts of some.' The nobles were 'in just -fear' of being 'handled' like Darnley, 'perceiving the Queen so thrall and -bloody' (_sic_: probably a miswriting for 'blindly') 'affectionate to the -private appetite of that tyrant,' Bothwell. - -The Council thus gave the lie to their own repeated averments, that -Bothwell caused Mary to wed him by fear and force. Now she is gracefully -spoken of as 'bloody affectionate.' - -It will be observed that, like Moray earlier, they here describe Mary's -Letters as 'signed.' The Casket Letters (in our copies) are unsigned. The -originals may have been signed, they were reported to La Forest to be -signed as late as December, 1568. - -On December 15, a Parliament met in Edinburgh. According to Nau, Mary's -secretary, inspired by her, she had already written from prison a long -letter to Moray. 'She demanded permission to be heard in this Parliament, -either in person or by deputy, thereby to answer the false calumnies which -had been _published_ about her since her imprisonment.' Mary offered to -lay down her crown 'of free will,' and to 'submit to all the rigour of the -laws' which she desired to be enforced against Darnley's murderers. None -should be condemned unheard. If not heard, she protested against all the -proceedings of the Parliament.[257] - -This may be true: this was Mary's very attitude when accused at -Westminster. Mary made the same assertion as to this demand of hers to be -heard, in her 'Appeal to Christian Princes,' in June, 1568.[258] Not only -had she demanded leave to be present, and act as her own advocate, but -Atholl and Tullibardine, she said, had admitted the justice of her -claim--and just it was. But neither then, nor at Westminster in December, -1568, was Mary allowed to appear and defend herself. She knew too much, -could have proved the guilt of some of her accusers, and would have broken -up their party. A Scots Parliament always voted with the dominant faction. -The Parliament passed an Act in the sense of the resolution of the Council -and assessors. The Letters, however, are now described, in this Act, not -as 'signed' or 'subscribed,' but as 'written wholly with her own -hand.'[259] No valuable inference can be drawn from the discrepancy. - -Nau says not a word about the Letters, but avers that Herries protested -that Mary might not have signed her abdication by free will: her signature -might even have been forged. He asked leave, with others, to visit her at -Loch Leven, but this was refused. 'Following his example, many of the -Lords refused to sign the Acts of this Parliament.'[260] It appears that -the Letters really were 'produced' in this Parliament, for Mary's Lords -say so in their Declaration of September 12, 1568, just before the -Commissioners met at York. They add that 'there is in no place' (of 'her -Majesty's writing') 'mention made, by which her highness might be convict, -albeit it were her own handwriting, as it is not.' The Lords add, 'and -also the same' (Mary's 'writing') 'is devysit by themselves in some -principal and substantious clauses.'[261] This appears to mean that, while -the handwriting of the Letters is not Mary's, parts of the substance were -really hers, 'principal and substantious clauses'[262] being introduced by -the accusers. - -This theory is upheld by Gerdes, and Dr. Sepp, with his hypothesis that -the Casket Letters consist of a Diary of Mary's, mingled with letters of -Darnley's, and interpolated with 'substantious clauses.'[263] When the -originals were produced in England, none of Mary's party were present to -compare them with the Letters shown in the Scottish Parliament. - -The Letters are not remarked on again till after Mary's escape from Loch -Leven, and flight into England (May 16, 1568), when Moray writes about -them on June 22, 1568. - -Wood, in May, as we saw, had carried with him into England copies of the -Letters translated into our language: so says the instruction given by -Elizabeth's Government to Middlemore. Moray understood that Elizabeth -intended to 'take trial' of Mary's case, 'with great ceremony and -solemnities.' He is 'most loth' to accuse Mary, though, privately or -publicly, his party had done so incessantly, for a whole year. Now he asks -that those who are to judge the case shall read the Scots translations of -the Letters in Wood's possession (why in Scots, not in the original -French?), and shall say whether, if the French originals coincide, the -evidence will be deemed sufficient. - -Whatever we may think of the fairness of this proposal, it is clear that -the French texts, genuine or forged, as they then stood, were already in -accordance with the Scots texts, to be displayed by Wood. If the -mysterious letter was in Wood's hands in Scots, doubtless Moray had a -forged French version of it. Any important difference in the French texts, -when they came to be shown, would have been fatal. But, apparently, they -were not shown at this time to Elizabeth. - -It is unnecessary to enter on the complicated negotiations which preceded -the meeting of Elizabeth's Commissioners, at York (October, 1568), with -Mary's representatives, and with Moray (who carried the Casket with him) -and his allies, Buchanan, Wood, Makgill, Lethington, and others. Mary had -the best promises from Elizabeth. She claimed the right of confronting her -accusers, from the first. If the worst came to the worst, if the Letters -were produced, she believed that she had valid evidence of the guilt of -Morton and Lethington, at least. In a Lennox Paper, of 1569, we read: -'Whereas the Queen said, when she was in Loch Leven, that she had that in -black and white that would cause Lethington to hang by the neck, which -Letter, if it be possible, it were very needful to be had.' Nau says that -Bothwell, on leaving Mary at Carberry, gave her a band for Darnley's -murder, signed by Morton, Lethington, Balfour, and others, 'and told her -to take good care of that paper.' Some such document, implicating -Lethington at least, Mary probably possessed 'in black and white.' The -fact was known to her accusers, she had warned Lethington as we saw (p. -189), and their knowledge influenced their policy. When Wood wrote to -Moray, from Greenwich, on June 12, 1568, as to Scottish Commissioners to -meet Elizabeth's, and discuss Mary's case, he said that it was much -doubted, in England, whether Lethington should be one of them. To -Lethington he said that he had expected Mary to approve of his coming, -'but was then surely informed she had not only written and accused him, -and my Lord of Morton as privy to the King's murder, but affirmed she had -both their handwritings to testify the same, which I am willed to signify -to you, that you may consider thereof. You know her goodwill towards you, -and how prompt of spirit she is to invent anything that might tend to your -hurt. The rest I remit to your wisdom.... Mr. Secretary' (Cecil) 'and Sir -Nicholas' (Throckmorton) 'are both direct against your coming here to this -trial.'[264] But it was less unsafe for Lethington to come, and perhaps -try to make his peace with Mary, than to stay in Scotland. Mary also, in -her appeal to all Christian Princes, declares that the handwriting of -several of her accusers proves that they are guilty of the crime they lay -to her charge.[265] It is fairly certain that she had not the murder band, -but something she probably did possess. And Nau says that she had told -Lethington what she knew on June 16, 1567. - -If the Casket Letters were now produced, and if Mary were allowed to -defend herself, backed by her own charms of voice and tears, then some, at -least, of her accusers would not be listened to by that assemblage of -Peers and Ambassadors before which she constantly asked leave to plead, -'in Westminster Hall.' The Casket Letters, produced by men themselves -guilty, would in these circumstances be slurred as probable forgeries. -Mary would prefer not to come to extremities, but if she did, as Sussex, -one of Elizabeth's Commissioners, declared, in the opinion of some 'her -proofs would fall out the better.' - -This I take to have been Mary's attitude towards the Letters, this was her -last line of defence. Indeed the opinion is corroborated by her letter -from Bolton to Lesley (October 5, 1568). She says that Knollys has been -trying _tirer les vers du nez_ ('to extract her secret plans'), a phrase -used in Casket Letter II. 'My answer is that I would oppose the truth to -their false charges, _and something which they perchance have not yet -heard_.'[266] Mr. Froude thinks that Mary trusted to a mere theatrical -denial, on the word of a Queen. But I conceive that she had a better -policy; and so thought Sussex. - -Much earlier, on June 14, 1568, soon after her flight into England, Mary -had said to Middlemore, 'If they' (her accusers) 'will needs come, desire -my good sister, the Queen, to write that Lethington and Morton (who be -two of the wisest and most able of them to say most against me) may come, -and then let me be there in her presence, face to face, to hear their -accusations, and to be heard how I can make my own purgation, but I think -Lethington would be very loath of that commission.'[267] - -Lethington knew Mary's determination. Wood gave him warning, and his -knowledge would explain his extraordinary conduct throughout the -Conference at York, and later. As has been said, Mary and he were equally -able to 'blackmail' each other. Any quarrel with Moray might, and a -quarrel finally did, bring on Lethington the charge of guilt as to -Darnley's murder. Once accused (1569), he was driven into Mary's party, -for Mary could probably have sealed his doom. - -As to what occurred, when, in October, the Commission of Inquiry met at -York, we have the evidence of the letters of Elizabeth's Commissioners, -Norfolk, Sussex, and Sadleyr. We have also the evidence of one of Mary's -Commissioners, Lesley, Bishop of Ross, given on November 6, 1571, when he -was prisoner of Elizabeth, in the Tower, for his share in the schemes of -the Duke of Norfolk. All confessions are suspicious, and Lesley's alleged -gossip against Mary (she poisoned her first husband, murdered Darnley, led -Bothwell to Carberry that he might be slain, and would have done for -Norfolk!) is reported by Dr. Wilson, who heard it![268] 'Lord, what a -people are these, what a Queen, and what an ambassador!' cries Wilson, in -his letter to Burghley. If Lesley spoke the words attributed to him by -Wilson, we can assign scant value to any statement of his whatever: and we -assign little or none to Wilson's. - -In his confession (1571) he says that, when he visited Mary, at Bolton, -about September 18, 1568, she told him that the York Conference was to end -in the pardon, by herself, of her accusers: her own restoration being -implied. Lesley answered that he was sorry that she had consented to a -conference, for her enemies 'would utter all that they could,' rather than -apologise. He therefore suggested that she should not accuse them at all, -but work for a compromise. Mary said that, from messages of Norfolk to his -sister, Lady Scrope, then at Bolton, she deemed him favourable to her, and -likely to guide his fellow-commissioners: there was even a rumour of a -marriage between Norfolk and herself. Presently, says Lesley, came Robert -Melville, '_before our passing to York_,' bearing letters from Lethington, -then at Fast Castle. Lethington hereby (according to Lesley) informed Mary -that Moray was determined to speak out, and was bringing the letters, -'whereof he' (Lethington) 'had recovered the copy, and had caused his -wife' (Mary Fleming) 'write them, which he sent to the Queen.' He added -that he himself was coming merely to serve Mary: _how_ she must inform -him by Robert Melville. This is Lesley's revelation. The statements are -quite in accordance with our theory, that Lethington, now when there was -dire risk that the Letters might come out publicly, and that Mary would -ruin him in her own defence, did try to curry favour with the Queen: did -send her copies of the Letters. - -For what it is worth, Lesley's tale to this effect has some shadowy -corroboration. At Norfolk's Trial for Treason (1571), Serjeant Barham -alleged that Lethington 'stole away the Letters, and kept them one night, -and caused his wife to write them out.' _That_ story Barham took from -Lesley's confession. But he added, from what source we know not, 'Howbeit -the same were but copies, translated out of French into Scots: which, when -Lethington's wife had written them out, he caused to be sent to the -Scottish Queen. She laboured to translate them again into French, as near -as she could to the originals wherein she wrote them, but that was not -possible to do, but there was some variance in the phrase, by which -variance, as God would, the subtlety of that practice came to light.' -'What if all this be true? What is this to the matter?' asked the -Duke.[269] - -What indeed? Mary had not kept copies of her letters to Bothwell, if she -wrote them. She was short of paper when she wrote Letter II., if she wrote -it, and certainly could make no copy: the idea is grotesque. What -'subtlety of practice' could she intend?[270] Conceivably, if Lethington -sent her copies of both French and Scots (which is denied), she may have -tried whether she could do the Scots into the French idioms attributed to -her, and, if she could not, might advance the argument that the French was -none of hers. Barham avers that she received no French copies. But did -Lesley say, with truth, that she received any copies? Here, confession for -confession, that of Robert Melville gives the lie to Lesley's. Melville -(who, years later, had been captured with Lethington and Kirkcaldy of -Grange in the Castle) was examined at Holyrood, on October 19, 1573.[271] -According to Lesley, Melville rode to Bolton with Lethington's letters -from Fast Castle, _before_ the meeting of Commissioners at York. But -Melville denies this: his account runs thus: - -'Inquirit quhat moved him to ryde to the quene in England the tyme that -the erll of morey Regent was thair, he not being privie therto? Answeris -it wes to get a discharge of sic thingis as she had gotten from him. And -that the Regent wes privie to the same and grantit him licence to follow -efter. Bot wald not let him pas in company wt him. _And denys that he past -first to bolton bot come first to York._' - -If Melville told truth, then he did not secretly visit Mary before the -Conference, and she did not deal then with Lethington, or receive copies -of the Casket Letters, or bid any one 'stay these rigorous accusations and -travail with the Duke of Norfolk in her favour,' as Lesley confessed.[272] -The persons who examined Melville, in 1573, were acquainted with Lesley's -confession of 1571, and Melville is deliberately and consciously -contradicting the evidence of Lesley. Both confessed when in perilous -circumstances. Which of the two can we believe? - -On Saturday, October 2, Mary's Commissioners arrived in York, but Wood did -not ride in from London till October 8.[273] Moray and the other -Commissioners of the Lords came in on Sunday, followed, an hour later, by -the English negotiators: 'mediators,' Mary calls them. Then began a -contest of intrigue and infamy. If we believe Melville, he no sooner -arrived in York than Moray sent him to Bolton, 'to deal with the Queen as -of his awin heid,'--that is, as if the proposal were an unofficial -suggestion of his own. He was to propose a compromise: the Lords were not -to accuse her, and she was to stay in England with a large allowance, -Moray still acting as Regent. 'The Quene did take it verie hardlie at the -begyning ... bot in the end condescendit to it, swa that it come of [part -obliterated] the Quene of England's sute.' Melville was then kept going to -and from Bolton, till the Commissioners departed to London. On this -statement Moray, apparently as soon as the Commissioners met at York, -treated with Mary for a compromise in his favour, and Mary assented, -though reluctantly.[274] - -Turning to the reports of Elizabeth's Commissioners, we find that, on -October 4, they met Mary's Commissioners, and deemed their instructions -too limited. Mary's men proposed to ask for larger license, and, -meanwhile, to proceed. But Herries (Oct. 6) declared that he would 'in no -ways say all in this matter that he knew to be true.'[275] Moray and -Lethington, already 'though most sorry that it is now come to that point,' -said that they must disclose what they knew. Lethington by no means tried -to 'mitigate these rigours intended,' as in the letter which Lesley says -that he sent to Mary by Melville. He already boasted of what 'they could -an' they would.' Probably Lethington, to use a modern phrase, was -'bluffing.' Nothing could suit him worse than a public disclosure of the -letters, laying him open to a _riposte_ from Mary if she were allowed to -be present, and speak for herself. His game was to threaten disclosure, -and even to make it unofficially, so as to frighten Mary into silence, and -residence in England, while he kept secretly working for another -arrangement with Norfolk, behind the backs of the other English -Commissioners. - -This was a finesse in which Lethington delighted, but it was a most -difficult game to play. His fellows, except Morton, not a nervous man, -were less compromised than he, or not compromised at all, and they might -break away from him, and offer in spite of him (as they finally did) a -public disclosure of the Letters. The other English Commissioners, again, -might not take their cue from Norfolk. Above all, Norfolk himself must be -allowed to see the Letters, and yet must be induced to overlook or -discredit the tale of the guilt of Mary, which they revealed. This was the -only part of Lethington's arduous task in which he succeeded, and here he -succeeded too well.[276] - -On October 6, Norfolk, writing for himself, told Cecil that, from the talk -of Mary's enemies, 'the matter I feare wyll fall owte very fowle.'[277] On -October 8, Mary's men produced their charges against the Lords. The -signers were Lesley, Lord Livingstone (who certainly knew whether the -anecdote about himself, in the Glasgow Letter II., was true or not), -Herries (who, in June, had asked Elizabeth what she intended to do if Mary -was proved guilty), Cockburn of Skirling, a Hamilton, commendator or lay -abbot of Kilwinning, and Lord Boyd. - -Lennox, who was present at York,[278] burning for leave to produce his -indictment, had asked his retainers to collect evidence against Herries, -Fleming, Lord Livingstone, 'and all these then in England,' with Mary. On -this head Lennox got no help, except so far as an anecdote, in the Casket -Letter II., implied Livingstone's knowledge of Mary's amour with Bothwell. -He, therefore, in a paper which we can date about October 4, 1568,[279] -suggests 'that the Lord Livingstone may be examined upon his oath of the -words between his mistress and him at Glasgow, mentioned in her own -letter.' But this very proper step was never taken: nor was Lennox then -heard. The words might have been used, but that would not prove Mary's -authorship of the letter containing them. They might have been supplied by -Lady Reres, after her quarrel with Mary in April-May, 1567. Moray next -desired to know-- - -1. Whether the English Commissioners had authority to pronounce Mary -guilty or not guilty. (She had protested (Oct. 7) that she 'was not -subject to any judge on earth.') - -2. Whether the Commissioners will promise to give verdict instantly. - -3. Whether, if the verdict was 'guilty,' Mary would be handed over to -them, or kept prisoner in England. - -4. Whether, in that case, Elizabeth would recognise Moray as Regent. - -Till these questions were answered (they were sent on to Elizabeth), Moray -could not 'enter to the accusation.'[280] Hitherto they had been 'content -rather to hide and conceal than to publish and manifest to the world' -Mary's dishonour. They had only told all Europe--in an unofficial way. The -English Commissioners waited for Elizabeth's reply. On the 11th October, -Moray replied to the charges of Mary, without accusing her of the murder. -He also 'privately,' and unofficially, showed to the English Commissioners -some of the Casket Papers. Lethington, Wood (?), Makgill, and Buchanan (in -a new suit of black velvet) displayed and interpreted the documents. They -included a warrant of April 19, signed by Mary, authorising the Lords to -sign the Ainslie band, advising Bothwell to marry her.[281] Of this -warrant we hear nothing, as far as I have observed, at Westminster.[282] -Calderwood, speaking of Morton's trial in 1581, says that 'he had,' for -signing Ainslie's band, 'a warrant from the Queen, which none of the rest -had.'[283] At York, the Lords said that all of them had this warrant. -'Before they had this warrant, there was none of them that did, or would, -set to their hands, saving only the Earl of Huntly.' Yet they also alleged -that they signed 'more for fear than any liking they had of the same.' -They alleged that they were coerced by 200 musketeers.[284] Now Kirkcaldy, -on April 20, 1567, reports the signing of the Band on the previous day, to -Bedford, but says not a word of the harquebus men. They are not mentioned -till ten days later. - -Lethington kindly explained the reason for Mary's abduction, which -certainly needs explanation. A pardon for that, he told the English Lords, -would be 'sufficient also for the murder.' The same story is given in the -'Book of Articles,' the formal impeachment of Mary.[285] Presently the -English Commissioners were shown 'one horrible and long letter of her own -hand, containing foul matter and abominable ... with divers fond ballads -of her own hand, which letters, ballads, and other writings before -specified, were closed in a little coffer of silver and gilt, heretofore -given by her to Bothwell.' - -After expressing abhorrence, the three Commissioners enclose extracts, -partly in Scots.[286] The Commissioners, after seeing the papers -unofficially, go on to ask how they are to proceed. Their letter has been -a good deal modified, by the authors, in a rather less positive and more -sceptical sense than the original, which has been deciphered.[287] - -On the same day, Norfolk wrote separately to Pembroke, Leicester, and -Cecil. He excused the delays of the Scots: 'they stand for their lives, -lands, goods, and they are not ignorant, if they would, for it is every -day told them, that, as long as they abstain from touching their Queen's -honour, she will make with them what reasonable end they can devise....' -In fact, as Melville has told us, he himself was their go-between for the -compromise. Norfolk adds that there are two ways, by justice public and -condign, 'if the fact shall be thought as detestable and manifest to you, -as, for aught we can perceive, it seemeth here to us,' or, if Elizabeth -prefer it, 'to make such composition as in so broken a cause may be.' - -Norfolk seems in exactly the mind of an honourable man, horrified by -Mary's guilt, and anxious for her punishment. He either dissembled, or was -a mere weathercock of sentiment, or, presently, he found reason to doubt -the authenticity of what he had been shown. Lethington, we saw, showed the -letters, unofficially, on October 11. On October 12, Knollys had a talk -with Mary. 'When,' asked she, 'will they proceed to their odious -accusations, or will they stay and be reconciled to me, or what will my -good sister do for me?' Surely an innocent lady would have said, 'Let them -do their worst: I shall answer them. A reconciliation with dastardly -rebels I refuse.' That was not Mary's posture: 'But,' she said, 'if they -will fall to extremities they shall be answered roundly, and at the full, -and then are we past all reconciliations.' So wrote Knollys to Norfolk, on -October 14.[288] Mary would fall back on her 'something in black and -white.' - -On October 13, Lesley and Boyd rode to Bolton, says Knollys, and told Mary -what Lethington had done: his privy disclosure of her Letters. He himself -was doubtless their informant, his plan being to coerce her into a -compromise. - -Of all things, it now seemed most unlikely that Norfolk would veer round -to Mary's side, and desire to marry her. But this instantly occurred, and -the question is, had he seen reason to doubt the authenticity of the -letter which so horrified him? Had Lethington told him something on that -long ride which they took together, on Saturday, October 16?[289] As shall -be shown, in our chapter on the Possible Forgers, this may be what -Lethington had done, and over-done. He had shaken Norfolk's belief in the -Letter, so much that Norfolk presently forbade Mary to accept a -compromise! - -The evidence of Lesley is here, as usual, at cross purposes. In his -confession (November 6, 1571) he says that Robert Melville took him to -Lethington's lodgings, _after_ Lethington had secretly shown the Letters. -'We talked almost a whole night.' Lethington said that Norfolk favoured -Mary, and wished Moray to drop the charges and arrange a compromise. - -Meanwhile in a letter to Mary (after October 16)[290] Lesley first, as in -his confession, says that he has conferred with Lethington 'great part of -a night.' Lethington had ridden out with Norfolk, on October 16, and -learned from him that Elizabeth aimed at delay, and at driving Moray to do -his very worst. When they had produced 'all they can against you,' -Elizabeth would hold Mary prisoner, till she could 'show you favour.' -Norfolk therefore now advised Mary to feign submission to Elizabeth, who -would probably be more kind in two or three months.[291] If so, -Lethington's words had not yet their full effect, or Norfolk dissembled. - -If we are to believe Sir James Melville, who was at York, Norfolk also -conferred with Moray himself, who consulted Lethington and Sir James; but -not the other Commissioners, his allies. His friends advised him to listen -to Norfolk. We have Moray's own account of the transaction. In October, -1569, when Norfolk was under the suspicion of Elizabeth, Moray wrote to -her with his version of the affair.[292] 'When first in York I was moved -to sue familiar conference with the Duke as a mean to procure us -expedition.' He found the Duke 'careful to have her schame coverit, hir -honour repairit, schew(ed) hir interest to the title of the crown of -England.... It was convenient she had "ma" (more) children,' who would be -friends of Moray, and so on. The guileless Regent dreamed 'of nothing less -than that Norfolk had in any way pretended to the said marriage.' But -_now_ (1569) Moray sees that Norfolk's idea was to make him seem the -originator of the marriage. - -Meanwhile Robert Melville was still (he says) negotiating between Mary and -Moray, on the basis of Mary's abdication and receipt of a large pension -from Scotland. Melville rode to London to act for Mary on October 25.[293] -But, before that date, on October 16, Elizabeth wrote to Norfolk as to the -demands of Moray made on October 11, and under the influence of what she -had now learned from her Commissioners as to the Casket Letters, and, -perhaps, of suspicions of Norfolk. Practically, she removed the Conference -to London, ordering Norfolk so to manage that Mary should think her -restoration was to be arranged.[294] Mary weakly consented to the change -of _venue_ (October 22). She sent Lesley and Herries to represent her in -London. - -At this moment, namely (October 22) when Mary consented to the London -Conference, it seems that she expected a compromise on the lines discussed -between Moray and herself. She would resign the crown, and live affluently -in England, while Moray would not produce his accusations, and would -exercise the Regency. This course would be fatal to Mary's honour, in the -eyes of history, but contemporaries would soon forget all, except that -there had been gossip about compromising letters. The arrangement proposed -was, then, reluctantly submitted to by Mary, according to Robert Melville. -But it occurred to Norfolk that he could hardly marry a woman on whom such -a blot rested, or, more probably, that his ambition would gain little by -wedding a Queen retired, under a cloud, from her realm. If I am right, he -had now come, under Lethington's influence, to doubt the authenticity of -the Casket Letters. - -That Norfolk opposed compromise appears from Robert Melville's deposition. -On arriving in London, he met Herries, who, rather to his surprise, knew -the instructions of Mary to Robert himself. 'The Lord Herries sayand to -this deponair that he' (Melville) 'was cum thither with sic commission to -deale privelie with the Quene of England, howbeit thair wes mair honest -men thair' (than Melville). 'The men that had bene the caus of hir -trouble' (Morton and the rest) 'wald be prefarit in credit to thame. This -berair (Melville) be the contraire affirmit that the caus of his cumming -thair wes to be a witness in caise he should be called upon,' namely to -the fact that Mary did not sign her abdication (at Loch Leven) as a free -agent. Melville goes on to say that, 'in the tyme quhan it was thocht that -course' (the compromise with Murray) 'should have past furthair, thair com -a writing from the quene to the Bishop of Ross that the Scotch partie -heard the Bishop reid, and partly red himself, bearing amangis uther -purposis that the Duke of Norfolk had send liggynnis' (Liggens, or Lygons -his messenger) 'to hir and forbid hir to dimitt hir crown. And sa the -Bishop willit the Secretair' (Lethington) 'to lief of that course' (the -compromise) 'as a thing the Quene (Mary) was not willing to, without the -Duke' (Norfolk) 'gaif hir counsail thairto.'[295] - -Thus it appears that Norfolk prevented Mary from pursuing her compromise -(which Lethington was favouring in his own interest) and from abdicating, -leaving the Letters unproduced. Lethington had shaken his faith in the -authenticity of the Casket Letters. That Mary should have acquiesced in a -compromise demonstrates that she dreaded Moray's accusations. That, at a -word from Norfolk, she reconsidered and altered her plan, proves that she -could, in her opinion, outface her accusers, and indicates that Norfolk -now distrusted the genuine character of the Letters. She knew, if not by -the copies of her Letters which Lethington did (or did not) send her, at -least by Lesley's report of that which Lethington showed the English -Commissioners, what her enemies could do. She would carry the war into -Africa, accuse her accusers, and, in a dramatic scene in Westminster Hall, -before the Peers and the foreign Ambassadors, would rout her enemies. -That, if accused, she would not be allowed to be present, and to reply, -did not occur to her. Such injustice was previously unknown. That she -would be submitting to a judge, or judges, she could overlook, or would, -later, protest that she had never done. According to Nau, she had made the -same offer to defend herself (as we have seen) to Moray, before the Scots -Parliament of December, 1567. - -Mary's plan was magnificent. Sussex himself, writing from York, on October -22, saw the force of her tactics.[296] He speaks, as well he might, of -'the inconstancy and subtleness of the people with whom we deal.' Mary -must be found guilty, or the matter must be huddled up 'with a show of -saving her honour.' 'The first, I think, will hardly be attempted, for two -causes: the one for that if her adverse party accuse her of the murder by -producing of her letters, she will deny them, and accuse the most of them -of manifest consent to the murder, _hardly to be denied_; so as, upon the -trial on both sides, _her proofs will judicially fall out best_, as it is -thought.' The other reason for not finding Mary guilty was that, if little -James died, the Hamiltons were next heirs. This would not suit Moray, he -(like Norfolk) would now wish for more children of Mary's, to keep the -Hamiltons out, but, if she were now defamed, there would be a difficulty -as to their succession to the crown. So Sussex believed (rightly) that a -compromise was intended, for which Lethington, as he says, had been -working at York, while Robert Melville was also engaged. Sussex then -states the compromise in the same terms as Robert Melville did, adding -that Moray would probably hand his proofs over to Mary, and clear her by a -Parliamentary decree. The Hamiltons had other ideas. 'You will find -Lethington wholly bent to composition.' A general routing out of evidence -did not suit Lethington. - -To Sussex, the one object was to keep Mary in England; a thing easy if -Moray produced his proofs, and if Elizabeth, 'by virtue of her -superiority over Scotland,' gave a verdict against Mary. But Sussex -thought that the proofs of Moray 'will not fall out sufficiently to -determine judicially, if she denies her letters.' - -This was the opinion of a cool, unprejudiced, and well-informed observer. -Mary's guilt could not, he doubted, be judicially proved. Moray's party, -he might have added, would have been ruined by an acknowledgment of -English suzerainty. The one thing was to prevent the Scots from patching a -peace with Mary. And, to that end, though Sussex does not say so, Mary -must not be allowed to appear in her own defence. - -On October 30, Elizabeth held a great Council at Hampton Court. Mary's -Commissioners, and then those of the Lords, were to have audience of her. -Mary's men were to be told that Elizabeth wished 'certain difficulties -resolved.' To the Lords, she would say that they should produce their -charges: if they were valid, Elizabeth would protect them, and detain Mary -during their pleasure. As Mary was sure to hear of this plan, she was to -be removed from Bolton to Tutbury, which was not done till later. Various -peers were to be added to the English Commission, but not the foreign -Ambassadors; though, on June 20, the Council reckoned it fair to admit -them.[297] - -Mary heard of all this, and of Moray's admission to Elizabeth's presence, -from Hepburn of Riccartoun, Bothwell's friend and kinsman (November -21).[298] On November 22, therefore, she wrote to bid her Commissioners -break up the Conference, if she, the accused, was denied the freedom to be -present, conceded to Moray, the accuser. Nothing could be more correct, -but, at the same time, in 'a missive letter' Mary suggested to her -Commissioners that they should again try to compromise, saving her crown -and honour.[299] These would not have been saved by the compromise which, -according to Robert Melville, Norfolk forbade her to make. - - - - -XII - -_THE LETTERS AT WESTMINSTER AND HAMPTON COURT_ - - -The Commission opened on November 25 at Westminster, after Elizabeth had -protested that she would not 'take upon her to be judge.'[300] - -On the 26th Moray put in a written Protestation, as to their reluctance in -accusing Mary. They then put in an 'Eik,' or addition, with the formal -charge.[301] On the 29th November, the Lords said that this charge might -be handed to Mary's Commissioners. Lennox appeared as an accuser, and put -in 'A Discourse of the Usage' of Darnley by Mary: the last of his -Indictments. It covered three sheets of paper. Mary's men now entered, -received Moray's accusation, retired, discussed it, and asked for a delay -for consideration. On December 1, they returned. Moray's 'Eik' of -accusation had been presented to Mary's Commissioners on November 29. -James Melville says that Lethington was not present, had 'a sore heart,' -and whispered to Moray that he had shamed himself for ever. The Letters -would come out. Mary would retort. Lethington would be undone. Mary's men -might have been expected, as they asked for a delay, to protract it till -they could consult their mistress. The wintry weather was evil, the roads -were foul, communication was slow, and the injustice to Mary of keeping -her at four or five days' distance from her representatives was -disgraceful. Instead of consulting her, the Commissioners for Mary met the -English on December 1. - -They had none of her courage, and Herries had plainly shown to Elizabeth -his want of confidence in Mary's innocence. In June he had asked Elizabeth -what she meant to do if appearances proved against Mary. And he told Mary -that he had done so.[302] He now read a tame speech, inveighing against -the accusers, and declaring that, when the cause should be further tried, -some of them would be proved guilty of entering into bands for Darnley's -murder. Lesley followed, stating that he and his fellows must see -Elizabeth, and communicate to her Mary's demand to be heard in person, -before Elizabeth, the Peers, and the Ambassadors; while the accusers must -be detained till the end of the cause.[303] On December 3, Lesley and the -rest presented these demands to Elizabeth at Hampton Court. The Council -later put the request before legal advisers, who replied at length. They -answered that even God (though He was fully acquainted with all the -circumstances) did not condemn Adam and Eve unheard. But as to Mary's -non-recognition of a mortal judge, that was absurd. If she meant to be -heard, she tacitly acknowledged the jurisdiction: which is perfectly true. -A door must be open or shut. Thirdly, it was ridiculous to ask Elizabeth -to be present, but only as a spectator. Fourthly, it was no less absurd to -ask all the nobles to attend a trial which might be long, but they might -choose representatives, if Mary desired it, to appear when convenient. -Fifthly, it was ridiculous to demand the presence of ambassadors, who -would be neither prosecutors, defenders, judges, clerks, nor witnesses: -they could only be lookers-on, like other people. That the scene should be -London was reasonable, but it might be elsewhere. - -There was this addition (_puis est adjouxte_), 'We think this voluntary -offer' (of Mary) 'so important that, in our opinion, all her demands -should be granted, without prejudice or contravention to the Queen of -England, so that none may be able to say a word against the manner of -procedure.'[304] - -To myself it appears that the majority of the civilians consulted returned -the reply which insists that Mary must be tried with acknowledgment of -jurisdiction, if she is to be heard at all, and that the addition, -declaring her demands just, is the conclusion of a minority. Mary wanted -the pomp and publicity of a great trial, which, after all, was to be a -mere appeal to public opinion. As Queen of Scots, she could not destroy -the fruits of Bannockburn and the wars of Independence, by acknowledging -an English sovereign as her Judge and Superior. She could not return to -the position of John Balliol under Edward I. She had been beguiled into -confiding her cause to Elizabeth, and this was the result. - -On December 4, Mary's men, without consulting her, made a fatal error. -Before seeing Elizabeth they met Leicester and Cecil, in a room apart, and -asked that Elizabeth should be informed of their readiness, even now, to -make a compromise, with surety to Moray and his party. Now Mary had -declared to Knollys that, if once Moray accused her publicly, they were -'past all reconciliation.' That was the only defensible position, yet her -Commissioners, perhaps with her approval, receded from it. Elizabeth -seized the opportunity. It was better, she said, and rightly, for her -sister's honour, that Mary's accusers should be charged with their -audacious defaming of their Queen, and punished for the same, unless they -could show 'apparent just causes of such an attempt.' In fact, Elizabeth -must see the Letters, or cause them to be seen by her nobles. She could -not admit Mary in person while, as at present, there seemed so little to -justify the need of her appearance--for the Letters had not yet been -shown. When they were shown, it would probably turn out, she said, that -Mary need not appear at all. - -The unhappy Scottish Commissioners tried to repair a blunder, which -clearly arose from their undeniable want of confidence in their cause. The -proposal for a compromise, they said, was entirely their own. We remember -that, by Norfolk's desire, Mary had already refused a compromise to which -she had once consented. She would probably, in the now existing -circumstances, have adhered to her resolution.[305] - -On December 6, Moray and his party were at Westminster to produce their -proofs. But Lesley put in a protest that he must, in that case, withdraw. -The English Commissioners declared that, in this protest, Elizabeth's -words of December 4 were misrepresented: her words (as to seeing Moray's -proofs) having, in fact, been utterly ambiguous. She had first averred -that Moray must be punished if he should be unable to show some apparent -just causes 'of such an attempt,' and then, at a later stage of the -conversation, had 'answered that she meant not to require any proofs.' So -runs the report, annotated and endorsed by Cecil.[306] But now the Council -were sitting to receive the proofs which Elizabeth had first declared that -she would, and then that she would not ask for, while, after vowing that -she would not ask for them, she had said that she 'would receive them for -her own satisfaction'! - -The words of the protest by Mary's Commissioners described all this, and -the production of proofs in Mary's absence, as 'a preposterous -order.'[307] No more preposterous proceedings were ever heard of in -history. The English Commissioners, seizing on the words 'a preposterous -order,' declined to receive the protest till it should be amended, and at -once called on Moray to produce his proofs. Moray then put in the 'Book of -Articles,' 'containing certain conjectures,' a long arraignment of Mary. -In the Lennox Papers is a shorter collection of 'Probable and Infallyable -Conjectures,' an early form of Buchanan's 'Detection.' The 'Book of -Articles' occupies twenty-six closely printed pages, in Hosack, who first -published it, and is written in Scots.[308] The band for Bothwell's -marriage is said to have been made at Holyrood, and Mary's signature is -declared to have been appended later. This mysterious band seems to have -reached Cecil _unofficially_, and is marked 'To this the Queen gave -consent the night before the marriage,' May 14 (cf. p. 254). Nothing is -noted as to Darnley's conduct in seeking to flee the realm in September, -1566, and this account is given of the well-known scene in which Mary, the -Council, and du Croc attempted to extract from him his grievances. 'He was -rejected and rebuked opinlie in presence of diverse Lords then of her -previe counsale, quhill he was constrenit to return to Streviling.' -Though less inaccurate than the 'Detection,' the 'Book of Articles' is a -violent _ex parte_ harangue. - -Moray also put in the Act of Parliament of December, 1567. The English -heard the 'Book of Articles' and the Act read aloud, on the night of -December 6. On the 7th,[309] Moray hoped that they were satisfied. They -declined to express an opinion. Moray retired with his company, and -returned bearing, at last, The Casket. Morton, on oath, declared that his -account of the finding of the Casket was true, and that the contents had -been kept unaltered. Then a contract of marriage, said to be in Mary's -hand, and signed, but without date, was produced. The contract speaks of -Darnley's death as a past event, but they 'did suppose' that the deed was -made _before_ the murder. They may have based this suspicion on Casket -Letter III. (or VIII.) which, as we shall show, fits into no _known_ part -of Mary's relations with Bothwell. Another contract, said to be in -Huntly's hand, and dated April 5, was next exhibited. Papers as to -Bothwell's Trial were shown, and those for his divorce. The Glasgow Letter -I. (which in sequence of time ought to be II.) was displayed in French, -and then Letter II.[310] _Neither letter is stated to have been copied in -French from the French original_, and we have no copies of the original -French, which, however, certainly existed. Next day (December 8) Moray -produced seven other French writings 'in the lyk Romain hand,' which seven -writings, '_being copied_, weare red in Frenche, and a due collation made -thereof as neare as could be by reading and inspection, and made to accord -with the originals, which the said Erle of Murray required to be -redelivered, and did thereupon deliver the copies being collationd, the -tenours of which vii wrytinges hereafter follow in ordre, _the first being -in manner of a sonnett_, "O Dieux ayez de moy etc."' Apparently all the -sonnets here count as one piece, the other six papers being the Casket -Letters III.-VIII. - -No French contemporary copies of Letters I. II. have been discovered, as -in the cases of III. IV. V. VI. It is notable that while the sonnets, and -Letters III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. are said to have been copied from the -French, this is not said of Letters I. and II. The English versions of I. -and II. have been collated with the French, whether in copies or the -originals. Perhaps no French copies of these have been found, because no -copies were ever made: the absence of the copies in French is deplorable. - -The next things were the depositions (not the dying confessions, which -implicated some of the Lords) of Tala, Bowton, Powrie, and Dalgleish, and -other legal documents. It does not appear that Mary's warrant for the -signing of the Ainslie band, though exhibited at York, was again -produced.[311] On the 9th the Commissioners read the Casket Papers 'duly -translated into English.' They had been translated throughout the night, -probably, and very ill translated they were, to judge by the extant -copies.[312] Several of the copies are endorsed _in Scots_. Lesley now put -in a revised and amended copy of his Protest of December 6. Morton put in -a written copy of his Declaration as to the finding of the Casket, and -swore to its truth.[313] - -Morton's tale is that, as he was dining with Lethington in Edinburgh, on -June 19, 1567, four days after Mary's surrender at Carberry, 'a certain -man' secretly informed him that Hepburn, Parson of Auldhamstokes, John -Cockburn, brother of Mary's adherent, Cockburn of Skirling, and George -Dalgleish, a valet of Bothwell's (and witness, at his divorce, to his -adultery), had entered the Castle, then held by Sir James Balfour, who -probably betrayed them. Morton sent Archibald Douglas (the blackest -traitor of the age) and two other retainers to seize the men. Robert -Douglas, brother of Archibald, caught Dalgleish in the Potter Row, not far -from the Kirk o' Field Gate, with charters of Bothwell's lands. Being -carried before Morton, Dalgleish denied that he had any other charge: he -was detained, and, on June 20, placed in the Tolbooth. Being put into some -torture engine, he asked leave to go with Robert Douglas to the Potter -Row, where he revealed the Casket. It was carried to Morton at 8 o'clock -at night, and, next day, June 21, was broken open, 'in presence of Atholl, -Mar, Glencairn, Morton, Home, Semple, Sanquhar, the Master of Graham, -Lethington, Tullibardine, and Archibald Douglas.' The Letters were -inspected (_sichtit_) and delivered over to Morton, who had in no respect -altered, added to, or subtracted from them. - -True or false, and it is probably true, the list of persons present adds -nothing to the credibility of Morton's account. The Commissioners of Mary -had withdrawn; there could not be, and there was not, any -cross-examination of the men named in Morton's list, as witnesses of the -opening of the Casket. Lethington alone, of these, was now present, if -indeed he appeared at this sitting, and _his_ emotions may be imagined! -The rest might learn, later, that they had been named, from Lethington, -after he joined Mary's cause, but it is highly improbable that Lethington -wanted to stir this matter again, or gave any information to Home (who was -with him in the long siege of the Castle). Sanquhar and Tullibardine, -cited by Morton, signed the band for delivering Mary from Loch Leven; so -much effect had the 'sichting' of the Casket Letters on _them_. The story -of Morton is probably true, so far: certainly the Lords, about June 21, -got the Casket, whatever its contents then were. But that the contents -remained unadded to and unimpaired, and unaltered, is only attested by -Morton's oath, and by the necessary silence of Lethington, who, of all -those at Westminster, alone was present at the 'sichting,' on June 21, -1567. But Lethington dared not speak, even if he dared to be present. If -any minute was made of the meeting of June 21, if any inventory of the -documents in the Casket was then compiled, Morton produced neither of -these indispensable corroborations at Westminster. His peril was perhaps -as great as Lethington's, but he was of a different temperament. - -The case of the Prosecution is full of examples of such unscientific -handling by the cautious Scots, as the omission of minutes of June 21. - -Next, on December 9, a written statement by Darnley's servant, Nelson, who -survived the explosion, was sworn to by the man himself. His evidence -chiefly bore on the possession of the Keys of Kirk o' Field by Mary's -servants, and her economy in using a door for a cover of the 'bath-vat,' -and in removing a black velvet bed. We have dealt with it already (p. -133). - -Next was put in Crawford's deposition as to his conversations with Darnley -at Glasgow. This was intended to corroborate Letter II., but, as shall -later be shown, it produces the opposite effect.[314] At an unknown date, -Cecil received the Itinerary of Mary during the period under examination, -which is called 'Cecil's Journal,' and is so drawn up as to destroy -Moray's case, if we accept its chronology. We know not on what authority -it was compiled, but Lennox, on June 11, had asked his retainers to -ascertain some of the dates contained in this 'Journal.' - -On December 14[315] Elizabeth added Northumberland and Westmorland to her -Commissioners. They not long after rose in arms for Mary's cause. -Shrewsbury, Huntingdon, Worcester, and Warwick also met, at Hampton Court. -They were to be made to understand the case, and were told to keep it -secret. Among the other documents, on December 14, the _originals_ of the -Casket Letters 'being redd, were duly conferred and compared for the -manner of writing and fashion of orthography, with sundry other letters, -long time heretofore written and sent by the said Quene of Scots to the -Quene's majesty. And next after, there was produced and redd a declaration -of the Erle of Morton of the manner of the finding of the said lettres, as -the same was exhibited upon his othe, the ix of December. In collation -whereof' (of _what_?) 'no difference was found. Of all which letters and -writings, the true copies are contained in the memorialls of the actes of -the sessions of the 7 and 8 of December.' Apparently the 'collation' is -intended to refer to the comparison of the Casket Letters with those of -Mary to Elizabeth. Mr. Froude runs the collation into the sentence -preceding that about Morton, in one quotation. - -The confessions of Tala, Bowton, and Dalgleish were also read, and, 'as -night approached' (about 3.30 P.M.), the proceedings ended.[316] - -The whole voluminous proceedings at York and Westminster were read -through: the 'Book of Articles' seems to have been read, _after_ the -Casket Letters were read, but this was not the case. On a brief December -day, the Council had work enough, and yet Mr. Froude writes that the -Casket Letters 'were examined long and minutely by each and every of the -Lords who were present.'[317] We hear of no other examination of the -handwriting than this: which, as every one can see, from the amount of -other work, and the brevity of daylight, must have been very rapid and -perfunctory. - -There happens to be a recent case in which the reputation of a celebrated -lady depended on a question of handwriting. Madame Blavatsky was accused -of having forged the letters, from a mysterious being named Koot Hoomi, -which were wont to drift out of metetherial space into the common -atmosphere of drawing-rooms. A number of Koot Hoomi's _later_ epistles, -with others by Madame Blavatsky, were submitted to Mr. Netherclift, the -expert, and to Mr. Sims of the British Museum. Neither expert thought that -Madame Blavatsky had written the letters attributed to Koot Hoomi. But Dr. -Richard Hodgson and Mrs. Sidgwick procured earlier letters by Koot Hoomi -and Madame Blavatsky. They found that, in 1878, and 1879, the letter _d_, -as written in English, occurred 210 times as against the German _d_, 805 -times. But in Madame Blavatsky's earlier hand the English _d_ occurred but -15 times, to 2,200 of the German _d_. The lady had, in this and other -respects, altered her writing, which therefore varied more and more from -the hand of Koot Hoomi. Mr. Netherclift and Mr. Sims yielded to this and -other proofs: and a cold world is fairly well convinced that Koot Hoomi -did not write his letters. They were written by Madame Blavatsky.[318] - -The process of counting thousands of isolated characters, and comparing -them, was decidedly not undertaken in the hurried assembly on that short -winter day at Hampton Court, when the letters 'were long and minutely -examined by each and every of the Lords who were present,' as Mr. Froude -says. On the following day (December 15) the 'Book of Articles' was read -aloud; though the minute of December 14 would lead us to infer that it was -read on that day. The minute states that 'there was produced a writing in -manner of Articles ... but, before these were read,' the Casket Letters -were studied. One would imagine that the 'Book of Articles' was read on -the same day, after the Casket Letters had been perused. The deposition of -Powrie, the Casket contracts, and other papers followed, and then another -deposition of Crawford, which had been put in on December 13. - -This deposition is in the Lennox MSS. in the long paper containing the -description of the mysterious impossible Letter, which Moray also -described, to de Silva. Crawford now swore that Bowton and Tala, 'at the -hour of their death,' confessed, to him, that Mary would never let -Bothwell rest till he slew Darnley. Oddly enough, even Buchanan, or -whoever gives the dying confessions of these men, in the 'Detection,' says -nothing about their special confession to Crawford.[319] The object of -Crawford's account appears clearly from what the contemporaries, for -instance the 'Diurnal,' tell us about the public belief that the -confession 'fell out in Mary's favour.' - - Hepburne, Daglace, Peuory, to John Hey, mad up the nesse, - Which fowre when they weare put to death the treason did confesse; - And sayd that Murray, Moreton to, with others of ther rowte - Were guyltie of the murder vyl though nowe they loke full stowte. - Yet some perchaunce doo thinke that I speake for affection heare, - Though I would so, thre thousan can hearin trew witness beare - Who present weare as well as I at thexecution tyme - & hard how these in conscience pricte confessed who did the cryme.[320] - -A number of Acts and other public papers were then read; 'the whole lying -altogether on the council table, were one after another showed, rather "by -hap" as they lay on the table than by any choice of their natures, as it -might had there been time.' Mr. Henderson argues, as against Hosack, -Schiern, and Skelton, that this phrase applies only to the proceedings of -December 15, not to the examination of the Casket Letters. This seems more -probable, though it might be argued, from the prolepsis about reading the -'Book of Articles' on the 14th, that the minutes of both days were written -together, on the second day, and that the hugger-mugger described applies -to the work of both days. This is unimportant; every one must see that the -examination of handwriting was too hasty to be critical. - -The assembled nobles were then told that Elizabeth did not think she -_could_ let Mary 'come into her presence,' while unpurged of all these -horrible crimes. The Earls all agreed that her Majesty's delicacy of -feeling, 'as the case now did stand,' was worthy of her, and so ended the -farce.[321] - -Mr. Froude, on the authority (apparently) of a Simancas MS., tells us that -'at first only four--Cecil, Sadleyr, Leicester, and Bacon--declared -themselves convinced.'[322] Lingard quotes a Simancas MS. saying that the -nobles 'showed some heart, and checked a little the terrible fury with -which Cecil sought to ruin' Mary.[323] Camden (writing under James VI.) -says that Sussex, Arundel, Clinton, and Norfolk thought that Mary had a -right to be heard in person. But Elizabeth held this advantage: Mary would -not acknowledge her as a judge: she must therefore admit Mary to her -presence, if she admitted her at all, _not_ as a culprit. Elizabeth (who -probably forgot Amy Robsart's affair) deemed herself too good and pure to -see, not as a prisoner at the Bar, a lady of dubious character. Thus all -was well. Mary was firmly discredited (though after all most of the nobles -presently approved of her marriage to Norfolk), yet she could not plead -her cause in person. - - - - -XIII - -_MARY'S ATTITUDE AFTER THE CONFERENCE_ - - -The haggling was not ended. On December 16, 1568, Elizabeth offered three -choices to Lesley: Mary might send a trusty person with orders to make a -direct answer; or answer herself to nobles sent by Elizabeth; or appoint -her Commissioners, or any others, to answer before Elizabeth's -Commissioners.[324] Lesley fell back on Elizabeth's promises: and an -anecdote about Trajan. On December 23 or 24, Mary's Commissioners received -a letter by her written at Bolton on December 19.[325] Mr. Hosack says -that 'she commanded them forthwith to charge the Earl of Moray and his -accomplices' with Darnley's murder.[326] But that was just what Mary did -not do as far as her letter goes, though on December 24, Herries declared -that she did.[327] Friends and foes of Mary alike pervert the facts. Mary -first said that she had received the 'Eik' in which her accusers lied, -attributing to her the crimes of which they are guilty. She glanced -scornfully at the charge that _she_ meant to murder her child, whom _they_ -had striven to destroy in her womb, at Riccio's murder: 'intending to have -slane him and us both.' She then, before she answers, asks to see the -copies and originals of the Casket Letters, 'the principal writings, if -they have any produced,' which she as yet knew not. And then, if she may -see Elizabeth, she will prove her own innocence and her adversaries' -guilt. - -Thus she does not by any means bid her friends _forthwith_ to accuse her -foes. That would have been absurd, till she had seen the documents brought -against her as proofs. But, to shorten a long story, neither at the -repeated request of her Commissioners, nor of La Mothe, who demanded this -act of common justice, would Elizabeth permit Mary to see either the -originals, or even copies, of the Casket Letters. She promised, and broke -her promise.[328] - -This incident left Mary with the advantage. How can an accused person -answer, if not allowed to see the documents in the case? We may argue that -Elizabeth refused, because politics drifted into new directions, and -inspired new designs. But Mary's defenders can always maintain that she -never was allowed to see the evidence on which she was accused. From -Mary's letter of December 19, or rather from Lesley's precis of it -('Extract of the principall heidis') it is plain that she does not bid her -Commissioners accuse anybody, _at the moment_. But, on December 22, -Lindsay challenged Herries to battle for having said that Moray, and 'his -company here present,' were guilty of Darnley's death. Herries admitted -having said that _some_ of them were guilty. Lindsay lies in his throat if -he avers that Herries spoke of him specially: and, on that quarrel, -Herries will fight. And he will fight any of the principals of them if -they sign Lindsay's challenge, 'and I shall point them forth and fight -with some of the traitors therein.' He communicated the challenge and -reply to Leicester.[329] Herries probably hoped to fight Morton and -Lethington. - -On the 24th, Moray having complained that he and his company were -slandered by Mary's Commissioners, Lesley and Herries answered 'that they -had special command sent to them from the Queen their Mistress, to lay the -said crime to their charge,' and would accuse them. They were appointed to -do this on Christmas Day, but only put in an argumentative answer to -Moray's 'Eik.' But on January 11, when Elizabeth had absolved both Moray -and Mary (a ludicrous conclusion) and was allowing Moray and his company -to go home, Cecil said that Moray wished to know whether Herries and -Lesley would openly accuse him and his friends, or not. They declared that -Mary had bidden them make the charge, and that they had done so, _on the -condition_ that Mary first received copies of the Casket documents. As -soon as Mary received these, they would name, accuse, and prove the case, -against the guilty. They themselves, as private persons, had only hearsay -evidence, and would accuse no man. Moray and his party offered to go to -Bolton, and be accused. But Mary (as her Commissioners at last understood) -would not play her card, her evidence in black and white, till she saw the -hand of her adversaries, as was fair, and she was never allowed to see the -Casket documents.[330] Mary's Commissioners appear to have blundered as -usual. They gave an impression, first that they would accuse -unconditionally, next that they sneaked out of the challenge.[331] But, in -fact, Mary had definitely made the delivery to her of the Casket Letters, -originals or even copies, and her own presence to plead her own cause, the -necessary preliminary conditions of producing her own charges and proofs. - -Mary's attitude as regards the Casket Papers is now, I think, -intelligible. There was a moment, as we have seen, during the intrigues at -York, when she consented to resign her crown, and let the matter be hushed -up. From that position she receded, at Norfolk's desire. The Letters were -produced by her adversaries, at Westminster and at Hampton Court. She then -occupied at once her last line of defence, as she had originally planned -it. If allowed to see the documents put in against her, and to confront -her accusers, she would produce evidence in black and white, which would -so damage her opponents that her denial of the Letters would be accepted -by the foreign ambassadors and the peers of England. 'Her proofs will -judicially fall out best as is thought,' Sussex wrote, and he may have -known what 'her proofs' were. - -If we accept this as Mary's line, we can account, as has already been -hinted, for the extraordinary wrigglings of Lethington. At York, as -always, he was foremost to show, or talk of the Casket Papers, _in -private_, as a means of extorting a compromise, and hushing up the affair: -_publicly_, he was most averse to their production. Whether he had a hand -in falsifying the papers we may guess; but he knew that their public -exhibition would make Mary desperate, and drive her to exhibit _her_ -'proofs.' These would be fatal to himself. - -We have said that Mary never forgave Lethington: who had been the best -liked of her advisers, and, in his own interests, had ever pretended to -wish to proceed against her 'in dulse manner.' Why did she so detest the -man who, at least, died in her service? - -The proofs of her detestation are found all through the MS. of her -secretary, Claude Nau, written after Lethington's death. They cannot be -explained away, as Sir John Skelton tries to do, by a theory that the -underlings about Mary were jealous of Lethington. Nau had not known him, -and his narrative came direct from Mary herself. It is, of course, -worthless as evidence in her favour, but it is highly valuable as an index -of Mary's own mind, and of her line of apology _pro vita sua_. - -Nau, then, declares (we have told all this, but may recapitulate it) that -the Lords, in the spring of 1567, sent Lethington, and two others, to ask -her to marry Bothwell. Twice she refused them, objecting the rumours about -Bothwell's guilt. Twice she refused, but Lethington pointed out that -Bothwell had been legally cleared, and, after the Parliament of April, -1567, they signed Ainslie's band. Yet no list of the signers contains the -name of Lethington, though, according to Nau, he urged the marriage. After -the marriage, it was Lethington who induced the Lords to rise against -Bothwell, with whom he was (as we elsewhere learn) on the worst terms. -Lethington it was who brought his friend and kinsman, Atholl, into the -rising. At Carberry Hill, Mary wished to parley with Lethington and -Atholl, who both excused themselves, as not being in full agreement with -the Lords. She therefore yielded to Kirkcaldy; and Bothwell, ere she rode -away, gave her the murder band (this can hardly be true), signed by -Morton, Lethington, Balfour, and others, bidding her keep it carefully. -Entrapped by the Lords, Mary, by Lethington's advice, was imprisoned in -the house of the Provost of Edinburgh. Lethington was 'extremely opposed' -to her, in her dreadful distress; he advised imprisonment in Loch Leven; -he even, Randolph says, counselled the Lords to slay her, some said to -strangle her, while persuading Throckmorton that he was her best friend. -Lethington tried to win her favour in her prison, but, having 'no -assurance from her,' fled on a false report of her escape. Lethington -fought against her at Langside, and Mary knew very well why, though he -privately displayed the Casket Letters, he secretly intrigued for her at -York. Even his final accession (1569) to her party, and his death in her -cause, did not win her forgiveness. - -She dated from Carberry Hill her certain knowledge of his guilt in the -murder, which she always held in reserve for a favourable opportunity. -But, as she neither was allowed to see the Casket Letters, nor to appear -in person before the Peers, that opportunity never came. - -To conclude this part of the inquiry: Mary's attitude, as regards the -Letters, was less that of conscious innocence, than of a player who has -strong cards in her hand and awaits the chance of bringing out her -trumps. - - - - -XIV - -_INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE LETTERS_ - - -LETTER I - -This Letter, usually printed as Letter I., was the first of the Casket -Letters which Mary's accusers laid before the Commission of Inquiry at -Westminster (December 7, 1568).[332] It does not follow that the accusers -regarded this Letter as first in order of composition. There exists a -contemporary copy of an English translation, hurriedly made from the -French; the handwriting is that of Cecil's clerk. The endorsing is, as -usual, by a Scot, and runs, 'Ane short Lettre from Glasco to the Erle -Bothwell. Prufes her disdaign against her husband.' Possibly this Letter, -then, was put in _first_, to prove Mary's hatred of Darnley, and so to -lead up to Letter II., which distinctly means murder. If the accusers, -however, regarded this piece (Letter I.) as first in order of composition, -they did not understand the meaning and drift of the papers which they had -seized.[333] - -Letter I., so called, must be, in order of composition, a sequel to Letter -II. The sequence of events would run as follows: if we reject the -chronology as given in 'Cecil's Journal,' a chronological summary handed -to Cecil, we know not by whom, and supply the prosecution with a feasible -scheme of time. 'Cecil's Journal' makes Mary leave Edinburgh on January -21, stay at Lord Livingstone's house of Callendar (not Callander in -Perthshire) till January 23, and then enter Glasgow. If this is right, -Letters I. and II. are forgeries, for II. could not, by internal evidence, -have been finished before Mary's second night, at least, in Glasgow, -which, if she arrived on January 23, would be January 24. Consequently it -could not (as in the statement of Paris, the alleged bearer) reach -Bothwell the day before his departure for Liddesdale, which 'Cecil's -Journal' dates on January 24. Moreover, on the scheme of dates presented -in 'Cecil's Journal,' Mary must have written and dispatched Letter I. on -the morning of January 25 to Bothwell, whom it could not reach (for he was -then making a raid on the Elliots, in Liddesdale), and Mary must, at the -same time, have been labouring at the long Letter II. All this, with other -necessary inferences from the scheme of dates, is frankly absurd.[334] - -The defenders of Mary, like Mr. Hosack, meet the Lords on the field of -what they regard as the Lords' own scheme of dates, and easily rout them. -In a court of law this is fair procedure; in history we must assume that -the Lords, if the Journal represents their ideas, may have erred in their -dates. Now two contemporary townsmen of Edinburgh, Birrel, and the author -of the 'Diurnal of Occurrents,' coincide in making Mary leave Edinburgh on -January 20. Their notes were separately written, without any possible idea -that they might be appealed to by posterity as evidence in a State -criminal case. The value of their testimony is discussed in Appendix C, -'The date of Mary's Visit to Glasgow.' - -Provisionally accepting the date of the two diarists, we find that the -Queen left Edinburgh on January 20, slept at Callendar, and possibly -entered Glasgow on January 21. Drury from Berwick said that she entered on -January 22, which, again, makes the letter impossible. Let us, however, -suppose her to begin her long epistle, Letter II., at Glasgow on the night -of January 21, finish it in the midnight hours of January 22, and send it -to Bothwell by Paris (his valet, who had just entered _her_ service) on -January 23. Paris, in his declaration of August 10, 1569, avers that he -met Bothwell, gave him the letter, stayed in Edinburgh till next day, -again met Bothwell returning from Kirk o' Field, then received from him -for Mary a letter, a diamond (ring?), and a loving message; he received -also a letter from Lethington, and from both a verbal report that Kirk o' -Field was to be Darnley's home. Paris then returned to Glasgow. If Paris, -leaving Edinburgh 'after dinner,' say three o'clock, on the 24th, did not -reach Glasgow till the following noon, then the whole scheme of time -stands out clearly. He left Glasgow on January 23, with the long Letter -(II.) which Mary wrote on January 21 and 22. He gave it to Bothwell on the -23rd, received replies 'after dinner' on the 24th, slept at Callendar or -elsewhere on the way, and reached Glasgow about noon on January 25. If, -however, Paris reached Glasgow on the day he left Edinburgh (January 24), -the scheme breaks down. - -If he did not arrive till noon on the 25th, all is clear, and Letter I. -falls into its proper place as really Letter II., and is easily -intelligible. Its contents run thus: Mary, who left Bothwell on January -21, upbraids him for neglect of herself. She expected news, and an answer -to her earlier Letter (II.) dispatched on the 23rd, and has received none. -The news she looked for was to tell her what she ought to do. If no news -comes, she will, 'according to her commission,' take Darnley to -Craigmillar on Monday: she actually did take him on Monday, as far as -Callendar. But she is clearly uncertain, when she writes on January 25, as -to whether Craigmillar has been finally decided upon. A possible -alternative was present to her mind. After describing the amorous Darnley, -and her own old complaint, a pain in the side, she says, 'If Paris doth -bring back unto me that for which I have sent, it should much amend me.' -News of Bothwell, brought by Paris, will help to cure her. She had -expected news on the day before, January 24. - -Nothing could be more natural. Mary and Bothwell had parted on January 21. -She should have heard from him, if he were a punctual and considerate -lover, on the 23rd; at latest Paris should have brought back on the 24th -his reply to her long letter, numbered II. but really I. But the morning -of 'this Saturday' (the 25th) has dawned, and brought no news, no answer, -no Paris. (That is, if Paris either slept in Edinburgh on the night of the -24th, or somewhere on the long dark moorland road.) Impatient of three -days' retarded news, ignorant as to whether Craigmillar is fixed on for -Darnley, or not, without a reply to the letter carried to Bothwell by -Paris (Letter II.), Mary writes Letter I. on January 25. It is borne by -her chamberlain, Beaton, who is going on legal business to Edinburgh. -Nothing can be simpler or more easily intelligible. - -There remains a point of which much has been made. In the English, but not -in the Scots translation, Mary says, '_I send this present to Lethington_, -to be delivered to you by Beaton.' The Scots is 'I send this be Betoun, -quha gais' to his legal business. Nothing about Lethington. On first -observing this, I inferred--(_a_) that Lethington had the reference to -himself cut out of the Scots version, as connecting him with the affair. -(_b_) I inferred that Lethington could have had no hand in forging the -original French (if forging there was), because he never would have -allowed his name to appear in such a connection. Later I observed that -several Continental critics had made similar inferences.[335] But all this -is merely one of the many mare's-nests of criticism. For proof of the -futility of such deductions see Appendix E, 'The Translation of the Casket -Letters.' - -On the whole, I am constrained to regard Letter I. as possibly authentic -in itself, and as affording a strong presumption that there was an -authentic Letter II. Letter I. was written, and sent on a chance -opportunity, just because no answer had been received to the Letter -wrongly numbered II. This was a circumstance not likely to be invented. - - -LETTER II - -Round this long Letter, of more than 3,000 words, the Marian controversy -has raged most fiercely. Believing that they had demonstrated its lack of -authenticity, the Queen's defenders have argued that the charges against -her must be false. A criminal charge, supported by evidence deliberately -contaminated, falls to the ground. But we cannot really argue thus: the -Queen may have been guilty, even if her foes perjured themselves on -certain points, in their desire to fortify their case. Yet the objections -to Letter II. are certainly many and plausible. - -1. While the chronology of 'Cecil's Journal' was accepted, the Letter -could not be regarded as genuine. We have shown, however, that by -rectifying the dates of the accusers, the external chronology of the -Letter can be made to harmonise with real time. - -2. The existence of another long letter, never produced (the letter cited -by Moray and Lennox) was another source of suspicion. While we had only -Moray's account of the letter in July 1567, and while Lennox's version of -about the same date in 1568 was still unknown, Mr. Hosack argued thus: -'What is the obvious and necessary inference? Is it not that the forgers, -in the first instance, drew up a letter couched in far stronger terms than -that which they eventually produced?' 'Whenever,' says Robertson, 'a paper -is forged with a particular intention, the eagerness of the forger to -establish the point in view, his solicitude to cut off all doubts and -cavils, and to avoid any appearance of uncertainty, seldom fail of -prompting him to use expressions the most explicit and full to his -purpose.' 'In writing this passage, we could well imagine,' says Mr. -Hosack, 'that the historian had his eye on the Simancas' (Moray's) -'description of the Glasgow Letter (II.), but he never saw it.... We must -assume that, upon consideration, the letter described by Moray, which -seems to have been the first draft of the forgery, was withdrawn, and -another substituted in its place.'[336] This reasoning, of course, is -reinforced by the discovery of Lennox's account of the Letter. But Mr. -Hosack overlooked a possibility. The Lords may have, originally, after -they captured the Casket, forged the Letter spoken of by Moray and Lennox. -But they may actually have discovered Letter II., and, on reflection, may -have produced _that_, or a garbled form of that, and suppressed the -forgery. To Letter II. they _may_ have added 'substantious clauses,' but -if any of it is genuine, it is compromising. - -3. One of the internal difficulties is more apparent than real. It turns -on the internal chronology, which seems quite impossible and absurd, and -must, it is urged, be the result of treacherous dovetailing. The -circumstance that Crawford, a retainer of Lennox, was put forward at the -Westminster Commission, in December, 1568, to corroborate part of the -Letter makes a real difficulty. He declared that Darnley had reported to -him the conversations between himself and the Queen, described by Mary, in -Letter II., and that he wrote down Darnley's words 'immediately, at the -time,' for the use of Lennox. But Crawford proved too much. His report -was, partly, an English translation of the Scots translation of the French -of the Letter. Therefore he either took his corroborative evidence from -the Letter, or the Letter was in part based on Crawford's report, and -therefore was forged. Bresslau, Cardauns, Philippson, Mr. Hosack, and Sir -John Skelton adopted the latter alternative. The Letter, they say, was -forged, in part, on Crawford's report. - -4. The contents of the Letter are alien to Mary's character and style: -incoherent, chaotic, out of keeping. - -We take these objections in the order indicated. First, as to the internal -dates of the Letter. These are certainly impossible. Is this the result of -clumsy dovetailing by a forger? - -There is no date of day of the month or week, but the Letter was clearly -begun on the night of Mary's arrival in Glasgow (by our theory, January -21). Unless it was finished in the night of January 22, and sent off on -January 23, it cannot be genuine: cannot have reached Bothwell in time. We -are to suppose that, on sitting down to write, Mary made, first, a list of -twelve heads of her discourse, on a separate sheet of paper, and then -began her epistle on another sheet. Through paragraphs 1, 2, 3,[337] she -followed the sequence of her notes of heads, and began paragraph 4, 'The -King sent for Joachim' (one of her servants) 'yesternicht, and asked why I -lodged not beside him.'[338] - -If this means that Mary was in Glasgow on the day before she began -writing, the dates cannot be made to harmonise with facts. For her first -night of writing must then be January 22, her second January 23; Bothwell, -therefore, cannot receive the letter till January 24, on which day he went -to Liddesdale, and Paris, the bearer, declared that he gave the letter to -Bothwell the day _before_ he rode to Liddesdale. - -The answer is obvious. Joachim probably reached Glasgow on the day before -Mary's arrival, namely on January 20. It was usual to send the royal beds, -carpets, tapestries, and 'cloth of State' in front of the travelling -prince, to make the rooms ready before he came. Joachim would arrive with -the upholstery a day in advance of Mary. Therefore, on her first night, -January 21, she can speak of what the King said to Joachim 'yesterday.' - -The next indication of date is in paragraphs 7, 8. Paragraph 7 ends: 'The -morne I wil speik to him upon this point' (part of the affair of Hiegait); -paragraph 8 is written on the following day: 'As to the rest of Willie -Hiegait's, he' (Darnley) 'confessit it, bot it was the morne efter my -cumming or he did it.' The English is, 'The rest as [to?] Wille Hiegait -[he?] hath confessed, but it was the next day that he' (Darnley) 'came -hither,' that is, came so far on in his confession. Paragraph 8, -therefore, tells the results of that examination of Darnley, which Mary -promised at the end of paragraph 7 to make 'to-morrow.' We are now in a -new day, January 22, at night. - -But, while paragraphs 9, 10, 11 (about 500 words) intervene, paragraph 12 -opens thus, '_This is my first journey_' (day's work); '_I will end -to-morrow_. I write all, of how little consequence so ever it be, to the -end you may take of the whole that shall be best for your purpose. I do -here a work that I hate much, _but I had begun it this morning_.'[339] - -Here, then, after 500 words confessedly written on her _second_ night, -Mary says that this is her _first_ day's work. The natural theory is that -here we detect clumsy dovetailing by a forger, who has cut a genuine -letter into pieces, and inserted false matter. But another explanation may -be suggested. Mary, on her first night, did not really stop at paragraph -7: 'I will talk to him to-morrow on that point.' _These words happened to -come at the foot of her sheet of paper._ She took up another fresh page, -and wrote on, 'This is my first journey ...' down to 'I had begun it this -morning.' Then she stopped and went to bed. Next night (January 22) she -took up the same sheet or page as she had written three sentences on, the -evening before, but _she took it up on the clean side_, and did not -observe her words 'This is my first journey.... I had begun it this -morning' till she finished, and turned over the clean side. She then -probably ran her pen lightly across the now inappropriate words, written -on the previous night, 'This is my first journey,' as she erased lines in -her draft for a sonnet in the Bodleian Library.[340] The words, as in the -case of the sonnet in the Bodleian, remained perfectly legible, and the -translators--not intelligent men--included them in their versions. - -The letter should run from paragraph 7, 'I will talk to him to-morrow upon -that point' to paragraph 12, 'This is my first journey.... I had begun it -this morning.' Then back to paragraph 8, 'As to the rest of Willie -Hiegait's,' and so straight on, merely omitting the words written on the -previous night, 'This is my first journey, ... but I had begun it this -morning.' - -Mary's mistake in taking for virgin a piece of paper which really had -writing on the verso, must have occurred to most people: certainly it has -often occurred to myself. - -There is one objection to this theory. In paragraph 25, at the end of the -letter, Mary apologises for having written part of a letter on a sheet -containing the memoranda, or list of topics, which, as we saw, she began -by writing. She says, in Scots, 'Excuse that thing that is scriblit' (MS. -C,[341] '_barbulzeit_') 'for I had na paper _yesterday_ quhan I _wrait_ -that of ye memoriall.' The English runs, 'Excuse also that I scribbled, -for I had yesternight no paper _when I took the paper of a memorial_.' - -Now the part of Mary's letter which is on the same paper as the -'memorial,' or scribbled list of topics, must have been written, _not_ -'yesternight,' but 'to-night' (on the night of January 22), unless she is -consciously writing in the early morning, after 12 P.M., January 22; in -the 'wee sma' hours ayont the twal',' of January 23: which does not seem -probable. - -If this however meets the objection indicated, the chronology of the -letter is consistent; it is of the night of January 21, and the night of -January 22, including some time past midnight. The apparent breaks or -'faults,' then, are not the result of clumsy dovetailing by a forger, but -are the consequence of a mere ordinary accident in Mary's selection of -sheets of paper. - -We now come to the objections based on Crawford's Deposition. Of Letter -II., as we have it, paragraph 2, in some degree, and paragraphs 6 (from -'Ye ask me quhat I mene be the crueltie'), 7, 9, 10, and parts of 21 also -exist, with, in many places, verbal correspondence in phrase, _in another -shape_. The correspondence of phrase, above all in 6, is usually with the -_Scots_ translation, sometimes, on the other hand, with the _English_. -Consequently, as will be seen on comparison of the Scots Letter II. with -this other form of part of its contents, these two texts have a common -source and cannot be independent.[342] This new form is contained in a -Deposition, made on oath by a gentleman, a retainer of Lennox, named -Thomas Crawford, the very man who met Mary outside Glasgow (Letter II. 2). -He had attended Darnley in Glasgow, and had received from Darnley, and -written, a verbatim report of his discussions with Mary. Crawford was -therefore brought forward, by the accusers, on December 9, 1568, before -the Commission of Inquiry at Westminster. The object was to prove that no -one alive but Mary could have written Letter II., because she, and she -only, could know the nature of her private talk with her husband, as -reported in Letter II., and, therefore, no one could have forged the -Letter in which that talk was recorded. Providentially, however, Darnley -had informed Crawford about those private talks, and here was Crawford, to -corroborate Letter II. - -But it escaped the notice of the accusers that all the world, or all whom -Crawford chose to inform as to what Darnley told him about these -conversations, might know the details of the talk even better than Mary -herself. For the precise words would fade from Mary's memory, whereas -Crawford, as he swore, had written them down at once, as reported to him -by Darnley, probably as soon as Mary left his sick-room. The written copy -by Crawford must have preserved the words with fidelity beyond that of -human memory, and the written words were in the custody of Crawford, or of -Lennox, so long as they chose to keep the manuscript. This fact is proved -on Crawford's oath. On December 9, 1568, before the Commissioners, he -swore that, when with Darnley, in Glasgow, in January, 1567, 'he was -secretly informed by the King of all things which had passed betwixt the -said Queen and the King, ... to the intent that he should report the same -to the Earl of Lennox, his Master, and that he did, _immediately at the -same time, write the same word by word_ as near as he could possibly carry -the same away.' He was certain that his report of Mary's words to himself, -'the words now reported in his writing,' 'are the very same words, on his -conscience, that were spoken,' while Darnley's reports of Mary's talk -(also contained in Crawford's written deposition) are the same in effect, -'though not percase in all parts the very words themselves.'[343] - -We do not know whether what Crawford now handed in on December 9, 1568, -was an English version of his own written verbatim Scots report done in -January, 1567; or a copy of it; or whether he copied it from Letter II., -or whether he rewrote it from memory after nearly two years. The last -alternative may be dismissed as impossible, owing to the verbal identity -of Crawford's report with that in the Scots version of the French Letter -attributed to Mary. Another thing is doubtful: whether Lennox, at -Chiswick, on June 11, 1568, did or did not possess the report which -Crawford wrote for him in January, 1567. Lennox, on June 11, as we saw, -wrote to Crawford asking 'what purpose Crawford held with her' (Mary) 'at -her coming to the town' of Glasgow. He did not ask what conversation Mary -then held with Darnley. Either he had that principal part of Crawford's -report, in writing, in his possession, or he knew nothing about it (which, -if Crawford told truth, is impossible), or he forgot it, which is next to -impossible. All he asked for on June 11 was Crawford's recollection about -what passed between himself and Mary ere she entered Glasgow, concerning -which Crawford nowhere says that he made any written memorandum. Lennox, -then, on June 11, 1568, wanted Crawford's recollections of his own -interview with the Queen, either to corroborate Letter II., if it then -existed; or for secret purposes of Wood's, who was with him. - -It will be observed that Crawford's account of this interview of his with -Mary presents some verbal identities with Letter II. And this is notable, -for these identities occur where neither Crawford nor the Letter is -reporting the speeches on either side. _These_ might easily be remembered, -for a while, by both parties. But both parties could not be expected to -coincide verbally in phrases descriptive of their meeting, and its -details. Thus, Crawford, 'I _made my Lord, my Master's humble -commendations, with the excuse that he came not to meet her_.' In Letter -II. we read '_He made his_' (Lennox's) '_commendations, and excuses unto -me, that he came not to meet me_.' - -The excuses, in Crawford, are first of Lennox's bad health (_not_ in the -Letter); next, that he was anxious 'because of _the sharp words that she -had spoken of him to Robert Cunningham_, his servant,' &c. - -In Letter II. this runs: 'considering _the sharp words that I had spoken -to Cunningham_.' Crawford next introduces praises of Lennox which are not -in the Letter, but, where a speech is reported, he uses the very words of -the Scots translation of Letter II., which vary from the words in the -English translation. - -It follows that, even here, the Letter, in the Scots version, and -Crawford's Deposition, have one source. Either Crawford took the Scots -translation, and (while keeping certain passages) modified it: or the -maker of the Letter borrowed from Crawford's Deposition. In the former -case, the sworn corroboration is a perjury: in the latter, the Letter is a -forgery. - -Crawford has passages which the Letter has not: they are his own -reflections. Thus, after reporting Darnley's remark about the English -sailors, with whom he denied that he meant to go away (Letter II. 19), -Crawford has, what the Letter has not: 'And if he had' (gone away) 'it had -not been without cause, seeing how he was used. For he had neither to -sustain himself nor his servants, and needed not make further rehearsal -thereof, seeing she knew it as well as he.' Is this Crawford's addition or -Darnley's speech? Then there is Crawford's statement that Mary never -stayed more than two hours, at a time, with Darnley--long enough, in an -infected room of which the windows were never opened. It is here, after -the grumble about Mary's brief stay, that Crawford adds, 'She was very -pensive, whereat he found fault.' - -Now Darnley may have told Crawford (though Crawford does not give this as -part of the conversation), 'I was vexed by the Queen's moodiness,' or the -like. But it is incredible that Mary herself should also say, in the -Letter, just before she mentions going to supper after her first brief -interview (_Scots_) 'he fand greit fault that I was pensive' (Letter II. -5[344]). To Mary's defenders this phrase appears to be borrowed by the -forger of the Letter from Crawford's Deposition; not borrowed by Crawford, -out of place and at random (with a skip from Letter II. 5 to Letter II. -19), and then thrust in after his own reflections on the brevity of Mary's -visits to Darnley. For Crawford is saying that her visits were not only -short, but sulky. On the other hand, in the Letter the writer is made to -contrast Darnley's blitheness with her gloom. - -Crawford does not report, what the Letter makes Mary report, Darnley's -unconcealed knowledge of her relations with Bothwell, at least in the -passage, 'It is thocht, and he belevis it to be trew, that I have not the -power of myself unto myself, and that because of the refuse I maid of his -offeris.' - -Crawford ends with his own reply to Darnley, as to Mary's probable -intentions: 'I answered I liked it not, because she took him to -Craigmillar,' not to Holyrood. The 'Book of Articles,' we know, declares -that Mary 'from Glasgow, be hir _letteris_ and utherwise, held Bothwell -_continewally_ in rememberance of _the said house_,' that is, Kirk o' -Field. But the Letters produced do nothing of the kind. Craigmillar, as we -have seen, is dwelt on. In the Deposition the idea of Darnley's being -carried away as a prisoner is introduced as an original opinion of -Crawford's, expressed privately to Darnley, and necessarily unknown to -Mary when she wrote Letter II. But it occurs thus, in Letter II. 9, after -mention of a litter which Mary had brought for his conveyance, and to -which Darnley, who loved riding of all things, made objection. 'I trow he -belevit that I wald have send him away Presoner'--a passage _not_ in the -English translation. Darnley replied to Crawford's remark about his being -taken as 'a prisoner' that 'he thought little else himself.' It is -reckoned odd that Mary in the Letter makes him 'think little else -himself.' 'I trow he belevit that I wald have send him away Presoner.' - -For these reasons some German defenders of Mary have decided that the -parts of Letter II. which correspond with Crawford's Deposition must have -been borrowed from that Deposition by a forger of the Letter. About June, -1568, Lennox, on this theory, would lend a copy of Crawford's report (made -in January, 1567, at Glasgow) to Wood, and, on returning to Scotland, Wood -might have the matter of Crawford's report worked into Letter II. - -I had myself been partly convinced that this was the correct view. But the -existence of Mary's memoranda, and the way in which they influence Letter -II., seem to me an almost insuperable proof that part, at least, of Letter -II. is genuine. It may, however, be said that the memoranda were genuine, -but not compromising, and that the Letter was based, by forgers, on the -memoranda (accidentally left lying in her Glasgow room, by Mary) and on -Crawford's report, obtained from Lennox. This is not impossible. But the -craft of the forger in making Mary, on her second night of writing, find -her forgotten memoranda (II. 15), be reminded by them of her last -neglected item ('Of Monsieur de Levingstoun'), and then go on (II. 16) to -tell the anecdote of Livingstone, never publicly contradicted by him, -seems superhuman. I scarcely feel able to believe in a forger so clever. -Yet I hesitate to infer that Crawford, when asked to corroborate the -statements in the Letter, took his report from the Letter itself, and -perjured himself when he said, on oath, that his Deposition was derived -from a writing taken down from Darnley's lips 'immediately at the time.' - -I should come to this conclusion with regret and with hesitation. It is -disagreeable to feel more or less in doubt as to Crawford's honour. We -know nothing against Crawford's honour, unless it be that he was cruel to -the Hamilton tenantry, and that he deposed to having received confessions -on the scaffold, from Bothwell's accomplices, implicating Mary.[345] These -do not occur in the dying confessions printed with Buchanan's 'Detection,' -though Bowton hinted something against Mary, when he was in prison; so -that trustworthy work informs us. Thus Crawford's second Deposition, as to -the dying confessions, is certainly rather suspicious. We know nothing -else against the man. He lived to be a trusted servant of James VI. (but -so did the infamous Archibald Douglas); he denounced Lethington of guilt -in the murder; he won fame by the capture of Dumbarton Castle. Yet some -are led to suspect that, when asked to corroborate a passage in a letter, -he simply took the corroboration, _textually_, from the letter itself. If -not the Letter is a forgery. - -Mr. Henderson (who does not admit the verbal correspondence of Letter and -Deposition) clearly sees no harm in this course. 'It is by no means -improbable that Crawford refreshed his recollection by the aid of the -Letter, which, in any case, he may have seen before he prepared his -statement.' But he swore that he wrote a statement, from Darnley's lips, -'immediately at the time.'[346] He said nothing about losing the paper, -which he wrote in January, 1567. (Mr. Henderson says it 'had apparently -been destroyed'--why 'apparently'?) But, according to Mr. Henderson, 'he -may have seen the letter before he prepared his statement. Probably he -would have been ready to have admitted this.' He would have had an evil -encounter with any judge to whom he admitted that, being called to -corroborate part of a letter, written in French, he copied his -corroborating statement, verbally on the whole, from a Scots translation -of the letter itself! I do not think that Crawford would have been 'ready -to admit' this unconscionable villainy. Yet we must either believe that he -was guilty of it, or that the Letter was forged. - -There is one indication which, for what it is worth, corroborates the -truth of Crawford's oath. He swore that he had written down Darnley's -report of conversations with Mary 'immediately at the time,' in order that -he, in turn, might report them to Lennox, 'because the said Earl durst not -then, for displeasure of the Queen, come abroad,' and speak to Darnley -himself. But Crawford never swore, or said, that he wrote down his own -conversation with Mary. Now, on June 11, 1568, Lennox does not ask for -what Crawford swore that he _wrote_, much the most important part of his -evidence, the account of Darnley's talks with Mary. Lennox does not ask -for _that_, for what Crawford swore that he wrote 'immediately at the -time.' He merely asks 'what purpois' (talk) 'Thomas Crawford held with the -Queen at her coming to the town.' This may be understood to mean that -Lennox already held, and so did not need, Crawford's written account, -dictated by Darnley to him, of the conversations between Mary and Darnley. -For that document, if he had it not, Lennox would most certainly ask, but -ask he did not. Therefore, it may be argued, Lennox had it all the while -in his portfolio, and therefore, again, parts of Letter II. are borrowed -from Crawford's written paper of January, 1567.[347] - -In that case, we clear Crawford's character for probity, but we destroy -the authenticity of Letter II.[348] I confess that this last argument, -with the fact that we have no evidence against the character of Crawford, -a soldier of extraordinary daring and resource, and a country gentleman, -not a politician, rather disturbs the balance of probabilities in favour -of the theory that he borrowed his Deposition textually from the Letter, -and increases the probability that the Letter is a forgery based on the -Deposition.[349] - -5. The contents of the Letter are said to be incoherent and inconsistent -with Mary's style and character. The last objection is worthless. In the -Letter she says that she acts 'against her natural'--_contre son -naturel_--out of character. As for incoherence, the items of her memoranda -are closely followed in sequence, up to paragraph 8, and the interloping -part in paragraph 12. The rest, the work of the second night, _is_ -incoherent, as Mary's moods, if she was guilty, must have been. -Information, hatred, remorse, jealousy, and passion are the broken and -blended strata of a mind rent by volcanic affections. The results in the -Letter are necessarily unlike the style and sentiment of Mary's authentic -letters, except in certain very remarkable features. - -Either Mary wrote the Letter or a forger wished to give the impression -that this occurred. He wanted the world to believe that the Queen, her -conscience tortured and her passion overmastering her conscience, could -not cease to converse with her lover while paper served her turn. Her -moods alternate: now she is resolved and cruel, now sick with horror, but -still, sleepless as she is, she must be writing. Assuredly if this Letter -be, in part at least, a forgery, it is a forgery by a master in the -science of human nature. We seem to be admitted within the room where -alone a light burns through the darkling hours, and to see the tormented -Queen who fears her pillow. She writes, 'I would have almaist had pitie of -him.... He salutes everybody, yea unto the least, and makes pitious -caressing unto them, to make them have pitie on hym,' a touching picture. -There is a pendant to this picture of Darnley, in Buchanan's 'History.' He -is speaking of Mary's studied neglect of Darnley at the time of his son's -christening (December, 1566). Darnley, he says, endured all 'not only with -patience; he was seen trying to propitiate her unjust anger in every way, -_that humbly, and almost in servile fashion_, he might keep some share in -her good graces.'[350] What an etching is this of the man, a little while -since so haughty and tyrannous, 'dealing blows where he knew that they -would be taken'! Again the passage (Letter II. 11) about Mary's heart -wherein only Bothwell's 'shot' can make a breach, does certainly seem (as -Laing notes) to refer to a sonnet of Mary's favourite poet, Ronsard. - - Depuis le jour que la premiere fleche - De ton bel oeil m'avanca la douleur, - Et que sa blanche et sa noire couleur, - Forcant ma force, _au coeur me firent breche_. - -As in later letters, the writer now shows jealousy of Bothwell's wife. - -The writer again and again recurs to her remorse. 'Remember how, gyf it -were not to obey you, I had rather be deid or I dyd it, my heart bleides -at it.... Alas, I nevir deceivit anybody; but I remit me altogidder to -your will.' The voice of conscience 'deepens with the deepening of the -night,' a very natural circumstance showing the almost inhuman art of the -supposed forger. What ensues is even more remarkable. Throughout, Mary -professes absolute submission to Bothwell; she is here, as Sir John -Skelton remarks, 'the bond slave and humble minister of Bothwell's -ambition.' He argues that she was really 'the last woman in the world who -would have prostrated herself in abject submission at the feet of a -lover.'[351] But, in a later letter to Norfolk, when she regarded herself -as affianced to him, Mary says 'as you please command me, for I will, for -all the world, follow your commands....' She promises, in so many words, -'humble submission'--though, conceivably, she may here mean submission to -Elizabeth.[352] Again, 'I will be true and obedient to you, as I have -promised.'[353] There are other similar passages in the letters to -Norfolk, indicating Mary's idea of submission to a future husband, an -attitude which, according to Randolph, she originally held towards -Darnley. These letters to Norfolk, of course, were not dictated by -passion. Therefore, under stress of passion or of a passionate caprice, -Mary might naturally assume a humility otherwise foreign to her nature. It -would be a joy to her to lay herself at her lover's feet: the argument _a -priori_, from character, is no disproof of the authenticity of this part -of the Letter. - -On the whole, these reasons are the strongest for thinking the Letter, in -parts, probably genuine. The Lords _may_, conceivably, have added 'some -principal and substantious clauses,' such as the advice to Bothwell 'to -find out some more secret invention by medicine' (paragraph 20), and they -_may_ have added the words 'of the ludgeing in Edinburgh' (Kirk o' Field) -to the dubious list of directions which we find at the end of the Scots, -but not in the English, version. There is no other reference to Kirk o' -Field, though the 'Book of Articles' says that there were many. And there -were many, in the forged letter! Paris, indeed, confessed that Mary told -him that Letter II. was to ask where Darnley should be placed, at -Craigmillar or Kirk o' Field. But the evidence of Paris is dubious. - -Lennox was very anxious, as was the author of the 'Book of Articles,' to -prove that the Kirk o' Field plan was arranged between Bothwell and Mary, -before she went to meet Darnley at Glasgow in January, 1567. We have -already seen that the 'Book of Articles' makes Mary and Bothwell 'devise' -this house 'before she raid to Glasgow,' and 'from Glasgow by her letters -and otherwise she held him continually in remembrance of the said house.' - -The 'Book of Articles' also declares that she 'wrote to Bothwell to see if -he might find out _a more secret way by medicine to cut him off_' than the -Kirk o' Field plan. Now this phrase, 'a more secret invention by -medicine,' occurs in Letter II. 20, but is instantly followed by 'for he -should take medicine and the bath at _Craigmillar_:' not a word of the -house in Edinburgh. - -Next, we find Lennox, like the author of the 'Book of Articles,' hankering -after, and insisting on, a mention of the 'house in Edinburgh' in Mary's -Letters. There exists an indictment by Lennox in Scots, no doubt intended -to be, as it partly was, later done into English. The piece describes -Moray as present with the English Commissioners, doubtless at York, in -October, 1568. This indictment in Scots is by one who has seen Letter II., -or parts of it, for we read 'Of quhilk purpos reported to Heigat she makes -mention in hir lettre sent to Boithuile from Glasgow, meaning sen that -purpose' (the plan of arresting Darnley) 'wes reveled that he suld invent -_a mare secrete way be medecine to cutt him of_' (the very phrase used in -the 'Book of Articles') 'as alsua puttes the said Boithuil in mynde of the -house in Edinburgh, divisit betwix thame for the King hir husband's -distructioune, termand thair ungodlie conspiracy "thair affaire."' - -Now Mary, in Letter II., does not 'put Bothwell in mind of the house in -Edinburgh,' nor does she here use the expression 'their affair,' though in -Letter III. she says 'your affair.' In Buchanan's mind (if he was, as I -feel convinced, the author of the 'Book of Articles') the forged letter -described by Moray and Lennox, with its insistence on Kirk o' Field, was -confused with Letter II., in which there is nothing of the sort. The same -confusion pervades Lennox's indictment in Scots, perhaps followed by -Buchanan. When parts of the Scots indictment are translated into Lennox's -last extant English indictment, we no longer hear that Kirk o' Field is -mentioned in the Letters, but we _do_ read of 'such a house in Edinburgh -as she had prepared for him to finish his days in'--which Mary had not -done when she wrote Letter II. Consequently the memorandum at the end of -Letter II., 'remember zow of the ludgeing in Edinburgh,' a memorandum -_not_ in the English translation, may have been added fraudulently to -prove the point that Kirk o' Field was, from the first, devised for -Darnley's destruction.[354] These passages, in any case, prove that the -false letter reported by Moray and Lennox haunted the minds of Lennox and -Buchanan to the last. - -The evidence of Nelson, Darnley's servant,[355] later with Lady Lennox, to -the effect that Craigmillar was proposed, but that Darnley rejected it, -may be taken either as corroboration of the intention to lodge Darnley at -Craigmillar (as is insisted on in Letters I. and II.) or as one of the -sources whence Letter II. was fraudulently composed. On the whole, -however, the Craigmillar references in the Letters have an air of -authenticity. They were not what the accusers wanted; they wanted -references to Kirk o' Field, and these they amply provided in the Letter -about poisoning Lady Bothwell, echoes of which are heard in the 'Book of -Articles,' and in Lennox's indictment in Scots. - -The letter described by Moray and Lennox, when both, at different dates, -were in contact with Wood, was full of references to Kirk o' Field, which -are wholly absent in Letters I. and II. The letter known to Moray and -Lennox was probably forged in the interval between June 21 and July 8, -1567, when (July 8) the Lords sent 'Jhone a Forret' to Moray. As I shall -make it evident that Robert Melville was sent to inform Elizabeth about -the capture of the Casket on the very day of the event, the pause of -seventeen days before the sending of 'Jhone a Forret' to Moray is very -curious. In that time the letter noticed by Moray and Lennox may have been -forged to improve the evidence against Mary. At all events its details -were orally circulated. But I think that, finding this letter -inconsistent, and overcharged, the Lords, in December, 1568, fell back on -the authentic, or partially authentic, Letter II., and produced that. My -scheme of dates for that Letter need not necessarily be accepted. My -theory that Mary made a mistake as to her sheets of paper which caused the -confusion of the internal chronology is but a conjecture, and the -objection to it I have stated. The question is one of the most delicately -balanced probabilities. Either Lennox, from January 1567 onwards, -possessed the notes which Crawford swore that he wrote concerning -Darnley's conversation (in which case much of Letter II. is a forgery -based on Crawford), or Crawford, in December 1568, deliberately perjured -himself. The middle course involves the unlikely hypothesis that Crawford -did take notes 'immediately at the time;' but that they were lost or -destroyed; and that he, with dishonest stupidity, copied his deposition -from Letter II. There appears to me to be no hint of the loss or -disappearance of the only notes which Crawford swore that he made. -Consequently, on either alternative, the conduct of the prosecutors is -dishonest. Dishonesty is again suggested by the mysterious letter which -Moray and Lennox cite, and which colours both Lennox's MS. discourses and -the 'Book of Articles.' But, on the other hand, parts of Letter II. seem -beyond the power of the Genius of Forgery to produce. Perhaps the least -difficult theory is that Letter II. is in part authentic, in part -garbled.[356] - - - - -XV - -_THE SIX MINOR CASKET LETTERS_ - - -If the accusers had authentic evidence in Letters I. and II., they needed -no more to prove Mary's guilt. But the remaining six Letters bear on -points which they wished to establish, such as Mary's attempt to make her -brother, Lord Robert, assassinate her husband, and her insistence on her -own abduction. There are some difficulties attendant on these Letters. We -take them in order. First Letter III. (or VIII.). This Letter, the third -in Mr. Henderson's edition, is the eighth and last in that of Laing. As -the Letter, forged or genuine, is probably one of the last in the series, -it shall be discussed in its possible historical place. - - -LETTER III (IV) - -Of this Letter, fortunately, we possess a copy of the French -original.[357] The accusers connected the letter with an obscure intrigue -woven while Darnley was at Kirk o' Field. Lord Robert Stuart, Mary's -half-brother, commendator of Holyrood, is said by Sir James Melville to -have warned Darnley of his danger. Darnley repeated this to Mary, but Lord -Robert denied the story. The 'Book of Articles' alleges that Mary then -tried to provoke a fight between her husband and her brother on this -point. Buchanan adds that, when Darnley and Lord Robert had their hands on -their swords, Mary called in Moray to part them. She hoped that he would -'get the redder's stroke,' and be killed, or, if Darnley fell, that Moray -would incur suspicion. As usual Buchanan spoils his own case. If Mary did -call in Moray to separate the brawlers, she was obviously innocent, or -repented at the last moment. Buchanan's theory is absurd, but his -anecdote, of course, may be false. Lennox, in his MSS., says that Moray -was present at the quarrel.[358] - -The indications of the plot, in the Letter, are so scanty, that the -purpose has to be read into them from the alleged facts which the Letter -is intended to prove.[359] I translate the copy of the French original. - -'I watched later up there' (at Kirk o' Field?) 'than I would have done, -had it not been to draw out ['of him,' in Scots] what this bearer will -tell you: that I find the best matter to excuse your affair that could be -offered. I have promised him' (Darnley?) 'to bring him' (Lord Robert?) 'to -him' (Darnley?) 'to-morrow: if you find it good, put order to it. Now, -Sir, I have broken my promise, for you have commanded me not to send or -write. Yet I do it not to offend you, and if you knew my dread of giving -offence you would not have so many suspicions against me, which, none the -less, I cherish, as coming from the thing in the world which I most desire -and seek, namely your good grace. Of that my conduct shall assure me, nor -shall I ever despair thereof, so long as, according to your promise, you -lay bare your heart to me. Otherwise I shall think that my misfortune, and -the fair attitude[360] of those' (Lady Bothwell) 'who have not the third -part of the loyalty and willing obedience that I bear to you, have gained -over me the advantage won by the second love of Jason [Creusa or Glauce?] -Not that I compare you _a un si malheureuse_' (_sic_) 'nor myself to one -so pitiless [as Medea] however much you make me a little like her in what -concerns you; or [but?] to preserve and guard you for her to whom alone -you belong, if one can appropriate what one gains by honourably, and -loyally, and absolutely loving, as I do and will do all my life, come what -pain and misery there may. In memory whereof and of all the ills that you -have caused me, be mindful of the place near here' (Darnley's chamber?). -'I do not ask you to keep promise with me to-morrow' (the Scots has, -wrongly, 'I crave with that ye keepe promise with me the morne,' which -Laing justifies by a false conjectural restoration of the French), 'but -that we meet' (_que nous truvions = que nous nous trouvions ensemble_?), -'and that you do not listen to any suspicion you may have without letting -me know. And I ask no more of God than that you may know what is in my -heart which is yours, and that He preserve you at least during my life, -which shall be dear to me only while my life and I are dear to you. I am -going to bed, and wish you good night. Let me know early to-morrow how you -fare, for I shall be anxious. And keep good watch if the bird leave his -cage, or without his mate. Like the turtle I shall abide alone, to lament -the absence, however short it may be. What I cannot do, my letter [would -do?] heartily, if it were not that I fear you are asleep. For I did not -dare to write before Joseph' (Joseph Riccio) 'and bastienne (_sic_) and -Joachim, who only went away when I began.' - -This Letter is, in most parts, entirely unlike the two Glasgow letters in -style. They are simple and direct: this is obscure and affected. As Laing -had not the transcript of the original French (a transcript probably -erroneous in places) before him, his attempts to reconstruct the French -are unsuccessful. He is more happy in noting that the phrase _vous m'en -dischargeres votre coeur_, occurs twice in Mary's letters to -Elizabeth[361] (_e.g._ August 13, 1568). But to 'unpack the heart' is, of -course, a natural and usual expression. If Darnley is meant by the bird in -the cage, the metaphor is oddly combined with the comparison (a stock one) -of Mary to a turtle dove. Possibly the phrase 'I do _not_ ask that you -keep promise with me to-morrow,' is meant to be understood 'I do not ask -you to keep promise except that we may meet,' as Laing supposes. But (1) -the sense cannot be got out of the French, (2) it does not help the -interpretation of the accusers if, after all, Mary is only contriving an -excuse for a meeting between herself and Bothwell. The obscure passage -about the turtle dove need not be borrowed from Ronsard, as Laing thinks: -it is a commonplace. The phrase which I render 'what I cannot do, my -letter [would do] heartily, if it were not that I fear you are asleep,' -the Scots translates 'This letter will do with ane gude hart, that thing -quhilk I cannot do myself gif it be not that I have feir that ze ar in -sleiping.' The French is 'ce que je ne puis faire ma lettre de bon coeur -si ce nestoit que je ay peur que soyes endormy.' Laing, reconstructing the -French, says, 'Ce que je ne saurois faire moi-meme; that is, instigate -Lord Robert to commit the murder.' The end of the phrase he takes 'in its -figurative sense, _d'un homme endormi_; slow, or negligent.' Thus we are -to understand 'what I cannot do, my letter would do heartily--that is -excite you to instigate my brother to kill my husband, if I were not -afraid that you were slow or negligent.' This is mere nonsense. The writer -means, apparently, 'what I cannot do, my letter would gladly do--that is -salute you--if I were not afraid that you are already asleep, the night -being so far advanced.' She is sorry if her letter arrives to disturb his -sleep. - -It needs much good will, or rather needs much ill will, to regard this -Letter as an inducement to Bothwell to make Lord Robert draw on Darnley. -Mary, without Bothwell's help, could have summoned Lord Robert on any -pretext, and then set him and Darnley by the ears. The date of Mary's -attempt to end Darnley by her brother's sword, Buchanan places 'about -three days before the King was slain.' 'Cecil's Journal,' as we saw, -places it on February 8. Darnley was murdered after midnight of February -9. Paris said that, to the best of his memory, he carried letters on the -Friday night, the 7th, from Mary, at Kirk o' Field, to Bothwell. On -Saturday, Mary told her attendants of the quarrel between Darnley and Lord -Robert. 'Lord Robert,' she said, 'had good means of killing the King at -that moment, for there was then nobody in the chamber to part them but -herself.' These are rather suspicious confessions.[362] Moreover, Lennox, -in his MSS., says that Moray was present at the incident, and could bear -witness at Westminster. The statement of Paris is confused: he carried -letters both on Thursday and Friday nights (February 6 and 7), and his -declaration about all this affair is involved in contradictions. - -According to the confession of Hay of Tala, it was on February 7 that -Bothwell arranged the method by gunpowder. When he had just settled that, -Mary, _ex hypothesi_, disturbed him with the letter on the scheme of using -Lord Robert and a chance scuffle: an idea suggested to her by what she had -extracted, that very night, from Darnley--namely, the warning whispered to -him by Lord Robert. She thinks that, if confronted, they will fight, -Darnley will fall, and this will serve 'pour excuser votre affaire,' as -the Letter says. Buchanan adds in his 'History,' that Bothwell was present -to kill anybody convenient (fol. 350). It was a wildly improbable scheme, -especially if Mary, as Buchanan says, called in Moray to stop the quarrel, -or share the blame, or be killed by Bothwell. - -That the Letter, with some others of the set, is written in an odd, -affected style, does not yield an argument either to the attack or the -defence. If it is unlikely that Mary practised two opposite kinds of -style, it is also unlikely that a forger, or forgers, would venture on -attributing to her the practice. To this topic there will be opportunities -of returning. - - -LETTER IV - -This Letter merely concerns somebody's distrust of a maid of Mary's. The -maid is about to be married, perhaps to Bastian, but there is nothing -said that identifies either the girl, or the recipient of the letter. Its -tone, however, is that of almost abjectly affectionate submission, and -there is a note of a common end, to which the writer and the recipient are -working, _ce a quoy nous tandons tous deux_. If Mary dismisses the maid, -she, in revenge, may reveal her scheme. The writer deprecates the -suspicions of her correspondent, and all these things mark the epistle as -one in this series. As it proves nothing against Mary, beyond affection -for somebody, a common aim with him, and fear that the maid may spoil the -project, there could be no reason for forging the Letter. A transcript of -the original French is in the Record Office.[363] The translators have -blundered over an important phrase from ignorance of French.[364] - - -LETTER V - -On the night of April 19, 1567, Bothwell obtained the signatures of many -nobles to 'Ainslie's Band,' as it is called, a document urging Mary to -marry Bothwell.[365] On Monday, April 21, Mary went to Stirling, to see -her child. She was suspected of intending to hand him over to Bothwell. If -she meant to do this, her purpose was frustrated. On Wednesday, April 23, -she went to Linlithgow, and on Thursday, April 24, was seized by Bothwell, -near Edinburgh, and carried to Dunbar. This Letter, if genuine, proves her -complicity; and is intended to prove it, if forged. On the face of it, the -Letter was written at Stirling. Mary regrets Bothwell's confidence in an -unworthy person, Huntly, the brother of his wife. Huntly has visited her, -and, instead of bringing news as to how and when the abduction is to -managed, has thrown cold water on the plot. He has said that Mary can -never marry a married man who abducts her, and that the Lords _se -dediroient_, which the Scots translator renders 'the Lordis wald unsay -themselves, and wald deny that they had said.' The reference is to their -acquiescence in the Ainslie band of April 19. Mary, as usual, displays -jealousy of Bothwell, who has 'two strings to his bow,' herself and his -wedded wife. The Letter implies that, for some reason, Mary and Bothwell -had not arranged the details of the abduction before they separated. A -transcript of the original French is at Hatfield; the English translation, -also at Hatfield, is not from the French, but is a mere Anglicising of the -Scots version. Oddly enough the French copy at Hatfield, unlike the rest, -is in a Roman hand, such as Mary wrote. The hand resembles that of the -copyist of the Casket Sonnets in the Cambridge (Lennox) MSS., and that of -Mary Beaton, but it is not Mary Beaton's hand. - - -LETTER VI - -This Letter still deals with the manner of the _enlevement_. Mary is now -reconciled to the idea of trusting Huntly. - -She advises Bothwell as to his relations with the Lords. The passage -follows:-- - -'Methinkis that zour services, and the lang amitie, having ye gude will of -ye Lordis, do weill deserve ane pardoun, gif above the dewtie of ane -subject yow advance yourself, not to constrane me, bot to assure yourself -of sic place neir unto me, that uther admonitiounis or forane [foreign] -perswasiounis may not let [hinder] me from consenting to that, that ye -hope your service sall mak yow ane day to attene; and to be schort, to mak -yourself sure of the Lordis and fre to mary; and that ye are constraint -for your suretie, and to be abill to serve me faithfully, to use are -humbil requeist, joynit to ane importune actioun. - -'And to be schort, excuse yourself, and perswade thame the maist ye can, -yat ye ar constranit to mak persute aganis zour enemies.' - -Now compare Mary's excuses for her marriage, and for Bothwell's conduct, -as written in Scots by Lethington, her secretary, in May, 1567, for the -Bishop of Dunblane to present to the Court of France.[366] First she tells -at much length the tale of Bothwell's 'services, and the lang amitie,' as -briefly stated in Letter VI. Later she mentions his ambition, and -'practising with ye nobillmen secretly to make yame his friendis.' This -answers to 'having ye gude will of ye Lordis,' in the Letter. In the -document for the French Court, Mary suggests, as one of Bothwell's motives -for her abduction, 'incidentis quhilk mycht occur to frustrat him of his -expectatioun.' In the Letter he is 'constrainit for his suretie, to carry -her off. Finally, in the Memorial for the French Court, it is said that -Bothwell '_ceased never till be persuasionis and importune sute -accumpaneit not the less with force_,' he won Mary's assent. In Letter VI. -she advises him to allege that he is obliged '_to use ane humble requeist -joynit to ane importune action_.' Letter VI., in fact, is almost a -succinct _precis_, before the abduction, of the pleas and excuses which -Mary made to the French Court after her marriage. Could a forger have -accidentally produced this coincidence? One could: according to Sir John -Skelton the letter to her ambassador 'is understood to have been drawn by -Maitland.'[367] The letter of excuses to France is a mere expansion of the -excuses that, in the Casket Letter which we are considering, Mary advises -Bothwell to make to the Lords. Either, then, this Letter is genuine, or -the hypothetical forger had seen, and borrowed from, the Memorial -addressed in May to the Court of France. This alternative is not really -difficult; for Lethington, as secretary, must have seen, and may even (as -Skelton suggests) have composed, the Scots letter of excuses carried to -France by the Bishop of Dunblane, and Lethington had joined Mary's enemies -before they got possession of the Casket and Letters. Oddly enough, the -letter to the ambassador contains a phrase in Scots which Lethington had -used in writing to Beaton earlier, Mary 'could not find ane outgait.'[368] -No transcript of the original French, and no English translation, have -been found. - - -LETTER VII - -This Letter purports to follow on another, 'sen my letter writtin,' and -may be of Tuesday, April 22, as Mary reports that Huntly is anxious about -what he is to do 'after to-morrow.' She speaks of Huntly as 'your -brother-in-law that _was_,' whereas Huntly, Bothwell not being divorced, -was still his brother-in-law. Huntly is afraid that Mary's people, and -especially the Earl of Sutherland, will die rather than let her be carried -off. We do not know, from other sources, that Sutherland was present. Mary -implores Bothwell to bring an overpowering force. No transcript of the -original French, nor any English translation, is known. Mary must have -written two of these letters (and apparently eleven sonnets also) while -ill, anxious, and busy, on the 22nd, at Stirling, with the third on the -23rd, either at Stirling or Linlithgow. She could hardly get answers to -anything written as late as the 22nd, before Bothwell arrived at Haltoun, -near Linlithgow, on the night of April 23. - - -LETTER VIII (III IN HENDERSON) - -There are differences of opinion as to the date of this curious Letter, -and as to its place in the series. The contemporary transcript, made -probably for the Commissioners on December 9, 1568, is in the Record -Office. I translate the Letter afresh, since it must be read before any -inference as to its date and importance can be drawn. - -'Sir,--If regret for your absence, the pain caused by your forgetfulness, -and by fear of the danger which every one predicts to your beloved person, -can console me, I leave it to you to judge; considering the ill fortune -which my cruel fate and constant trouble have promised me, in the sequel -of sorrows and terrors recent and long passed; all which you well know. -But, in spite of all, I will not accuse you either of your scant -remembrance or scant care, and still less of your broken promise, or of -the coldness of your letters, I being so much your own that what pleases -you pleases me. And my thoughts are so eagerly subject to yours that I am -fain to suppose that whatsoever comes from you arises not from any of the -aforesaid causes, but from such as are just and reasonable, and desired by -myself. Which is the final order that you have promised me to take for the -safety[369] and honourable service of the sole support of my life, for -whom alone I wish to preserve it, and without which I desire only instant -death. And to show you how humbly I submit me to your commands, I send -you, by Paris, in sign of homage, the ornament' (her hair) 'of the head, -the guide of the other members, thereby signifying that, in investing you -with the spoil of what is principal, the rest must be subject to you with -the heart's consent. In place of which heart, since I have already -abandoned it to you, I send you a sepulchre, of hard stone, painted black, -_seme_ with tears and bones.[370] I compare it to my heart, which, like -it, is graven into a secure tomb or receptacle of your commands, and -specially of your name and memory, which are therein enclosed, like my -hair in the ring. Never shall they issue forth till death lets you make a -trophy of my bones, even as the ring is full of them' (_i.e._ in enamel), -'in proof that you have made entire conquest of me, and of my heart, to -such a point that I leave you my bones in memory of your victory, and of -my happy and willing defeat, to be better employed than I deserve. The -enamel round the ring is black, to symbolise the constancy of her who -sends it. The tears are numberless as are my fears of your displeasure, my -tears for your absence, and for my regret not to be yours, to outward -view, as I am, without weakness of heart or soul. - -'And reasonably so, were my merits greater than those of the most perfect -of women, and such as I desire to be. And I shall take pains to imitate -such merits, to be worthily employed under your dominion. Receive this -then, my only good, in as kind part as with extreme joy I have received -your marriage' (apparently, from what follows, a contract of marriage or a -ring of betrothal), 'which never shall leave my bosom till our bodies are -publicly wedded, as a token of all that I hope or desire of happiness in -this world. Now fearing, my heart, to weary you as much in the reading as -I take pleasure in the writing, I shall end, after kissing your hands, -with as great love as I pray God (O thou, the only prop of my life!) to -make your life long and happy, and to give me your good grace, the only -good thing which I desire, and to which I tend. I have shown what I have -learned to this bearer, to whom I remit myself, knowing the credit that -you give him, as does she who wishes to be ever your humble and obedient -loyal wife, and only lover, who for ever vows wholly to you her heart and -body changelessly, as to him whom I make possessor of my heart which, you -may be assured, will never change till death, for never shall weal or woe -estrange it.' - -The absurd affectation of style in this Letter, so different from the -plain manner of Letters I. and II., may be a poetical effort by Mary, or -may be a forger's idea of how a queen in love ought to write. In the -latter case, to vary the manner so much from that of the earlier Letters, -was a bold experiment and a needless. - -Mary, to be brief, sends to Bothwell a symbolic mourning ring, enclosing -her hair. It is enamelled in black, with tears and bones. Such a ring is -given by a girl to her lover, as a parting token, in the _Cent Nouvelles -Nouvelles_ (xxvi.), a ring _d'or, esmailee de larmes noires_.[371] She -promises always to keep the 'marriage' (that is the contract of marriage, -or can it be a ring typical of marriage?) in her bosom, till the actual -wedding in public. Now she had a sentimental habit of wearing love tokens -'in her bosom.' She writes to Norfolk from Coventry (December, 1569), 'I -took the diamant from my Lord Boyd, which I shall keep unseene about my -neck till I give it agayn to the owner of it and of me both.'[372] - -As to the Contract of Marriage (if Mary wore that in her bosom[373]), two -alleged contracts were produced for the prosecution. One was a 'contract -or promise of marriage' by Mary to Bothwell, in the Italic hand, and in -French; the hand was said to be Mary's own. It was undated, and a -memorandum in the 'Detection' says, 'Though some words therein seme to the -contrary, yet is on credible groundes supposed to have been made and -written by her befoir the death of her husband.' The document explicitly -mentions that 'God has taken' Darnley. The document, or jewel, treasured -by Mary would, of course, be Bothwell's solemn promise, or token of -promise, the counterpart of hers to him, published in Buchanan.[374] - -Now there also existed a contract, said to be in Huntly's hand, and signed -by Mary and Bothwell, of date April 5 (at Seton), 1567. But this contract -speaks of the process of divorce 'intentit' between Bothwell and his -'pretensit spouse.' Now that suit, on April 5, was not yet before the -Court (though some documents had been put in), nor did Lady Bothwell move -in the case till after Mary's abduction. - -If Mary kept _this_ contract, and if it be correctly dated, then Letter -VIII. is not of January-February, but of April, 1567. - -If Mary regarded herself as now privately married, this pose would explain -the phrase 'your brother-in-law _that was_,' in Letter VIII. But this is -stretching possibilities. - -Mr. Hosack has argued that the Letter just translated was really written -to Darnley, between whom and Mary some private preliminary ceremony of -marriage was said to have passed. In that case the words _par Paris_, 'I -send you by Paris, &c.,' are a forged interpolation, as Paris was not in -Mary's service till January, 1567. The opening sentence about the danger -which, as every one thinks, menaces her correspondent, might refer to -Darnley. But the tone of remonstrance against indifference, suspicion, and -violated promises, is the tone of almost all the Casket Letters, and does -not apply to Darnley--before his public marriage. - -As to the 'heart in a ring,' Mary, as Laing notes, had written to -Elizabeth 'Je vous envoye mon coeur en bague.' The phrase in the Letter, -_seul soutien de ma vie_, also occurs in one of the Casket Sonnets. - -To what known or alleged circumstances in Mary's relations with Bothwell -can this Letter refer? The alternatives are (1) either to her receipt of -Bothwell's answer to Letter II., which Paris (on our scheme of dates) gave -to Mary on January 25, at Glasgow; (2) to the moment of her stay at -Callendar, where she arrived, with Darnley, on January 27, taking him on -January 28 to Linlithgow, whence, on January 29, 'she wraytt to Bothwell.' -She had learned at Linlithgow, on January 28, by Hob Ormistoun, that -Bothwell was on his way from Liddesdale.[375] Or (3) does the letter refer -to Monday, April 21, when she was at Stirling till Wednesday, April 23, -when she went to Linlithgow, Bothwell being 'at Haltoun hard by,' and -carrying her off on April 24?[376] - -Taking first (1)--we find Mary acknowledging in this letter the receipt of -Bothwell's 'marriage.' If this is a contract, did Bothwell send it in the -letter which, according to Paris, he wrote on January 24, accompanying it -with a diamond? 'Tell the Queen,' said Bothwell, 'that I send her this -diamond, which you are to carry, and that if I had my heart I would send -it willingly, but I have it not.' The diamond, a ring probably, might be -referred to in Bothwell's letter as a marriage or betrothal ring (French, -_union_). In return Mary would send her mourning ring; 'the stone I -compare to my heart.' - -This looks well, but how could Mary, who, _ex hypothesi_, had just -received a ring, a promise or contract of marriage, and a loving message, -complain, as she does, of 'the coldness of your letters,' 'your violated -promise,' 'your forgetfulness,' 'your want of care for me'? Danger to -Bothwell, in Liddesdale, she might fear, but these other complaints are -absolutely inconsistent with the theory that Bothwell had just sent a -letter, a ring, a promise of marriage, and a loving verbal message. We -must therefore dismiss hypothesis 1. - -(2) Did Mary send this Letter on January 29 from Linlithgow? She had no -neglect to complain of _there_; for, according to her accusers, she was -met by Hob Ormistoun, with a letter or message. Paris says this was at -Callendar, where she slept on January 27.[377] In that case Bothwell was -yet more prompt. Again, Mary had now no fear of danger to Bothwell's -person, as she had just learned that Bothwell had left perilous -Liddesdale. Here, once more, there is no room, reason, or ground for her -complaints. Again, in the Letter she says that she sends the mourning ring -'by Paris.' But, if we are to believe Paris, she did not do so. He gave -her Bothwell's letter, received from Bothwell's messenger, at Callendar, -January 27. She answered it at bedtime, gave it to Paris to be given to -Bothwell's messenger, enclosing a ring, and the messenger carried ring and -letter to Bothwell. She could not write, 'I have sent you by Paris' the -ring, if she did nothing of the sort. Later, according to Paris, she did -send him, with the bracelets, from Linlithgow to Edinburgh, where he met -Bothwell, just mounting to ride and join Mary and Darnley on their return. -The Letter, then, does not fit the circumstances of one written either at -Callendar, January 27 (Paris), or at Linlithgow, January 29 ('Cecil's -Journal'). - -(3) That the ring, and the lamentations, were carried, by Paris, from -Linlithgow to the neighbouring house of Haltoun, where Bothwell lay, on -the night of April 23, the night before he bore Mary off to Dunbar, is not -credible. Nothing indicates her receipt of token or contract of marriage -at that date. The danger to Bothwell was infinitesimal. He was not -neglecting Mary, he was close to her, and only waiting for daylight to -carry her off. He wrote in reply, Paris says, and verbally promised to -meet her, 'on the road, at the bridge.'[378] - -To a man who was thus doing his best to please her, a man whom she was to -meet next day, Mary could not be writing long, affected complaints and -lamentations. She would write, if at all, on details of the business on -hand. No ring was carried by Paris, according to his own deposition. - -Thus the contents of the Letter do not fit into any recorded or alleged -juncture in Mary's relations with Bothwell, after January 21, 1567, when -Paris (whom the Letter mentions) first entered her service. Laing places -the Letter last in the series, and supposes that the ring and letter were -sent from Linlithgow, to Bothwell hard by (at Haltoun), the night before -the 'ravishment.' But he does not make it plain that the contents of the -Letter are really consistent with its supposed occasion.[379] When was -Bothwell absent from Mary, cold, forgetful, and in danger, between the -return from Glasgow, and the abduction? The Letter does not help the case -of the prosecution. - -We have exhausted the three conceivable alternatives as to the date, -occasion, and circumstances of this Letter. Its contents fit none of -these dates and occasions. Mr. Froude adds a fourth alternative. This -Letter 'was written just before the marriage'[380] when Bothwell (whose -absence is complained of) was never out of Mary's company. - -There is not, in short, an obvious place for this Letter in the recorded -circumstances of Mary's history, though the lack of obviousness may arise -from our ignorance of facts. - - - - -XVI - -_THE CASKET SONNETS_ - - -When the 'Detection' of Buchanan was first published, La Mothe Fenelon, -French ambassador in England, writing to Charles IX., described the -Sonnets as the worst, or most compromising, of all the evidence. They -never allude to Darnley, and must have been written after his death. As is -well known, Brantome says that such of Mary's verses as he had seen were -entirely unlike the Casket Sonnets, which are 'too rude and unpolished to -be hers.' Ronsard, he adds, was of the same opinion. Both men had seen -verses written hastily by Mary, and still 'unpolished,' whether by her, or -by Ronsard, who may have aided her, as Voltaire aided Frederick the Great. -Both critics were, of course, prejudiced in favour of the beautiful Queen. -Both were good judges, but neither had ever seen 160 lines of sonnet -sequence written by her under the stress of a great passion, and amidst -the toils of travel, of business, of intense anxiety, all in the space of -two days, April 21 to April 23. - -[Illustration: PLATE A - -TWO SONNETS FROM THE CAMBRIDGE MS. - -The hand somewhat resembles that of Mary in early youth, and that of Mary -Beaton - -The copyist is unknown] - -That the most fervent and hurried sonneteer should write eleven sonnets in -such time and circumstances is hard to believe, but we must allow for -Mary's sleepless nights, which she may have beguiled by versifying. It -is known that a distinguished historian is occupied with a critical -edition of these Sonnets. We may await his decision as to their relations -with the few surviving poems of the Queen. My own comparison of these does -not convince me that the favoured rhymes are especially characteristic of -Mary. The topics of the Casket Sonnets, the author's inability to remove -the suspicions of the jealous Bothwell; her protestations of submission; -her record of her sacrifices for him; her rather mean jealousy of Lady -Bothwell, are also the frequent topics of the Casket Letters. The very -phrases are occasionally the same: so much so as to suggest the suspicion -that the Letters may have been modelled on the Sonnets, or the Sonnets on -the Letters. If there be anything in this, the Sonnets are probably the -real originals. Nothing is less likely than that a forger would think of -such a task as forging verses by Mary: nor do we know any one among her -enemies who could have produced the verses even if he had the will. To -suspect Buchanan is grotesque. On the theory of a literary contest between -Mary and Lady Bothwell for Bothwell's affections, something is to be said -in the following chapter. Meanwhile, I am obliged to share the opinion of -La Mothe Fenelon, that, as proof of Mary's passion for Bothwell, the -Sonnets are stronger evidence than the Letters, and much less open to -suspicion than some parts of the Letters. - - - - -XVII - -_CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE LETTERS AND THE POSSIBLE FORGERS_ - - -A few words must be said as to a now obsolete difficulty, the question as -to the language in which the Letters were originally written. That -question need not be mooted: it is settled by Mr. Henderson's 'Casket -Letters.' The original language of the epistles was French. - -I. The epistles shown at Westminster were certainly in French, which was -not (except in the first one or two sentences) the French later published -by the Huguenots. _That_ French was translated from the Latin, which was -translated from the Scots, which was translated from the original French. -Voluminous linguistic criticisms by Goodall, Hosack, Skelton, and others -have ceased, therefore, to be in point. - -II. Many phrases, whether as mirrored in the Scots and English -translations, or as extant in contemporary copies of the original French, -can be paralleled from authentic letters of Mary's. Bresslau proved this -easily, but it was no less easily proved that many of the phrases were -conventional, and could be paralleled from the correspondence of Catherine -de' Medici and other contemporary ladies. A forger would have ample -opportunities of knowing Mary's phrasing and orthography. It would be easy -for me to write a letter reproducing the phrasing and orthography, which -is very distinctive, of Pickle the Spy. No argument against forgery can be -based on imitations of peculiarities of phrase and spelling which the -hypothetical forger was sure to know and reproduce. - -But phrasing and spelling are not to be confounded with tone and style. -Now the Letters, in tone, show considerable unity, except at one point. -Throughout Mary is urging and spurring an indifferent half-hearted wooer -to commit an abominable crime, and another treasonable act, her abduction. -Really, to judge from the Letters, we might suppose Bothwell to be almost -as indifferent and reluctant as Field-Marshal Keith was, when the Czarina -Elizabeth offered him her hand. Keith put his foot down firmly, and -refused, but the Bothwell who hesitated was lost. It is Mary who gives him -no rest till he carries her off: we must blame Bothwell for not arranging -the scheme before parting from Mary in Edinburgh; to be sure, Buchanan -declares in his History that the scheme _was_ arranged. In short, we -become almost sorry for Bothwell, who had a lovely royal bride thrust on -him against his will, and only ruined himself out of reluctance to -disoblige a lady. It is the old Irish tale of Diarmaid and Grainne over -again. - -But, on the other hand, Letter II. represents Mary as tortured by remorse -and regret. Only to please Bothwell would she act as she does. Her heart -bleeds at it. We must suppose that she not only grew accustomed to the -situation, but revelled in it, and insisted on an abduction, which even -Lethington could only explain by her knowledge of the _apices juris_, the -sublimities of Scots law. A pardon for the abduction would, in Scots law, -cover the murder. - -Such is the chief difference in tone. In style, though the fact seems to -have been little if at all noticed, there are two distinct species. There -is the simple natural style of Letters I., II., and the rest, and there is -the alembicated, tormented, precious, and affected style of Letters VIII. -(III.) and IV. Have we any other examples, from Mary's hand, of the -obscure affectations of VIII. (III.) and IV.? Letter VIII., while it -contains phrases which recur in the Casket 'Sonnets,' is really more -contorted and _symboliste_ in manner than the verses. These 'fond ballads' -contain, not infrequently, the same sentiments as the Letters, whether the -Letters be in the direct or in the affected style. Thus, in Letter II., -where Lady Bothwell and Mary's jealousy of her are the theme, we read 'Se -not hir' (Lady Bothwell) 'quhais feinzeit teiris should not be sa mekle -praisit or estemit as the trew and faithful travellis quhilk I sustene -for to merite her place.' Compare Sonnets ii. iii.: - - Brief je feray de ma foy telle preuve, - Qu'il cognoistra sans faulte ma constance, - Non par mes pleurs ou fainte obeyssance - Comme autres font, mais par divers espreuve. - -In both passages the writer contrasts the 'feigned tears,' 'feigned -obedience' of Bothwell's wife with her own practical proofs of devotion: -in the Sonnet using 'them' for 'her' as in Letter IV. - -A possible, but unexpected explanation of the extraordinary diversity of -the two styles, I proceed to give. We have briefly discussed the Sonnets, -which (despite the opinion of Ronsard) carry a strong appearance of -authenticity, though whether their repetitions of the matter and phrasing -of the Letters be in favour of the hypothesis that _both_ are authentic -might be argued variously. Now from the Sonnets it appears that Lady -Bothwell was endeavouring to secure her bridegroom's heart in a rather -unlooked-for manner: namely, by writing to him elaborately literary love -letters in the artificial style of the age of the Pleiad. As the Sonnets -say, she wooes him 'par les escriptz tout fardez de scavoir.' But Mary -maintains that Lady Bothwell is a mere plagiarist. Her ingenious letters, -treasured by Bothwell, and the cause of his preference for her, are - - empruntes de quelque autheur luisant! - -We have already tried to show that Bothwell was not the mere 'brave stupid -strong-handed Border noble,' 'the rough ignorant moss-trooper,' but a man -of taste and culture. If the Sonnets be genuine, there was actually a -contest in literary excellence between Bothwell's wife and his royal -mistress. This queer rivalry would account for the style of Letter VIII., -in which Mary labours to prove to Bothwell, as it were, that she is as -capable as his wife of writing a fashionable, contorted, literary style, -if she chooses: in poetry, too, if she likes. We naturally feel sorry for -a man of action who received, at a moment when decisive action was -needful, such an epistle as Letter VIII., and we naturally suppose that he -never read it, but tossed it into the Casket with an explosion of profane -words. But it is just conceivable that Bothwell had a taste for the -'precious,' and that, to gratify this taste, and eclipse Lady Bothwell, -Mary occasionally wrote in the manner of Letter VIII. or quoted Jason, -Medea, and Creusa. - -This hypothesis, far-fetched as it may seem, at all events is naturally -suggested by Sonnet VI. On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine that -a dexterous forger would sit down to elaborate, whether from genuine -materials or not, anything so much out of keeping with his Letter II. as -is his Letter VIII. Yet Letter VIII., as we saw, cannot be connected with -any known moment of the intrigue. - -While the Letters thus vary in style, in tone of sentiment they are all -uniform, except Letter II. We are to believe that the forger deliberately -laid down a theory of this strange wooing. The Queen throughout is much -more the pursuer than the pursued. Bothwell is cold, careless, breaks -promises, is contemptuously negligent, does not write, is suspicious, -prefers his wedded wife to his mistress. Contemporary gossip averred that -this, in fact, was his attitude. Thus, after Mary had been sent to Loch -Leven, Lethington told du Croc that 'Bothwell had written several times to -his first wife, Lady Bothwell, since he lay with the Queen, and in his -letters assured Lady Bothwell that he regarded her as his wife, and the -Queen as his concubine.' Lethington reported this to Mary herself, who -discredited the fact, but Lethington relied on the evidence of Bothwell's -letters.[381] How could he know anything about them? The belief in -Bothwell's preference of his wife was general, and, doubtless, it may be -urged that this explains the line taken by the forger. - -The passion, in the Letters, is all on the side of Mary. By her eternal -protests of entire submission she recalls to us at once her eager service -to Darnley in the first days of their marriage, and her constant promises -of implicit obedience to Norfolk. To Norfolk, as to Bothwell (we have -already shown), she expresses her hope that 'you will mistrust me no -more.'[382] 'If you be in the wrong I will submit me to you for so -writing, and ax your pardon thereof.' She will beg pardon, even if Norfolk -is in the wrong! Precisely in the same tone does Mary (in Letter VIII.), -after complaining of Bothwell's forgetfulness, say, 'But in spite of all I -will not accuse you, either of your scant remembrance or scant care, and -still less of your broken promise, seeing that what pleases you pleases -me.' - -This woman, whose pride is said to be in contradiction with her -submission, as expressed in the Casket Letters, writes even to Elizabeth, -'Je me sousmetray a vos commandemants.'[383] In Letter VIII. Bothwell is -congratulated on 'votre victoire et mon agreable perte.' To Elizabeth Mary -writes 'Vous aures fayt une profitable conqueste de moy.' - -That any forger should have known Mary so well as to place her, -imaginatively, as regarded Bothwell, in the very attitude which we see -that, on occasion, she chose later to adopt in fact, as regarded Norfolk, -is perhaps beyond belief. It may be urged that she probably, in early -days, wrote to Darnley in this very tone, that Darnley's papers would fall -into his father's hands, and that Lennox would hand them over as materials -to the forger. But 'it is to consider too curiously to consider thus.' - -Such are the arguments, for the defence and the attack, which may be drawn -from internal evidence of style. To myself this testimony seems rather in -favour of the authenticity of considerable and compromising portions of -the papers. - -Letter VIII. (intended to prove a contract of marriage with Bothwell) -remains an enigma to me: the three Letters proving Mary's eagerness for -the abduction are not without suspicious traits. The epistle about -bringing Lord Robert to kill Darnley in a quarrel is involved in the -inconsistencies which we have shown to beset that affair. The note about -the waiting-woman was hardly worth forging, compromising as it is. Letter -I. seems to me certainly authentic, if we adopt the scheme of dates -suggested, and reject that of 'Cecil's Journal,' which appears to be -official, and answers to Lennox's demands for dates. It may be merely -Lennoxian, but no other scheme of chronology is known to have been put in -by the accusers. Letter I., if our dates are admitted, implies the -existence of a letter answering to Letter II., which I have had to regard -as, in some parts at least, genuine. If forgery and tampering were -attempted (as I think they certainly were in the letter never produced, -but described by Lennox and Moray, and perhaps in other cases), who was -the criminal? - -My reply will have been anticipated. Whoever held the pen of the forger, -Lethington must have directed the scheme. This idea, based on we know not -what information, though I shall offer a conjecture, occurred to -Elizabeth, as soon as she heard the first whisper of the existence of the -Letters, in June-July, 1567. On July 21, de Silva mentioned to her what he -had heard--that the Lords held certain Letters 'proving that the Queen had -been cognisant of the murder of her husband. She told me it was not true, -though Lethington had behaved badly in the matter.'[384] The person from -whom Elizabeth thus early heard something connecting Lethington, in an -evil way, with the affair must have been Robert Melville. His position was -then peculiar. He was first accredited to Elizabeth, on June 5, 1567, by -Mary, Bothwell, and Lethington.[385] Melville left Scotland, for Mary, on -June 5, returned to Scotland, and again rode to London on June 21, as the -envoy of some of her enemies. Now June 21 was the day of the opening of -the Casket, and inspection of its contents. A meeting of the Privy Council -was held on that day, but Lethington's name is not among those of the -nobles who attended it.[386] The minutes of the Council say not a word -about the Casket, though the members attending Council were, with several -others, present, so Morton declared, at the opening of the Casket. Though -not at the Council, Lethington was at the Casket scene, according to -Morton. And on that very day, Lethington wrote a letter to Cecil, the -bearer being Robert Melville, who, says Lethington, is sent 'on _sudden_ -dispatch.'[387] Melville, in addition to Lethington's letter, carried a -verbal message to Cecil, as the letter proves. We may glean the nature of -the verbal message from the letter itself. - -We know that the Lords, in December of the same year, publicly and in -Parliament, and with strange logic, declared that the ground of their -rising and imprisonment of Mary was her guilt as revealed in letters -written by her hand, though these were not discovered when the Lords -imprisoned Mary. Now Lethington, in his dispatch to Cecil, carried by -Melville the day of the Casket finding, says that the bearer, Mr. Robert -Melville, 'can report to you at length the ground of the Lords' so just -and honourable cause.' Presently that 'ground' was declared to be the -evidence of the Casket Letters. Melville then would verbally report this -new 'ground' to Cecil and Elizabeth. He was dispatched at that very date -for no other reason. The Lords were Melville's employers, but his heart -was sore for Mary. Elizabeth, on June 30, tells Mary (Throckmorton carried -her letter) that 'your own faithful servant, Robert Melville, used much -earnest speech on your behalf.'[388] What Elizabeth knew about -Lethington's bad behaviour as to the Letters, and spoke of to de Silva, -she must have heard from Robert Melville. She did not, as far as we are -aware, mention her knowledge of the subject till de Silva introduced it on -July 21, but only from Melville could she learn whatever she did learn -about Lethington. Throckmorton, her envoy to Scotland, did not mention the -Letters till July 25, four days after Elizabeth spoke to de Silva. 'Jhone -a Forret,' whom the Lords sent through London on July 8 to bring Moray, -was not exactly the man to blame Lethington and discredit the Letters: for -he was probably John Wood, later a chief enemy of Mary. - -Suspicions of Lethington, later, were not confined to Elizabeth alone. In -Mary's instructions to her Commissioners (Sept. 9, 1568) she says, 'There -are divers in Scotland, both men and women, that can counterfeit my -handwriting, and write the like manner of writing which I use [the 'Roman' -or Italic] as well as myself, _and principally such as are in company with -themselves_,'[389] as Lethington then was. - -Lesley stated the matter thus: 'There are sundry can counterfeit her -handwriting, who have been brought up in her company, of whom there are -some assisting themselves' (the Lords) 'as well of other nations as of -Scots, as I doubt not both your highness' (Elizabeth) 'and divers others -of your Highness's Court, has seen sundry letters sent here from Scotland, -which would not be known from her own handwriting.'[390] - -All this is vague, and Mary's reference to _women_, Lesley's reference to -those 'brought up in her company,' glance, alas! at the Queen's Maries. -Mary Livingstone, wedded to John Sempil, was not on the best terms with -Queen Mary about certain jewels. Mary Fleming was Lethington's wife. Mary -Beaton's aunts were at open feud with the Queen. A lady, unnamed, was -selected as the forger by the author of 'L'Innocence de la Royne -d'Escosse' (1572). - -To return to Lethington. In 1615, Camden, writing, as it were, under the -eye of James VI. and I., declared that Lethington 'had privately hinted to -the Commissioners at York, that he had counterfeited Mary's hand -frequently.'[391] There is nothing incredible, _a priori_, in the story. -Between October 11, 1568 (when Norfolk, having been _privately_ shown the -Letters, was blabbing, even to his servant Bannister, his horror of Letter -II.), and October 16, when Lethington rode out with Norfolk, and the -scheme for his marrying Mary struck deep root, something may have been -said. Lethington may have told Norfolk that perhaps the Letters were -forged, that he himself, for amusement, had imitated Mary's hand. As a -fact, the secretaries of two of the foremost of contemporary statesmen did -write to the innumerable bores who beset well-known persons, in hands -hardly to be distinguished from those of their chiefs. Norfolk, as Laing -says, did acknowledge, at his trial, that Lethington 'moved him to -consider the Queen as not guilty of the crimes objected.' Lethington -appears to have succeeded; possibly by aid of the obvious argument that, -if _he_ could imitate Mary's hand for pastime, others might do it for evil -motives. Nay, we practically know, and have shown, that Lethington did -succeed in making Norfolk, to whom, five days before, he had offered the -Letters as proofs of Mary's guilt, believe that she had not written them. -For, as we have seen, whereas Mary at this time was making a compromise -with Moray, Norfolk persuaded her to abandon that course. Thus Lethington, -on October 11, 1568, made Norfolk believe in the Letters; on October 16, -he made him disbelieve or doubt. - -We are not to suppose Lethington so foolish as to confess that he was -himself the forger. Even if Lethington did tell Norfolk that he had often -imitated Mary's hand, he could not have meant to accuse himself in this -case. His son, in 1620, asked Camden for his authority, and we know not -that Camden ever replied. He never altered his statement, which meant no -more than that, by the argument of his own powers of imitating Mary's -handwriting, Lethington kept urging the Duke of Norfolk to doubt her -guilt.[392] Lethington's illustration of the ease with which Mary's -writing could be imitated is rather, if he used it, a proof that he did -_not_ hold the pen which may have tampered with the Casket Letters. Our -reasons for suspecting him of engaging, though not as penman, in the -scheme are: - -1. Elizabeth's early suspicion of Lethington, and the probability that -Robert Melville, who had just parted from Lethington, inspired that -suspicion. - -2. The probability, derived from Randolph's letter, already cited, that -Lethington had access to the Casket before June 21, 1567, but after -Mary's capture at Carberry. - -3. Of all men Lethington, from his knowledge of Mary's disgust at his -desertion, ingratitude, and 'extreme opposition' to her, in her darkest -hour, and from his certainty that Mary held, or professed to hold, -documentary proof of his own guilt, had most reason to fear her, and -desire and scheme her destruction. - -4. Kirkcaldy of Grange, on April 20, 1567, months before the Letters were -discovered, wrote to Cecil that Mary 'has said that she cares not to lose -(a) _France_, (b) _England_, and (c) _her own_ country' for Bothwell.[393] - -Compare, in the Lennox version of the letter never produced (p. 214)-- - - (_a_) The loss of her dowry in _France_. - - (_b_) Her titles to the crown of _England_. - - (_c_) The crown _of her realm_. - -Unless this formula of renunciations, _in this sequence_, was a favourite -of Mary's, in correspondence and in general conversation, its appearance, -in the letter not produced, and in Kirkcaldy's letter written before the -Casket was captured, _donne furieusement a penser_. - -5. Another curious coincidence between a Casket Letter (VII.) and Mary's -instructions to the Bishop of Dunblane, in excuse of her marriage, has -already been noticed. We may glance at it again. - - INSTRUCTIONS - - We thocht his continuance in the awayting upon us ... had procedit - onelie upoun the ackawlegeing of _his dewtie, being our borne - subject_. - - The _persuasionis_ quhilk oure friendis or his unfriendis _mycht cast - out for his hinderence_ ... - - Sa ceased he nevir till be persuasionis and _importune sute, - accumpaneit nottheles with force_. - - - LETTER VII. - - Gif _abone the dewtie of ane subject_ yow advance yourself. - - That uther admonitiounis or forane _persuasiounis_ may not let me from - consenting ... - - To use _ane humbil requiest joynit to ane importune action_. - -The whole scheme of excuse given in Letter VII. is merely expanded into -the later Instructions, a piece of eleven pages in length. 'The -Instructions are understood to have been drawn by Lethington,' says Sir -John Skelton; certainly Mary did not write them, as they stand, for they -are in Scots. 'Many things we resolved with ourselves, but never could -find ane outgait,' say the Instructions. 'How to be free of him she has no -outgait,' writes Maitland to Beaton. If Lethington, as Secretary, penned -the Instructions, who penned Letter VII.? - -6. We have already cited Randolph's letter to Kirkcaldy and Lethington, -when they had changed sides, and were holding the Castle for the Queen. -But we did not quote all of the letter. Lethington, says Randolph, with -Grange, is, as Mary herself has said, the chief occasion of all her -calamities, by his advice 'to apprehend her, to imprison her; yea, to have -taken presently the life from her.' This follows a catalogue of -Lethington's misdeeds towards Mary, exhaustive, one might think. But it -ends, '_with somewhat more that we might say, were it not to grieve you -too much herein_.' What 'more' beyond arrest, loss of crown, prison, and -threatened loss of life, was left that Lethington could do against Mary? -The manipulation of the Casket Letters was left: 'somewhat more that we -might say, were it not to grieve you too much herein.'[394] - -Randolph had been stirring the story of Lethington's opening the coffer in -a green cover, in the autumn of 1570. Charges and counter-charges as to -the band for murdering Darnley had been flying about. On January 10, 1571, -Cecil darkly writes to Kirkcaldy that of Lethington he 'has heard such -things as he dare not believe.'[395] This cannot refer to the declaration, -by Paris, that Lethington was in the murder, for _that_ news was stale -fifteen months earlier. - -As to the hand that may have done whatever unfair work was done, we can -hope for no certainty. Robert Melville, in 1573, being taken out of the -fallen Castle, and examined, stated that 'he thinkis that the lard of -Grange' (Kirkcaldy) 'counterfaitit the Regentis' (Moray's) 'handwrite, -that was sent to Alixr Hume that nycht.' But we do not accuse Kirkcaldy. - -There is another possible penman, Morton's jackal, a Lord of Session, -Archibald Douglas. That political forgery was deemed quite within the -province of a Scottish Judge, or Lord of Session, in the age of the -Reformation, we learn from his case. A kinsman of Morton, one of Darnley's -murderers, and present, according to Morton, at the first opening of the -Casket, Archibald was accused by his elder brother, William Douglas of -Whittingham, of forging letters from Bishop Lesley to Lennox, the -favourite of James VI., and others (1580-1581).[396] Of course a Lord of -Session might bear false witness against his brother in the flesh, and on -the Bench. But perhaps Archibald himself, a forger of other letters, -forged the Casket Letters; he had been in France, and may have known -French. All things are conceivable about these Douglases. - -It is enough to know that experts in forgery, real or reputed, were among -Mary's enemies. But, for what they are worth, the hints which we can still -pick up, and have here put together, may raise a kind of presumption that, -if falsification there was, the manager was Lethington. 'The master wit of -Lethington was there to shape the plot,' said Sir John Skelton, though -later he fell back on Morton, with his 'dissolute lawyers and unfrocked -priests'--like Archie Douglas. - -I do not, it will be observed, profess to be certain, or even -strongly inclined to believe, that there was any forgery of Mary's -writings, except in the case of the letter never produced. But, if forgery -there was, our scraps and hints of evidence point to Lethington as manager -of the plot. - -[Illustration: PLATE A B - -EXAMPLES OF MARY'S HAND - -One of these two is, in part, not genuine, but imitated] - -[Illustration: PLATE B A - -EXAMPLES OF MARY'S HAND - -In one some parts are not genuine, but imitated - -The text is Mary to Elizabeth, B. Museum, Calig. C.I. Number 421 in Bain. -Calendar II. p. 659 (1900)] - -As to problems of handwriting, they are notoriously obscure, and the -evidence of experts, in courts of justice, is apt to be conflicting. The -testimony in the case of Captain Dreyfus cannot yet have been forgotten. -In Plates BA, AB the reader will find a genuine letter of Mary to -Elizabeth, and a copy in which some of the lines are not her own, but have -been imitated for the purpose of showing what can be done in that way. -'The puzzle is' to discover which example is entirely by the Queen, and -which is partly in imitation of her hand. In Plate F is an imitation of -Mary's hand, as it might have appeared in writing Letter VIII (Henderson's -Letter III.). An imitator as clever as Mr. F. Compton Price (who has -kindly supplied these illustrations) would easily have deceived the crowd -of Lords who were present at the comparison of the Casket Letters with -genuine epistles of Mary to Elizabeth. - -Scotland, in that age, was rich in 'fause notaries' who made a profession -of falsification. In the Burgh Records of Edinburgh, just before Mary's -fall, we find a surgeon rewarded for healing two false notaries, whose -right hands had been chopped off at the wrists. (Also for raising up a -dead woman who had been buried for two days.) But these professionals -were probably versed only in native forms of handwriting, whereas that of -Mary, as of Bothwell, was the new 'Roman' hand. An example of Mary -Beaton's Roman hand is given in Plate C. Probably she had the same -writing-master as her Queen, in France, but her hand is much neater and -smaller than that of Mary, wearied with her vast correspondence. Probably -Mary Beaton, if she chose, could imitate the Queen's hand, especially as -that hand was, before the Queen had written so much. The 'Maries' of Mary -Stuart, Mary Beaton, and Mary Flemyng are all very similar. But to a -layman, Mary Beaton's hand seems rather akin to that of the copyist of the -Sonnets in the Cambridge MSS. (Plate A). The aunts of Mary Beaton, Lady -Reres and the Lady of Branxholme, were, after April 1567, on the worst -terms with the Queen, railing at her both in talk and in letters. But that -Mary Beaton forged the Casket Letters I utterly disbelieve. - -Kirkcaldy, whose signature is given, could not have adapted fingers -hardened by the sword-hilt to a lady's Roman hand. Maitland of Lethington, -whose signature follows Kirkcaldy's, would have found the task less -impossible, and, if there is any truth in Camden's anecdote, may perhaps -have been able to imitate the Queen's writing. But if any forged letters -or portions of letters were exhibited, some unheard-of underling is most -likely to have been the actual culprit. - -[Illustration: PLATE C - -HANDS OF MARY BEATON, KIRKCALDY, LETHINGTON, AND MARY FLEMING] - - - - -XVIII - -_LATER HISTORY OF CASKET AND LETTERS_ - - -The best official description of the famous Casket is in the Minutes of -the Session of Commissioners at Westminster, on December 7, 1568. It was -'a small gilt coffer, not fully one foot long, being garnished in many -places with the Roman (_Italic_) letter F set under a king's crown.' This -minute is in the hand of Cecil's clerk, and is corrected by Cecil.[397] -The Casket was obviously long in shape, not square, like a coffer -decorated with Mary's arms, as Dowager of France, with thistles and other -badges, the property of M. Victor Luzarche, and described by him in 'Un -Coffret de Bijoux de Marie Stuart' (Tours, 1868). Possibly the Casket was -the _petite boyte d'argent_, which Mary intended to bequeath to Margaret -Carwood, if she herself died in childbed in 1566.[398] - -The Casket with the Letters was in Morton's hands till shortly before his -death in 1581. On November 8, 1582, Bowes, Elizabeth's envoy in Scotland, -wrote to Walsingham about the Casket. He had learned from a bastard of -Morton's, the Prior (lay) of Pluscarden, that the box was now in the -possession of Gowrie, son of the Ruthven of Riccio's murder, and himself -engaged in that deed. Gowrie was at this time master of James's person. -Bowes thought that Gowrie would not easily give up the Casket to -Elizabeth, who desired it.[399] - -After trying to get agents to steal the Casket, Bowes sought to induce -Gowrie to give it up, with promises of 'princely thanks and gratuity.' -Gowrie was not willing to admit the fact of possession, but Bowes proved -that the coffer had reached him through Sandy Jordan, a servant of the -late Earl of Morton. Gowrie then said that, without the leave of James, -and of the nobles, who had dragged down Mary, he could not part with the -treasure, as the Letters warranted their action--undertaken before they -knew that such Letters existed! However, Gowrie promised to look for the -Casket, and consider of the matter. On November 24, Bowes again wrote. -Mary was giving out that the Letters 'were counterfeited by her rebels,' -and was trying to procure them, or have them destroyed. To keep them would -involve danger to Gowrie. Bowes would obtain the consent of the other -lords interested, 'a matter more easy to promise than to perform;' finally -Gowrie ought to give them to Elizabeth 'for the _secrecy_ and benefit of -the cause.' Mary's defenders may urge that this 'secrecy' is suspicious. -Gowrie would think of it, but he must consult James, which, Bowes said, -'should adventure great danger to the cause.' On December 2, Bowes -wrote about another interview with Gowrie, who said that the Duke of -Lennox (Stewart d'Aubigny, the banished and now dead favourite of James) -had sought to get the Letters, and that James knew where they were, and -nothing could be done without James's consent.[400] - -[Illustration: PLATE D - -SIDE OF CASKET WITH ARMS OF HAMILTON - -RAISED WORK ON ROOF OF CASKET] - -Gowrie was executed for treason in May, 1584, and of the Casket no more is -heard. Goodall, in 1754, supposed that the Earl of Angus got it as -Morton's 'heir by tail,' whereas we know that Gowrie succeeded Morton as -custodian. In an anonymous writer of about 1660, Goodall found that 'the -box and letters were at that time to be seen with the Marquis of Douglas; -and it is thought by some they are still in that family, though others say -they have since been seen at Hamilton.'[401] In 1810, Malcolm Laing, the -historian, corresponded on the subject with Mr. Alexander Young, -apparently the factor, or chamberlain, of the Duke of Hamilton. He could -hear nothing of the Letters, but appears to have been told about a silver -casket at Hamilton, rather less than a foot in length. A reproduction of -that casket, by the kindness of the Duke of Hamilton, is given in this -book. Laing maintained that, without the F's, crowned as mentioned in -Cecil's minute, the casket could not be Mary's Casket. In any case it is a -beautiful work of art, of Mary's age, and has been well described by Lady -Baillie-Hamilton in 'A Historical Relic,' _Macmillan's Magazine_.[402] -Lady Baillie-Hamilton, when staying at Hamilton Palace, asked to be shown -a ring which Mary bequeathed to Lord John Hamilton, created Marquis in -1599. The ring was produced from a silver box, which also contained -papers. One of these, written probably about 1700-1715, gave the history -of the box itself. It was 'bought from a Papist' by the Marchioness of -Douglas, daughter of George (first Marquis of Huntly). In 1632 this lady -became the second wife of William, first Marquis of Douglas. Her eldest -son married Lady Anne Hamilton, heiress of James, first Duke of Hamilton, -who later became Duchess of Hamilton in her own right, her husband (Lord -William Douglas, later Earl of Selkirk) bearing the ducal title. The -Marchioness of Douglas bought the box from a papist at an unknown date -after 1632, the box being sold as the Casket. The Marchioness 'put her own -arms thereon,' the box having previously borne 'the Queen's arms.' The -Marchioness bequeathed her plate to her son, Lord John Douglas, who sold -it to a goldsmith. The daughter-in-law of the Marchioness, namely the -Duchess of Hamilton, purchased the box from the goldsmith, as she had -learned from the Marchioness that it was the historical Casket, and, by -her husband's desire, she effaced the arms of the Marchioness, and put on -her own, as may be seen in Plate D. Only one key was obtained by the -Duchess, and is shown lying beside the Casket. The lock has been, at -some time, 'stricken up,' as Morton says that the lock of the Casket was -(see Plate E). The box is 'not fully a foot long'; it measures eight -inches in length. The scroll-work (Plate E) and bands have been gilded, -but the whole piece has not been 'overgilt,' as in Morton's description. -That by the English Commissioners at York, 'a little coffer of silver and -gilt,' better describes the relic. It is pronounced to be 'French work of -the early part of the sixteenth century,' but Lady Baillie-Hamilton -observes that the scroll-work closely resembles the tooling on a book of -Catherine de' Medici, now in the British Museum. - -[Illustration: PLATE E - -CASKET SHOWING THE LOCK AND KEY - -FRONT OF CASKET SHOWING PLACE WHENCE THE LOCK HAS BEEN 'STRICKEN UP'] - -Is the Hamilton Casket the historical Casket? It has the advantage of a -fairly long pedigree in that character, as we have seen. But where are -'the many Roman letters F set under a king's crown,' of Cecil's -description, which is almost literally copied in the memorandum added to -the English edition of Buchanan's 'Detection'? Buchanan did not insert -this memorandum, it is merely borrowed from Cecil's description, a fact of -which Lady Baillie-Hamilton was not aware. There is no room on the panel -now occupied by the Duchess of Hamilton's arms for _many_ crowned F's. -Only a cypher of two F's interlaced and crowned could have found space on -that panel. Conceivably F's were attached in some way, and later removed, -but there is no trace of them. We can hardly suppose that, as in the case -of the coffer with a crimson cover, which was sent to Mary at Loch Leven, -the crowned F's were worked in gold on the covering velvet. Dr. Sepp, in -1884, published, in a small pamphlet, the document rediscovered by Lady -Baillie-Hamilton. He was informed that there were small crowned F's -stamped on the bottom of the box, but these Lady Baillie-Hamilton accounts -for as 'the mark of a French silversmith, consisting of a distinctive sign -surmounted by a fleur-de-lis and a crown.' Thus for lack of any certainty -about the 'many or sundry' crowned F's, this beautiful piece of work -shares in the doubt and mystery which seem inseparable from Mary Stuart. - -Very possibly the Hamilton Casket may be the other of the 'twa silver -cofferis' seen by Hepburn of Bowton at Dunbar (see p. xvi). Tradition, -knowing that the Casket had been Mary's, would easily confuse it with the -other more famous coffer, full of evils as the Casket of Pandora. - - - - -APPENDIX A - -THE SUPPOSED BODY OF BOTHWELL - - -Monsieur Jusserand, the well-known writer on English and Scottish -literature, has kindly allowed me to print the following letter on the -burial-place of Bothwell, and on the body which is traditionally regarded -as his corpse. - - -Legation de France, a Copenhague, December 26, 1900. - -MY DEAR LANG,--Our poor Queen's last scoundrel lies low in a darksome -place. - -The Faarvejle church is quite isolated on a little eminence formerly -washed by the water of a fiord now dried up (the work of an agricultural -company which expected great benefits and lost much money instead). There -is no village around; the houses are scattered rather thinly throughout -the country--a very frequent case in Denmark. - -[Illustration: FAARVEJLE CHURCH (ACTUAL STATE). - -(1) A side chapel used for burials, now attached to the Zytphen-Adeler -family. 'Bothwell' was buried in it, and removed to the vault under the -chancel when the Z.-A. family had some time adopted it. - -(2) The entrance porch, with a fine oak door ornamented with iron work -representing the dragons of 'Drags'-holm.] - -This church is, however, the one from which the castle of Dragsholm has -ever, ecclesiastically, depended. Castle and church are at some distance: -about twenty miles drive. - -The castle was formerly a royal one; it was so in Bothwellian times.[403] -Little remains of the old building; it was burnt during the Swedish wars -in the seventeenth century; and rebuilt by the Zytphen-Adeler family (of -Dutch origin); it still belongs to them. - -Only the walls have been preserved; they are of red brick; but the actual -owner has caused them to be whitewashed throughout. The characteristic -great tower it used to have in Hepburnian times has been destroyed. Almost -no trace of any style is left, and the house, big as it is, is plain -enough. The park around it is fine, with plenty of deer, hares, &c. The -sea is near at hand and you see it from the walls. - -As for the mummy, it lies in an oak coffin now preserved in a vault under -the floor of the nave in the Faarvejle church. This vault is under the -passage in the middle, near the step leading to the choir. The wooden -planks on the floor are removed, a ladder is provided, and you find -yourself in a subterranean chamber, with coffins piled on the top of one -another, right and left. 'Bothwell's' stands apart on the left; it is an -oak chest; as it was in a bad state, the present Baron Zytphen-Adeler has -caused it to be placed in another one, with a sheet of glass allowing the -head to be seen. But he kindly allowed me to see the body complete. The -man must have been rather tall, not very; the hands and feet have a very -fine and aristocratic appearance; the mummifying process may have -something to do with this appearance; yet I think some of it came from -nature. The head is absolutely hairless; the face is close shaven; the -skull has no hair. I noticed, however, on the top of it faint traces of -reddish-brown hair, but extremely close cropped. Horace Marryat, who saw -it in 1859, says (in the same innocent fashion as if he had been -performing a pious rite) that he 'severed a lock of his red and silver -hair.' If he really did so, he must have severed all that was left. -('Residence in Jutland,' 1860.) - -The skin remains; the nose, very prominent and arched, is complete; the -mouth _very_ broad. The jawbone is prominent (partly on account of the -drying up of the flesh). The hind part of the skull is broad and deep. The -arms are folded on the chest, below which the body is still wrapped in its -winding sheet, only the feet emerging from it. The head lies on some white -stuff which seems to be silk. All about the body is a quantity of -vegetable remains, looking like broken sticks; they told me it was hops, -supposed to have preserving qualities. - -As for the authenticity of the relic, there is no absolute proof. It is -probable and likely; not certain. That Bothwell died in Dragsholm and was -buried in Faarvejle church is certain. The coffin has no mark, no -inscription, no sign whatever allowing identification. But, if not -Bothwell, who can this be--for there _it_ is? That careful embalming is -not a usual process; the other people buried in the church either have -their names on their coffins or are not of such importance as to justify -such a costly process. - -A careful burial and no name on the tomb tally rather well with the -circumstances: for the man was a great man, the husband of a Queen; and -yet what was to be done with his body? would he not be sent back to -Scotland some day? what rites should be allowed him? Even before his -death Bothwell had become, so to say, anonymous; and, to get rid of -importunities, the Danish King, Fred. II., had allowed the rumour of his -death to be spread several years before it happened. - -The question remains an open one. J. J. A. Worsaae believed in the -authenticity of the relic. The professor of anatomy, I. Ibsen, has also -pronounced in its favour. Others have disagreed. Anatomici certant. - - - - -APPENDIX B - -THE BURNING OF LYON KING OF ARMS - - -Among the mysteries of Mary's reign, none is more obscure than the burning -of Sir William Stewart, the Lyon King at Arms: at St. Andrews, in August, -1569. In 1560, Stewart was Ross Herald, and carried letters between Mary -and Elizabeth.[404] On February 11, 1568, when Moray was Regent, we find -Stewart sent on a mission to Denmark. He was to try to obtain the -extradition of Bothwell, or, at least, to ask that he might be more -strictly guarded.[405] Now we know that, according to Moray, Bothwell's -valet, Paris, did not arrive in Scotland from Denmark till June, 1569, -though he was handed over to Captain Clark in October, 1568. Miss -Strickland conjectured that Sir William Stewart, now Lyon Herald, brought -back Paris from Denmark, learned from him that Mary was innocent, and -Moray's associates culpable, and so had to be put out of the way. But the -Lyon Herald returned to Scotland without Paris, a year before Paris; for -he was in Scotland by July, 1568, and Paris did not land till June, 1569. - -On July 20, 1568, Drury informs Cecil that Moray 'has understanding who -has determined to kill him,' and has enlisted a bodyguard of thirty -gentlemen. Drury adds--I cite him in his native orthography-- - -'I send unto your h. herewt. some pease off the woorke that the conjurers -that dyd vse theyre develysshe skyle dyd devyse above Edenborogh, the -platte whereoff I sente you before paynted.[406] And so ajayne I humbly -take my leave. - -'Some money they fownde. Will Stwart kyng off herauldee one off the parte -players he that they judge schoold be the fynder off the threasure, -schoold be the rejente.' - -Here Drury speaks of 'conjurers,' who have played some prank involving -discovery of a treasure. Stewart was one of the party, but what is meant -by 'he that they judge should be finder of the treasure, should be -Regent'? There is, apparently, some connection between the treasure hunt -and the plot to kill Moray, and Stewart is mixed up with the magic of the -treasure hunters. We know that Napier of Merchistoun, inventor of -Logarithms, was to assist Logan of Restalrig to find treasure, 'by arts to -him known,' at a later date. Probably the divining rod was to be employed, -as in a case cited by Scott. - -But in 1568, Napier of the Logarithms was only a boy of eighteen. - -Returning to the plot to kill Moray: on August 14, 1568, Patrick Hepburn, -bastard of the Bishop of Moray, and cousin of Bothwell, was taken in -Scone, by Ruthven and Lindsay, brought before Moray at Stirling, and -thence taken to Edinburgh. He was examined, revealed the nature of the -plot, and gave up the names of his accomplices.[407] - -This Patrick Hepburn was parson of Kynmoir by simoniacal arrangement with -his father, the Bishop. It seems possible that Stewart met Bothwell, when -he was in Denmark, in the spring of the year, and induced him to arrange a -conspiracy with his cousin, Patrick Hepburn. Before Hepburn was taken, the -Lyon Herald, on August 2, fled to Dumbarton, where he was safe under the -protection of Lord Fleming, then holding Dumbarton Castle for Mary.[408] -The Herald 'was suspecte of conspiracy against the life of the Regent, the -Earll of Moray.' He lost his place as Lyon King at Arms, and Sir David -Lindsay was appointed to the office, held under James V. by his poet -namesake. On August 19, Sir William Stewart wrote, from Dumbarton, a -letter to a lord, not named. This lord had written to ask Fleming to give -up Stewart, who believes that he was instigated by some other. 'For I -cannot think that you can be so ingrate as to seek my innocent life and -blood, considering that I have so favourably and so oft forewarned you of -the great misery that you are like to fall into now, for not following my -counsel and admonitions made oft and in due time.' Here we see Stewart -claiming foreknowledge of events. 'Desist, I pray you, to seek further my -blood, for as I shall answer to the eternal God, I never conspired or -consented to the Earl of Moray's death.... I fear you not, nor none of -that monstrous faction, for, as God is the defender of innocents, so is he -the just and severe punisher of cruel monsters and usurpers, who spare not -to execute all kind of cruelty, under the pretext of religion and -justice.... But there be some of his own secret Council that both directly -and indirectly have sought that bloody usurper's life, whom I shall name -as occasion shall serve....' Stewart again protests his own innocence, -apparently with conviction. He ends 'I pray you be favourable to the -Parson of Kenmore' (Patrick Hepburn), 'and with such as have meddled with -my apparel, bows, and books, to keep all well till meeting, which will be -soon God willing....'[409] - -This letter shows Stewart as a believer in foreknowledge of events, as one -who hates Moray, 'a bloody usurper,' and as acquainted with a plot against -Moray by his intimates. Lethington and Sir James Balfour were more or less -at odds with Moray, about this time, but we have no evidence that they -conspired to kill him. - -How it happened we do not know, but Stewart was captured, despite the -protection of Dumbarton Castle. On October 4, 1568, his reception there -was one of the charges made, perhaps by John Wood, against Mary's party, -'Lord Fleming refusing his delivery.'[410] At all events, on August 5, -1569, we find Stewart imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle, as also was Paris, -who, says Moray, arrived at Leith in June of the year. On August 5, both -men were taken to St. Andrews, 'there to be punished according to their -demerits.'[411] - -On the same day, August 5, 1569, Stewart wrote from the Castle a piteous -letter to 'the most merciful Regent.' He declared, as to the conspiracy of -1568, that he only knew of it by public talk. 'The bruit of your Grace's -murder was tossed up and down at Edinburgh.' Even if Stewart foreknew and -concealed the plot, 'yet till the principal devisers are tried and -convicted, I cannot be accused.' Stewart himself first heard of the -conspiracy on July 21, 1568, from Patrick Hepburn. The comptroller -(Tullibardine) had, on that day, 'purged himself' of the affair at -Stirling. Now July 21 was the day after Drury gave his second notice of -the treasure-hunt by magic, somehow involving a new regent, in which -Stewart was concerned. Stewart cannot be accurate in referring his first -hearsay knowledge of the conspiracy to July 21, 1568. - -He goes on excusing himself. He could not believe that the persons -implicated by Patrick Hepburn ever contemplated the murder of Moray, who -knows their names. Moreover, there is some one who predicted many events -to Stewart, such as Darnley's murder, the fall of Bothwell, 'the death of -Lyon Herald, and my promotion, the Queen's deliverance,' Langside, 'and -other predictions which have proved true.' This soothsayer said that Moray -was only in danger from 'domestical treason.' Therefore, Stewart -disbelieved wholly in Patrick Hepburn's story of a plot, and so did not -divulge it. As witness, he cites 'a certain courtier' to whom he had given -the same reason for his scepticism, in the middle of July, 1568. He adds -that he thinks it wrong, following St. Paul, to resist 'tyrants and -usurpers.' He regarded Moray as a tyrant and usurper, we have seen, in -August, 1568. He ends by offering disclosures, privately, and asking for -mercy.[412] - -On August 15, 1569, 'William Stewart, being convictit for witcherie, was -burnt, and the said Paris, convictit for ane of the slayaris of the King, -wes hangit in Sanctandrois,' says the 'Diurnal.' - -Now, why was Lyon Herald burned? If there was a conspiracy, in July, 1568, -no others suffered for it. It was easy to convict Stewart for 'witchery': -he confessed to dealings with a soothsayer, and the Kirk was beginning its -campaign against witches. But what was the political or personal reason -for Moray's cruelty? Had he seen Stewart's letter of August 19, 1568? - -As to the soothsayer, he may have been a familiar spirit, but he may also -have been the Laird of Merchistoun, Napier, the father of the inventor of -Logarithms. One of his prophecies to Stewart dealt with Mary's escape from -Loch Leven. And Nau, Mary's secretary, writes, 'The Laird of Merchistoun, -who had the reputation of being a great wizard, made bets with several -persons, to the amount of 500 crowns, that by the 5th of May, her Majesty -would be out of Loch Leven.'[413] - -Thus there were two wizard Lairds of Merchistoun, the scientific son (the -treasure-hunter for the laird of Restalrig) and his father. - -For the rest, the conspiracy against Moray, in July, 1568, and the secret -as to the cause of Lyon Herald's death, remain mysterious.[414] - - - - -APPENDIX C - -THE DATE OF MARY'S VISIT TO GLASGOW - - -The question of the possibility that Letter II. may be authentic turns on -dates. If the Lords are right in declaring, in 'Cecil's Journal,' that -Mary left Edinburgh on January 21, 1567, and arrived in Glasgow on January -23, then the evidence of the Letter is incompatible with that of Paris, -and one or both testimonies must be abandoned. They fare no better if we -accept the statement of Drury, writing from Berwick, that Mary entered -Glasgow on January 22. It is shown in the text that, if we accept the date -as given in Birrel's 'Diary,' and also in the 'Diurnal of Occurrents': if -we make Mary leave Edinburgh on January 20, and (contrary to Drury and -'Cecil's Journal') make her enter Glasgow on January 21, then the Letter -may be brought into harmony with the statement of Paris. - -Of course it may be argued that the 'Diurnal' and Birrel's 'Diary' -coincide in an error of date. The 'Diary' of Birrel describes itself as -extending from 1532 to 1605. One man cannot have kept a daily note of -events for seventy-three years. The 'Diary,' in fact, is _not_ a daily -record. There is but one entry for 1561, one for 1562, one for 1565, ten -for 1566, and twenty-four for 1567; up to Mary's surrender at Carberry -(June 15). The 'Diurnal,' for our period, is more copious, and is by a -contemporary, though probably he did not always write his remarks on the -day of the occurrence noted. - -From August 19, 1561, to June 15, 1567, the 'Diurnal' and the 'Diary' -record in common twenty-one events, with date. In seven of these cases -they differ, as to date. They differ as to the day of Mary's departure -from Edinburgh to Jedburgh, as to the departure of the ambassadors from -Stirling, as to the arrival of Mary with her infant child in Edinburgh -(January, 1567), as to the return of Mary and Darnley from Glasgow, as to -the day of Darnley's burial, as to the day of opening Parliament, and as -to the attack on Borthwick Castle by the Lords: while the 'Diurnal' makes -the explosion at Kirk o' Field occur at 2 A.M. on February 10, but ends -the Parliament on April 29, which is absurd. When the dates are correctly -known from other sources, and when the 'Diary' and the 'Diurnal' coincide -as to these dates, then, of course, we may accept their authority. But -when, as in the case of Mary's departure from Edinburgh, and arrival in -Glasgow, the 'Diary' and 'Diurnal' oppose 'Cecil's Journal,' and Drury's -version, every reader must estimate the value of their coincidence for -himself. If their date, January 20, is correct, then a letter may have -been written, and sent, and received, and the facts, so far, are -corroborated by Paris's deposition. - -The argument of Chalmers, that Mary was at Edinburgh till January 24, -because there are entries as if of her presence there in the Register of -Privy Seal, is not valid, as such entries were occasionally made in the -absence of the King or Queen. - - - - -APPENDIX D - -THE BAND FOR DARNLEY'S MURDER - - -This Band, which is constantly cited in all the troubles from 1567 to -1586, is a most mysterious document. We have seen that Mary's secretary, -Nau, wilfully or accidentally confuses it with an anti-Darnley band signed -by Morton, Moray, and many others, early in October, 1566. We have also -seen that Randolph, in 1570, distinguishes between this 'old band' and the -band for the murder, which, he says, Lethington and Balfour abstracted -from a little coffer in the Castle, covered with green cloth or velvet, -immediately after Mary surrendered at Carberry. I have ventured the theory -that this carefully covered little coffer may have been the Casket -itself.[415] Drury, again, in November, 1567, reports that the band has -been burned, while the papers as to Mary are 'kept to be shewn.' But, in -Scotland, till Morton's execution in June, 1581, the murder band was -believed to be extant: at least Sir James Balfour, if he chose, could give -evidence about it. What Mary wished to be believed as to this matter, we -have seen in Nau, who wrote under her inspiration between 1575 and 1587. -He asserts that Bothwell, 'to ease his conscience' gave Mary a copy of the -band, when he rode away from Carberry (June 15, 1567). He showed Mary the -signatures of Morton, Balfour, Lethington, and others. She kept the -document, and, when she met Morton on Carberry Hill, told him that he was -one of the chief murderers, as she had learned. He slunk away.[416] -Probably Mary did accuse Morton, at Carberry. When he was executed (June -3, 1581) Sir John Foster, from Alnwick, sent an account of the trial to -Walsingham. In the evidence against Morton was 'the Queen's confession -when she was taken at Carberry Hill. She said he was the principal man -that was the deed-doer, and the drawer of that purpose.' Morton certainly -was not present, and it is as good as certain that he did not sign the -band. Still, Mary, at Carberry, charged him with complicity.[417] - -We have seen that Mary, ever after Carberry, also inculpated Lethington, -and vowed that she had something in black and white which would hang him. -Something she probably did possess, but not a band signed also by Morton. -Concerning the murder-band, Hay of Tala, before execution (January 3, -1568), 'in presence of the whole people,' named as subscribers 'Bothwell, -Huntly, Argyll, Lethington, Balfour, with divers other nobles.'[418] Hay -saw their signatures, but not that of Morton. 'He said my Lord Bothwell -said to him that he subscribed the same.' The Black Laird (December 13, -1573), when in a devout and penitent condition, said that Bothwell had -shown him the contract, 'subscribed by four or five handwrites, which, he -affirmed to me, was the subscription of the Earl of Huntly, Argyll, the -secretary Maitland, and Sir James Balfour.' Ormistoun repeated part of the -contents: the paper was drawn up by Balfour, a Lord of Session.[419] (See -Introduction, pp. xiii-xviii.) - -Morton, we know, was accused of Darnley's death, and arrested, at the end -of December, 1580. Archibald Douglas was sought for, but escaped into -England. Elizabeth sent Randolph down to save Morton: Hunsdon was to lead -an army over the Border. Every kind of violence was designed, and forgery -was attempted, but Randolph had to fly to Berwick, at the end of March. -Meanwhile the arch traitor, Balfour, had been summoned from France, as an -evidence against Morton. But he was not of much use. On January 30, 1581, -he wrote from Edinburgh to Mary. He had arrived in Scotland on December -17, 1580, when he found Morton in the height of power. Balfour secretly -approached James's new favourite, Stewart d'Aubigny, recently created Earl -of Lennox. By giving them information '_had from your Majesty's self_, and -partly by other intelligence which I knew and learned from others,' he -gave them grounds for Morton's arrest. But Morton, he says, trusting to -the lack of testimony from the absence of Archibald Douglas, boldly -'denies all things promised by him to Bothwell in that matter,' 'except -his signature to the band whereof I did send the copy to your Majesty.' -Now that was only 'Ainslie's band,' made _after_ the murder, on April 19, -1567, to defend Bothwell's quarrel. On an extant copy Randolph has -written, 'upon this was grounded thacusation of therle Morton.'[420] This -was no hanging matter, and Balfour either had not or would not produce the -murder band. He therefore asks Mary for further information: 'all that -your Majesty has heard or known thereinto.'[421] - -Balfour and Mary corresponded in cypher through Archbishop Beaton, her -ambassador in France. On March 18, 1580, she had written to Beaton, 'if -possible make Balfour write to me fully about the band which he has seen, -with the signatures, for the murder of my late husband, the King, or let -him give you a copy in his own hand.' If she really possessed the band -which Nau says Bothwell gave her at Carberry, she needed no copy from -Balfour. She does not seem to have believed in him and his band. On May -20, 1580, she writes to Beaton: 'I put no faith in what Balfour has sent -me, so far, and cannot trust him much having been so wretchedly betrayed -by him,' for Balfour had put Morton on the trail of the Casket, had sold -the Castle, and later, had betrayed Kirkcaldy and Lethington when they -held the Castle against Morton. However, she sent to Balfour a civil -message, and bade him go on undermining Morton, in which he succeeded, in -the following year. But the murder-band was never produced. On March 16, -1581, Randolph described a conference which had passed between him and -James VI. 'I spoke again of the _band in the green box_, containing the -names of all the chief persons consenting to the King's murder, which Sir -James Balfour either hath or can tell of.' Randolph, who was working for -Morton, obviously knew that _he_ did not sign that band: otherwise he -would have avoided the subject.[422] - -We have no account of Morton's trial, save what Foster tells Walsingham. -'The murder of the King was laid to him by four or five witnesses. The -first is the Lord Bothwell's Testament' (usually thought to be forged), -'the second, Mr. Archibald Douglas, when he was his man.' But Douglas, -surely, dared not appear in Court, or in Scotland. Foster clearly means -that Archibald's servant, Binning, proved _his_ guilt, and that it -reflected on Morton, whose 'man' Archibald was, in 1567, and later. Next -came the charge that Morton 'spoke with' Bothwell, as he confessed that he -did, at Whittingam, about January 20, 1567, when he says that he declined -to join the plot without Mary's written warrant. How could this be known, -except through Mary or Archibald Douglas? Possibly his brother, at whose -house the conference was held, may have declared the matter, as he -'split,' in 1581, on Archibald, and all concerned. 'And then' Morton was -condemned on 'the consenting to the murder of the King' (how was _that_ -proved?), on Ainslie's band to support Bothwell's quarrel, 'no person -being excepted,' and finally, 'the Queen's confession at Carberry Hill,' -when she confessed nothing, but accused Morton. - -Mary's conduct, as far as it can be construed, looks as if she knew very -little either about Morton or the murder-band. If Bothwell told her -anything, what he told her was probably more or less untrue. - - - - -APPENDIX E - -THE TRANSLATIONS OF THE CASKET LETTERS - - -The casual treatment of the Casket Letters by Mary's accusers, and by the -English Commissioners, is demonstrated by an inspection of the texts as -they now exist. One thing is absolutely certain, the Letters were -produced, at Westminster and Hampton Court, in the original French, -whether that was forged, or garbled, or authentic. This is demonstrated by -the occurrence, in the English translation, of the words 'I have taken the -worms out of his nose.' This ugly French phrase for extracting a man's -inmost thoughts is used by Mary in an authentic letter.[423] But the Scots -version of the passage runs, 'I have drawn all out of him.' Therefore the -English translator had a French original before him, _not_ the French -later published by the Huguenots, where for _tire les vers du nez_, we -find _j'ay sceu toutes choses de luy_. - -Original French letters were therefore produced; the only doubt rests on -part of Crawford's deposition, where it verbally agrees with Letter II. -But we may here overlook Crawford's part in the affair, merely reminding -the reader that the French idioms in that portion of the Letter (Scots -version) which most closely resembles his very words, in his deposition, -may have come in through the process of translating Crawford's Scots into -French, and out of French into Scots again, to which we return. - -The Casket Letters were produced, in French, on December 7 and 8. On -December 9, the English Commissioners read them, 'being duly translated -into English.'[424] We are never told that the Scottish Lords prepared and -produced the _English_ translations. These must have been constructed on -December 7 and 8, in a violent hurry. So great was the hurry that Letter -VI. was not translated from French at all: the English was merely done, -and badly done, out of the Scots. Thus, Scots, 'I am wod;' English, 'I am -wood.' As far as this Letter goes, there need have been no original French -text.[425] In this case (Letter VI.) the English is the Scots Anglified, -word for word. The same easy mode of translating French is used in Letter -V.; it is the Scots done word for word into English. In Letters I. and -II., M. Philippson makes it pretty clear that the English translator had a -copy of the Scots version lying by him, from which he occasionally helped -himself to phrases. M. Cardauns, in _Der Sturz der Maria Stuart_, had -proved the same point, which every one can verify. Dozens of blunders -occur in the English versions, though, now and then, they keep closer to -the originals than do the Scots translators. - -Of this we give a singular and significant proof. In the Scots of Letter -I. the first sentence ends, 'Ze promisit to mak me advertisement of zour -newis from tyme to tyme.' The next sentence begins: 'The waiting upon -yame.' In the English we read 'at your departure you promised to send me -newes from you. _Nevertheless I can learn none_:' which is not in the -Scots, but is in the published French, 'et toutes fois je n'en puis -apprendre.' The _published_ French is translated from the Latin, which is -translated from the Scots, but each of the French _published_ letters -opens with a sentence or two from the _original_ French: thus the -published French, in one of these sentences, keeps what the Scots omits. - -Therefore, the Scots translator undeniably, in the first paragraph of -Letter I., omitted a clause which was in his French original, and is in -the English translation. Consequently, when, in the same short letter, the -English has, and the Scots has not, '_to Ledington, to be delivered to -you_,' we cannot, as most critics do, and as Herr Bresslau does, infer -that Lethington had that mention of him deliberately excised from the -Scots version, as likely to implicate him in the murder. It did not -implicate him. Surely a Queen may write to her Secretary of State, on -public affairs, even if she is planning a murder with her First Lord of -the Admiralty. When the Scots translator omits a harmless clause, by -inadvertence, in line 6, he may also, by inadvertence, omit another in -line 41. - -From these facts it follows that we cannot acquit Lethington of a possible -share in the falsification of the Letters, merely because a reference to -him, in the original French, existed, and was omitted in the Scots text. -He need not have struck out the clause about himself, because the Scots -translator, we see, actually omits another clause by sheer inadvertence. -In the same way Mr. Henderson's text of the Casket Letters exhibits -omissions of important passages, by inadvertence in copying. - -Again, we can found no argument on omissions or changes, in the English -versions. That text omits (in Letter II.), what we find in the Scots, the -word _yesternight_, in the clause 'the King sent for Joachim -_yesternight_.' M. Philippson argues that this was an intentional -omission, to hide from the English commissioners the incongruity of the -dates. The translators, and probably the commissioners, did not look into -things so closely. The English translators made many omissions and other -errors, because they were working at top speed, and Cecil's marginal -corrections deal with very few of these blunders. On them, therefore, no -theory can be based. Nor can any theory be founded on clauses present in -the English, but not in the Scots, as in Letter II., Scots, 'I answerit -but rudely to the doutis yat wer in his letteris,' to which the English -text appends, 'as though there had been a meaning to pursue him.' This, -probably, was in the French; but we must not infer that Lennox had it -suppressed, in the Scots, as a reference to what he kept concealed, the -rumour of Darnley's intention to seize and crown the child prince. The -real fact is that the Scots translator, as we have seen, makes inadvertent -omissions. - -The English text is sometimes right where the Scots is wrong. Thus, Sir -James Hamilton told Mary, as she entered Glasgow, that Lennox sent the -Laird of Houstoun to tell him that he (Lennox) 'wald never have belevit -that he (Sir James) wald have persewit him, nor zit accompanyit him with -the Hamiltounis.' The English has what seems better, 'he,' Lennox, 'wold -not have thought that he would have followed and accompany himself with -the Hamiltons.' In the end of a paragraph (3), the Scots is gibberish: -Scots, 'nevertheless he speikis gude, at the leist his son': English -(_Henderson_), 'and they so speakith well of them, at least his sonne,' -'and then he speaketh well of them' (Bain). The English then omits (Scots) -'I se na uthir Gentilman bot thay of my company.' - -In the next line (Scots) 'The King send for Joachim yesternicht,' the -English omits 'yesternicht,' probably by inadvertence. The word has a -bearing on the chronology of the Letter, and its omission in the English -text may be discounted. It is a peculiarity of that text to write 'he' for -'I,' and a feature of Mary's hand accounts for the error. Where Darnley, -in the Scots, says, 'I had rather have passit with yow,' the sentence -follows 'I trow he belevit that I wald have send him away Presoner.' This -is not in the English, but recurs in the end of Crawford's Deposition, 'I -thought that she was carrying him away rather as a prisoner than as a -husband.' Probably the sentence, omitted in English, was in the French: -whether derived from Crawford's Deposition or not. Presently the English -gives a kind of date, not found in the Scots. Scots, 'I am in doing of ane -work heir that I hait greitly.' The English adds, '_but I had begun it -this morning_.' Now, to all appearance, she had 'begun it' the night -before. How did 'but I had begun it this morning' get into the English? -For the answer see page 300. Even in the first set of Memoranda there are -differences: Scots, 'The purpois of Schir James Hamilton.' English, 'The -talk of Sir James Hamilton _of the ambassador_.' - -There are other mistranslations, and English omissions: the English -especially omits the mysterious second set of notes. What appears most -distinctly, from this comparison, is the hasty and slovenly manner of the -whole inquiry. The English translators had some excuse for their bad work; -the Scots had none for their omissions and misrenderings. - -Letter III. (or VIII.) and Letter IV. I have translated, in the body of -this book, from the copies of the French originals. - -In Letter V. the copy of the French original enables us to clear up the -sense. It is a question about a maid or lady in waiting, whom Bothwell, or -somebody else, wishes Mary to dismiss. The French is, 'et si vous ne me -mondes [mandez] ce soir ce que volles que j'en fasse, Je mendeferay [m'en -deferay] au hazard de _la_ fayre entreprandre ce qui pourroit nuire a ce a -quoy nous tandons tous deus.' The Scots has 'I will red myself of _it_, -and cause _it_ to be interprysit and takin in hand, quhilk micht be -hurtful to that quhair unto we baith do tend.' The English is the Scots, -Anglified. - -The real sense, of course, is 'if you do not let me know to-night what -step you want me to take, I shall get rid of _her_, at the risk of making -_her_ attempt something which might harm our project.' We have no other -known contemporary English translations. Of the four known, two (I. II.) -are made with a frequent glance at the Scots, two are merely the Scots -done into English, without any reference to the French. Nothing but the -hasty careless manner of the whole inquiry accounts for these -circumstances. - -The most curious point connected with the translations is Crawford's -deposition. It was handed in on December 9, 1568. Whoever did it out of -Crawford's Scots into English had obviously both the Scots and English -versions of Letter II. before him. Where the deposition is practically -identical with the corresponding passages of Letter II., the transcriber -of it into English usually followed the Scots version of Letter II. But -there is a corrected draft in the Lennox MSS. at Cambridge, which proves -that the Angliciser of Crawford's Scots occasionally altered it into -harmony with the English version of Letter II. Thus, in the first -paragraph, the original draft of Crawford in English has, like the Scots -version of Letter II., 'the _rude_ words that I had spoken to Cunningham.' -But, in the official copy, in English, of Crawford, and in the Lennox -draft of it, 'rude' is changed into '_sharpe_ wordes,' and so on. The part -of Crawford which corresponds with Letter II. is free from obvious literal -renderings of the French idiom, as Mr. Henderson remarks.[426] These -abound in the English version of the corresponding part of Letter II., -but are absent here in the Scots translation. It is, therefore, open to -argument that Crawford did make notes of Darnley's and Mary's talk; that -these were done into 'the original French,' and thence retranslated into -the Scots (free from French idiom here) and into the English, where traces -of French idiom in this passage are frequent. - - - - -THE CASKET LETTERS - - -I print the Scots Texts with one or two variations from C (the Cambridge -MS.) and Y (the Yelverton MS.). The English Texts are given, where they -are not merely taken direct from the Scots translations; these and -Crawford's Deposition are from MSS. in the Record Office and Hatfield -Calendar. - - -LETTER I - - PUBLISHED SCOTS TRANSLATION - - It apeiris, that with zour absence thair is alswa joynit forgetfulnes, - seand yat at zour departing ze promysit to mak me advertisement of - zour newis from tyme to tyme. The waitting upon yame zesterday causit - me to be almaist in sic joy as I will be at zour returning, quhilk ze - have delayit langer than zour promeis was. - - As to me, howbeit I have na farther newis from zow, according to my - commissioun, I bring the Man with me to Craigmillar upon Monounday - quhair he will be all Wednisday; and I will gang to Edinburgh to draw - blude of me, gif in the meane tyme I get na newis in ye contrarie fra - zow. - - He is mair gay than ever ze saw him; he puttis me in remembrance of - all thingis yat may mak me beleve he luifis me. Summa, ze will say yat - he makis lufe to me: of ye quhilk I tak sa greit plesure, yat I enter - never where he is, bot incontinent I tak ye seiknes of my sair syde, I - am sa troubillit with it. Gif Paris bringis me that quhilk I send him - for, I traist it sall amend me. - - I pray zow, advertise me of zour newis at lenth, and quhat I sall do - in cace ze be returnit quhen I am cum thair; for, in cace ze wirk not - wysely, I se that the haill burding of this will fall upon my - schoulderis. Provide for all thing, and discourse upon it first with - zourself. I send this be Betoun, quha gais to ane Day of Law of the - Laird of Balfouris. I will say na further, saifing that I pray zow to - send me gude newis of zour voyage. From Glasgow this Setterday in the - morning. - - - ENGLISH TRANSLATION AT THE RECORD OFFICE - - (State Papers relating to Mary Queen of Scots, vol. ii. No. 62) - - It seemyth that with your absence forgetfulness is joynid consydering - that at your departure you promised me to send me newes from you. - Neuertheless I can learn none. And yet did I yesterday looke for that - that shuld make me meryer then I shall be. I think you doo the lyke - for your returne, prolonging it more than you have promised. - - As for me, if I hear no other matter of you, according to my - Commission, I bring the man Monday to Cregmillar, where he shall be - vpon Wednisdaye. And I go to Edinboroughe to be lett blud, if I haue - no word to the contrary. - - He is the meryest that euer you sawe, and doth remember vnto me all - that he can, to make me beleve that he louith me. To conclude, you - wold saye that he makith love to me, wherein I take so muche plesure, - that I never com in there, but the payne of my syde doth take me. I - have it sore to daye. Yf Paris doth bring back unto me that for which - I have sent, it suld muche amend me. - - I pray you, send me word from you at large, and what I shall doo if - you be not returnid, when I shall be there. For if you be not wyse I - see assuredly all the wholle burden falling vpon my shoulders. Prouide - for all and consyder well first of all. I send this present to - Ledinton to be delivered to you by Beton, who goith to one Day a lau - of Lord Balfour. I will saye no more vnto you, but that I pray God - send me good newes of your voyage. - - From Glasco this Saturday morning. - - -LETTER II - - PUBLISHED SCOTS TRANSLATION - - 1. Being departit from the place quhair I left my hart, it is esie to - be judgeit quhat was my countenance, seeing that I was evin als mekle - as ane body without ane hart; quhilk was the Occasioun that quhile - Denner tyme I held purpois to na body; nor zit durst ony present - thameselfis unto me, judging yat it was not gude sa to do. - - 2. Four myle or I came to the towne, ane gentilman of the Erle of - Lennox come and maid his commendatiounis unto me; and excusit him that - he came not to meit me, be ressoun he durst not interpryse the same, - becaus of the rude wordis that I had spokin to Cuninghame: And he - desyrit that he suld come to the inquisitioun of ye matter yat I - suspectit him of. This last speiking was of his awin heid, without ony - commissioun. - - I answerit to him that thair was na recept culd serve aganis feir; and - that he wold not be affrayit, in cace he wer not culpabill; and that I - answerit bot rudely to the doutis yat wer in his letteris. Summa, I - maid him hald his toung. The rest wer lang to wryte. - - 3. Schir James Hammiltoun met me, quha schawit that the uther tyme - quhen he hard of my cumming he[427] departit away, and send Howstoun, - to schaw him, that he wald never have belevit that he wald have - persewit him, nor zit accompanyit him with the Hammiltounis. He - answerit, that he was only cum bot to see me, and yat he wald nouther - accompany Stewart nor Hammiltoun, bot be my commandement. He desyrit - that he wald cum and speik with him: He refusit it. - - The Laird of Lusse, Howstoun, and Caldwellis sone, with xl. hors or - thairabout, come and met me. The Laird of Lusse said, he was chargeit - to ane Day of Law be the Kingis father, quhilk suld be this day, - aganis his awin hand-writ, quhilk he hes: and zit notwithstanding, - knawing of my cumming, it is delayit. He was inquyrit to cum to him, - quhilk he refusit, and sweiris that he will indure nathing of him. - Never ane of that towne came to speik to me, quhilk causis me think - that thay ar his; and neuertheles he speikis gude, at the leist his - sone. I se na uther Gentilman bot thay of my company. - - 4. The King send for Joachim zisternicht, and askit at him, quhy I - ludgeit not besyde him? And that he wald ryse the soner gif that wer; - and quhairfoir I come, gif it was for gude appointment? and gif I had - maid my estait, gif I had takin Paris [this berer will tell you - sumwhat upon this], and Gilbert to wryte to me? And yat I wald send - Joseph away. I am abaschit quha hes schawin him sa far; zea he spak - evin of ye mariage of Bastiane. - - 5. I inquyrit him of his letteris, quhairintill he plenzeit of the - crueltie of sum: answerit, that he was astonischit, and that he was sa - glaid to se me, that he belevit to die for glaidnes. He fand greit - fault that I was pensive. - - 6. I departit to supper. Yis beirer wil tell yow of my arryuing. He - prayit me to returne: the quhilk I did. He declairit unto me his - seiknes, and that he wald mak na testament, bot only leif all thing to - me; and that I was the caus of his maladie, becaus of the regrait that - he had that I was sa strange unto him. And thus he said: Ze ask me - quhat I mene be the crueltie contenit in my letter? it is of zow alone - that will not accept my offeris and repentance. I confess that I haue - failit, bot not into that quhilk I ever denyit; and siclyke hes failit - to sindrie of zour subjectis, quhilk ze haue forgeuin. - - I am zoung. - - Ze wil say, that ze have forgevin me oft tymes, and zit yat I returne - to my faultis. May not ane man of my age, for lacke of counsell, fall - twyse or thryse, or inlacke of his promeis, and at last repent - himself, and be chastisit be experience? Gif I may obtene pardoun, I - protest I sall never mak fault agane. And I crafit na uther thing, bot - yat we may be at bed and buird togidder as husband and wyfe; and gif - ze wil not consent heirunto, I sall never ryse out of yis bed. I pray - zow, tell me your resolutioun. God knawis how I am punischit for - making my God of zow, and for hauing na uther thocht but on zow; and - gif at ony tyme I offend zow, ze ar the caus, becaus quhen ony - offendis me, gif, for my refuge, I micht playne unto zow, I wald speik - it unto na uther body; bot quhen I heir ony thing, not being familiar - with zow, necessitie constranis me to keip it in my breist; and yat - causes me to tyne my wit for verray anger. - - 7. I answerit ay unto him, but that wald be ovir lang to wryte at - lenth. I askit quhy he wald pas away in ye _Inglis_ schip. He denyis - it, and sweiris thairunto; bot he grantis that he spak with the men. - Efter this I inquyrit him of the inquisitioun of Hiegait. He denyit - the same, quhill I schew him the verray wordis was spokin. At quhilk - tyme he said, that Mynto had advertisit him, that it was said, that - sum of the counsell had brocht an letter to me to be subscrivit to put - him in Presoun, and to slay him gif he maid resistance. And he askit - the same at Mynto himself; quha answerit, that he belevit ye same to - be trew. The morne I wil speik to him upon this Point. - - 8. As to the rest of Willie Hiegait's, he confessit it, bot it was the - morne efter my cumming or he did it. - - 9. He wald verray fane that I suld ludge in his ludgeing. I refusit - it, and said to him, that he behovit to be purgeit, and that culd not - be done heir. He said to me, I heir say ze have brocht ane lytter with - zow; but I had rather have passit with zow. I trow he belevit that I - wald have send him away Presoner. I answerit, that I wald tak him with - me to Craigmillar, quhair the mediciner and I micht help him, and not - be far from my sone. He answerit, that he was reddy quhen I pleisit, - sa I wald assure him of his requeist. - - He desyris na body to se him. He is angrie quhen I speik of Walcar, - and sayis, that he sal pluk the eiris out of his heid and that he - leis. For I inquyrit him upon that, and yat he was angrie with sum of - the Lordis, and wald threittin thame. He denyis that, and sayis he - luifis thame all, and prayis me to give traist to nathing aganis him. - - 10. As to me, he wald rather give his lyfe or he did ony displesure to - me. And efter yis he schew me of sa money lytil flattereis, sa cauldly - and sa wysely that ze will abasche thairat. I had almaist forzet that - he said, he could not dout of me in yis purpois of Hiegaite's; for he - wald never beleif yat I, quha was his proper flesche, wald do him ony - evill; alsweill it was schawin that I refusit to subscrive the same; - But as to ony utheris that wald persew him, at leist he suld sell his - lyfe deir aneuch; but he suspectit na body, nor zit wald not; but wald - lufe all yat I lufit. - - 11. He wald not let me depart from him, bot desyrit yat I suld walk - with him. I mak it seme that I beleive that all is trew, and takis - heid thairto, and excusit my self for this nicht that I culd not walk. - He sayis, that he sleipis not weil. Ze saw him never better, nor speik - mair humbler. And gif I had not ane prufe of his hart of waxe, and yat - myne wer not of ane dyamont, quhairintill na schot can mak brek, but - that quhilk cummis forth of zour hand, I wald have almaist had pietie - of him. But feir not, the place sall hald unto the deith. Remember, in - recompence thairof, that ye suffer not zouris to be wyn be that fals - race that will travell na les with zow for the same. - - I beleve thay[430] have bene at schuillis togidder. He hes ever the - teir in his eye; he salutis every body, zea, unto the leist, and makis - pieteous caressing unto thame, to mak thame have pietie on him. This - day his father bled at the mouth and nose; ges quhat presage that is. - I have not zit sene him, he keipis his chalmer. The king desyris that - I suld give him meit with my awin handis; bot gif na mair traist - quhair ze ar, than I sall do heir. - - This is my first jornay. I sall end ye same ye morne. - - 12. I wryte all thingis, howbeit thay be of lytill wecht, to the end - that ze may tak the best of all to judge upon. I am in doing of ane - work heir that I hait greitly. Have ze not desyre to lauch to se me - lie sa weill, at ye leist to dissembill sa weill, and to tell him - treuth betwix handis? He schawit me almaist all yat is in the name of - the Bischop and Sudderland, and zit I have never twichit ane word of - that ze schawit me; but allanerly be force, flattering, and to pray - him to assure himself of me. And be pleinzeing on the Bischop, I have - drawin it all out of him. Ye have hard the rest. - - 13. We ar couplit with twa fals races; the devil sinder us, and God - knit us togidder for ever, for the maist faithful coupill that ever be - unitit. This is my faith, I will die in it. - - Excuse I wryte evill, ye may ges ye half of it; bot I cannot mend it, - because I am not weil at eis; and zit verray glaid to wryte unto zow - quhen the rest are sleipand, sen I cannot sleip as thay do, and as I - wald desyre, that is in zour armes, my deir lufe, quhome I pray God to - preserve from all evill, and send zow repois: I am gangand to seik - myne till ye morne, quhen I sall end my Bybill; but I am faschit that - it stoppis me to wryte newis of myself unto zow, because it is sa - lang. - - Advertise me quhat ze have deliberat to do in the mater ze knaw upon - this point, to ye end that we may understand utheris weill, that - nathing thairthrow be spilt. - - 14. I am irkit, and ganging to sleip, and zit I ceis not to - scrible[431] all this paper in sa mekle as restis thairof. Waryit mot - this pokische man be that causes me haif sa mekle pane, for without - him I suld have an far plesander subject to discourse upon. He is not - over mekle deformit, zit he hes ressavit verray mekle. He hes almaist - slane me with his braith; it is worse than zour uncle's; and zit I cum - na neirer unto him, bot in ane chyre at the bed-seit, and he being at - the uther end thairof. - - 15. The message of the father in the gait. - - The purpois of Schir James Hamilton. - - Of that the Laird of Lusse schawit me of the delay. - - Of the demandis that he askit at Joachim. - - Of my estait. - - Of my company. - - Of the occasion of my cumming: - - And of Joseph. - - _Item_, The purpois that he and I had togidder. Of the desyre that he - hes to pleis me, and of his repentence. - - Of the interpretatioun of his letter. - - Of Willie Hiegaite's mater of his departing. - - Of Monsiure de Levingstoun. - - 16. I had almaist forzet, that Monsiure de Levingstoun said in the - Lady Reres eir at supper, that he wald drink to ye folk yat I wist of, - gif I wald pledge thame. And efter supper he said to me, quhen I was - lenand upon him warming me at the fyre, Ze have fair going to se seik - folk, zit ze cannot be sa welcum to thame as ze left sum body this day - in regrait, that will never be blyth quhill he se zow agane. I askit - at him quha that was. With that he thristit my body, and said, that - sum of his folkis had sene zow in fascherie; ze may ges at the rest. - - 17. I wrocht this day quhill it was twa houris upon this bracelet, for - to put ye key of it within the lock thairof, quhilk is couplit - underneth with twa cordounis. I have had sa lytill tyme that it is - evill maid; bot I sall mak ane fairer in the meane tyme. Tak heid that - nane that is heir se it, for all the warld will knaw it, becaus for - haist it was maid in yair presence. - - 18. I am now passand to my fascheous purpois. Ze gar me dissemble sa - far, that I haif horring thairat; and ye caus me do almaist the office - of a traitores. Remember how gif it wer not to obey zow, I had rather - be deid or I did it; my hart bleidis at it. Summa, he will not cum - with me, except upon conditioun that I will promeis to him, that I - sall be at bed and buird with him as of befoir, and that I sall leif - him na ofter: and doing this upon my word, he will do all thingis that - I pleis, and cum with me. Bot he hes prayit me to remane upon him - quhil uther morne. - - He spak verray braifly at ye beginning, as yis beirer will schaw zow, - upon the purpois of the Inglismen, and of his departing: Bot in ye end - he returnit agane to his humilitie.[432] - - 19. He schawit, amangis uther purposis, yat he knew weill aneuch that - my brother had schawin me yat thing, quhilk he had spoken in - Striviling, of the quhilk he denyis ye ane half, and abone all, yat - ever he came in his chalmer. For to mak him traist me, it behovit me - to fenze in sum thingis with him: Thairfoir, quhen he requeistit me to - promeis unto him, that quhen he was haill we suld have baith ane bed: - I said to him fenzeingly, and making me to beleve his[433] promisis, - that gif he changeit not purpois betwix yis and that tyme, I wald be - content thairwith; bot in the meane tyme I bad him heid that he leit - na body wit thairof, becaus, to speik amangis our selfis, the Lordis - culd not be offendit nor will evill thairfoir: Bot thay wald feir in - respect of the boisting he maid of thame, that gif ever we aggreit - togidder, he suld mak thame knaw the lytill compt thay take of him; - and that he counsallit me not to purchas sum of thame by him. - - Thay for this caus wald be in jelosy, gif at anis, without thair - knawledge, I suld brek the play set up in the contrair in thair - presence. - - He said verray joyfully, And think zow thay will esteme zow the mair - of that? Bot I am verray glaid that ze speik to me of the Lordis; for - I beleve at this tyme ze desyre that we suld leif togidder in - quyetnes: For gif it wer utherwyse, greiter inconvenience micht come - to us baith than we ar war of: bot now I will do quhatever ze will do, - and will lufe all that ze lufe; and desyris zow to mak thame lufe in - lyke maner: For, sen thay seik not my lyfe, I lufe thame all equallie. - Upon yis point this beirer will schaw zow mony small thingis. Becaus I - have over mekle to wryte, and it is lait: I give traist unto him upon - zour word. Summa, he will ga upon my word to all places. - - 20. Allace! I never dissavit ony body: Bot I remit me altogidder to - zour will. Send me advertisement quhat I sall do, and quhatsaever - thing sall cum thairof, I sall obey zow. Advise to with zourself, gif - ze can find out ony mair secreit inventioun be medicine; for he suld - tak medicine and the bath at Craigmillar. He may not cum furth of the - hous this lang tyme. - - 21. Summa, be all that I can leirne, he is in greit suspicioun, and - zit notwithstanding, he gevis credit to my word; bot zit not sa far - that he will schaw ony thing to me: bot nevertheles, I sall draw it - out of him, gif ze will that I avow all unto him. Bot I will never - rejoyce to deceive ony body that traistis in me: Zit notwithstanding - ze may command me in all thingis. Have na evill opinioun of me for - that caus, be ressoun ze ar the occasion of it zourself; becaus, for - my awin particular revenge, I wald not do it to him. - - He gevis me sum chekis of yat quhilk I feir, zea, evin in the quick. - He sayis this far, yat his faultis wer publeist: bot yair is that - committis faultis, that belevis thay will never be spokin of; and zit - thay will speik of greit and small. As towart the Lady Reres, he said, - I pray God that scho may serve zow for your honour: and said, it is - thocht, and he belevis it to be trew, that I have not the power of - myself into myself, and that becaus of the refuse I maid of his - offeris. Summa, for certanetie he suspectis of the thing ze knaw, and - of his lyfe. Bot as to the last, how sone yat I spak twa or thre gude - wordis unto him, he rejoysis, and is out of dout. - - 22. I saw him not this evening for to end your bracelet, to the quhilk - I can get na lokkis. It is reddy to thame: and zit I feir that it will - bring sum malhure, and may be sene gif ze chance to be hurt. Advertise - me gif ze will have it, and gif ze will have mair silver, and quhen I - sall returne, and how far I may speik. He inragis when he heiris of - Lethingtoun, or of zow, or of my brother. Of your brother he speikis - nathing.[434] He speikis of the Erle of Argyle. I am in feir quhen I - heir him speik; for he assuris himself yat he hes not an evill - opinioun of him. He speikis nathing of thame that is out, nouther gude - nor evill, bot fleis that point. His father keipis his chalmer I have - not sene him. - - 23. All the Hammiltounis ar heir, that accompanyis me verray - honorabilly. All the freindis of the uther convoyis me quhen I gang to - se him. He desyris me to come and se him ryse the morne betyme. For to - mak schort, this beirer will tell zow the rest. And gif I leirne ony - thing heir, I will mak zow memoriall at evin. He will tell zow the - occasioun of my remaning. Burne this letter, for it is ovir dangerous, - and nathing weill said in it: for I am thinkand upon nathing bot - fascherie. Gif ze be in Edinburgh at the ressait of it, send me word - sone. - - 24. Be not offendit, for I gif not ovir greit credite. Now seing to - obey zow, my deir lufe, I spair nouther honour, conscience, hasarde, - nor greitnes quhat sumevir tak it, I pray zow, in gude part, and not - efter the interpretatioun of zour fals gudebrother, to quhome, I pray - zou, gif na credite agains the maist faithful luifer that ever ze had, - or ever sall have. - - Se not hir, quhais fenzeit teiris suld not be sa mekle praisit nor - estemit, as the trew and faithful travellis quhilk I sustene for to - merite hir place. For obtening of the quhilk aganis my naturall, I - betrayis thame that may impesche me. God forgive me, and God give zow, - my only lufe, the hap and prosperitie quhilk your humble and faithful - lufe desyris unto zow, quha hopis to be schortly ane uther thing to - zow, for the reward of my irksum travellis. - - 25. It is lait: I desyre never to ceis fra wryting unto zou; zit now, - efter the kissing of zour handis, I will end my letter. Excuse my - evill wryting, and reid it twyse over. Excuse that thing that is - scriblit,[435] for I had na paper zisterday quhen I wrait that of ye - memoriall. Remember upon zour lufe, and wryte unto hir, and that - verray oft. Lufe me as I sall do zow. - - Remember zow of the purpois of the Lady Reres. - - Of the Inglismen. - - Of his mother. - - Of the Erle of Argyle. - - Of the Erle Bothwell. - - Of the ludgeing in Edinburgh. - - - ENGLISH TRANSLATION - - (State Papers, Mary Queen of Scots, vol. ii. No. 65) - - Being gon from the place, where I had left my harte, it may be easily - iudged what my Countenance was consydering what the body may without - harte, which was cause that till dynner I had used lyttle talk, - neyther wold any --pson-- body advance him selfe therunto, thinking - that it was not good so to doo. - - Fowir myles from thence a gentleman of the Erle of Lennox cam and made - his commendations and excuses vnto me, that he cam not to meete me, - because he durst not enterprise so to doo, consydering the sharp - wordes that I had spoken to Conyngham, and that he desyred that I wold - com to the inquisition of the facte which I did suspecte him of. This - last was of his own head, without commission, and I told him that he - had no receipte against feare, and that he had no feare, if he did not - feele him self faulty, and that I had also sharply answeared to the - doubtes that he made in his letters as though ther had bene a meaning - to poursue him. To be short I have made him hold his peace; for the - reste it were to long to tell you. Sir James Hamilton came to meete - me, who told me that at another tyme he went his waye when he heard of - my comming, and that he sent unto him Houstoun, to tell him that he - wold not have thought, that he wold have followed and accompany him - selfe with the Hamiltons. He answeared that he was not com but to see - me; and that he would not follow Stuard nor Hamilton, but by my - commandment. He prayed him to go speake to him; he refused it. - - The Lard Luce, Houstoun and the sonne of Caldwell, and about XLty - horse cam to meete me and he told that he was sent to one day a law - from the father, which shuld be this daye against the signing of his - own hand, which he hathe, and that, knowing of my comming, he hath - delayed it, and hath prayed him to go see him, which he hath refused - and swearith that he will suffer nothing at his handes. Not one of the - towne is --to see me-- come to speake with me, which makith me to - think that they be his, and then he speakith well of them at leaste - his sonne. - - The King sent for Joachim and asked him, why I did not lodge nighe to - him, and that he wold ryse sooner and why I cam, whithir it wear for - any good appointment, that he[428] cam, and whithir I had not taken - Paris and Guilbert to write and that I sent Joseph. I wonder who hath - told him so muche evin of the mariage of Bastian. This bearer shall - tell you more vpon that I asked him of his letters and where he did - complayne of the crueltye of some of them. He said that he did dreme, - and that he was so glad to see me that he thought he shuld dye. - Indeede that he had found faulte with me.... - - I went my waye to supper. This bearer shall tell you of my arryving. - He praied me to com agayn, which I did: and he told me his grefe, - and that he wold make no testament, but leave all unto me and that I - was cause of his sicknes for the sorrow he had, that I was so strange - unto him. And (said he) you asked what I ment in my letter to speak of - cruelty. It was of your cruelty who will not accepte my offres and - repentance I avowe that I have done amisse, but not that I have always - disauowed; and so have many other of your subjects don and you have - well pardonid them. - - I am young. - - You will saye that you have also pardoned me many tymes and that I - returne to my fault. May not a man of my age for want of counsell, - fayle twise or thrise and mysse of promes and at the last repent and - rebuke him selfe by his experience? Yf I may obtayn this pardon I - protest I will neuer make faulte agayne. And I ask nothing but that we - may be at bed and table togiether as husband and wife; and if you - will not I will never rise from this bed. I pray you tell me your - resolution heerof. God knoweth that I am punished to have made my God - of you and had no other mynd but of you. And when I offende you - somtyme, you are cause thereof: for if I thought, whan anybody doth - any wrong to me, that I might for my refuge make my mone thereof unto - you, I wold open it to no other, but when I heare anything being not - familiar with you, I must keep it in my mynd --makith me out of my - wytt-- and that troublith my wittes for anger. - - I did still answair him but that shall be too long. In the end I asked - him why he wold go in the English shipp. He doth disavow it and - swearith so, and confessith to have spoken to the men. Afterwards I - asked him of the inquisition of Hiegate. He denyed it till I told him - the very wordes, and then he said that Minto sent him word that it was - said, that som of the counsayle had brought me a letter to signe to - putt him in prison, and to kill him if he did resiste and that he - asked this of Minto himself, who said vnto him that he thought it was - true. I will talke with him to morrowe vpon that poynte. The rest as - Wille Hiegate hath confessed; but it was the next daye that he cam - hither. - - In the end he desyred much that I shuld lodge in his lodging. I have - refused it. I have told him that he must be pourged and that could not - be don heere. He said unto me 'I have hard saye that you have brought - the lytter, but I wold rather have gon with yourselfe.' I told him - that so I wolde myself bring him to Cragmillar, that the phisicians - and I also might cure him without being farr from my sonne. He said - that he was ready when I wolde so as I wolde assure him of his - requeste. - - He hath no desyre to be seen and waxeth angry when I speake to him of - Wallcar and sayth that he will pluck his eares from his head, and that - he lyeth; for I asked him before of that, and what cause he had to - complayne of some of the lords and to threaten them. He denyeth it, - and sayth that he had allready prayed them to think no such matter of - him. As for my selfe he wold rather lose his lyfe than doo me the - leaste displeasure; and then used so many kindes of flatteryes so - coldly and wysely as you wold marvayle at. I had forgotten that he - sayde that he could not mistrust me for Hiegate's word, for he could - not beleve, that his own flesh (which was myselfe) wold doo him any - hurte; and in deed it was sayd that I refused to have him lett - bludd.[429] But for the others he wold at leaste sell his lyfe deare - ynoughe; but that he did suspecte nobody nor wolde, but wolde love all - that I did love. - - He wold not lett me go, but wold have me to watche with him. I made as - though I thought all to be true and that I wold think vpon it, and - have excused myself from sytting up with him this nyght, for he sayth - that he sleepith not. You have never heard him speake better nor more - humbly; and if I had not proofe of his hart to be as waxe, and that - myne were not as a dyamant, no stroke but comming from your hand could - make me but to have pitie of him. But feare not for the place shall - contynue till death. Remember also, in recompense therof, not to - suffer yours to be won by that false race that wold do no lesse to - your selfe. - - I think they have bene at schoole togither. He hath allwais the teare - in the eye. He saluteth every man, even to the meanest, and makith - much of them, that they may take pitie of him. His father hath bled - this daye at the nose and at the mouth. Gesse what token that is. I - have not seene him; he is in his chamber. The king is so desyrous, - that I shuld give him meate with my own hands, but trust you no more - there where you are than I doo here. - - This is my first journay; I will end to morrow. I write all, how - little consequence so ever it be of, to the end that you may take of - the wholle, that shall be best _for you to judge_. I doo here a work - that I hate muche, _but I had begon it this morning_; had you not lyst - to laugh, to see me so trymly make a lie, at the leaste dissemble, and - to mingle truthe therewith? He hath almost told me all on the bishops - behalfe and of Sunderland, without touching any word unto him of that - which you had told me; but only by muche flattering him and praying - him to assure him selfe of me, and by my complayning of the bishop. _I - have taken the worms out_ of his nose. You have hard the rest. - - We are tyed to by two false races. The _good yeere_ untye us from - them. God forgive me and God knytt us togither for ever for the most - faythfull couple that ever he did knytt together. This is my fayth; I - will dye in it. - - Excuse it, yf I write yll; you must gesse the one halfe. I cannot doo - with all, for I am yll at ease, and glad to write unto you when other - folkes be a sleepe, seeing that I cannot doo as they doo, according to - my desyre, that is betwene your armes my dear lyfe whom I besech God - to preserve from all yll, and send you good rest as I go to seeke - myne, till to morrow in the morning that will end my bible. But it - greevith me, that it shuld lett me from wryting unto you of newes of - myself --long the same-- so much I have to write. - - Send me word what you have determinid heerupon, that we may know the - one the others mynde for marryng of any thing. - - I am weary, and am a sleepe, and yet I cannot forbeare scribbling so - long as ther is any paper. Cursed be this pocky fellow that troublith - me thus muche, for I had a pleasanter matter to discourse vnto you but - for him. He is not muche the worse, but he is yll arrayed. I thought I - shuld have bene kylled with his breth, for it is worse than your - uncle's breth; and yet I was sett no nearer to him than in a chayr by - his bolster, and he lyeth at the furdre syde of the bed. - - The message of the Father by the waye. - - The talk of Sir James --Hamilton-- of the ambassador. - - That the Lard a Luss hath tolde me of the delaye. - - The questions that he asked of Jochim. - - Of my state. - - Of my companye. - - And of the cause of my comming. - - And of Joseph. - - The talk that he and I haue had, and of his desyre to please me, of - his repentance, and of thinterpretation of his letter. - - Of Will Hiegate's doinges, and of his departure, and of the L. of - Levinston. - - I had forgotten of the L. of Levinston, that at supper he sayd softly - to the Lady Reres, that he dronk to the persons I knew if I wold - pledge them. And after supper he sayd softly to me, when I was leaning - vpon him and warming myselfe, 'You may well go and see sick folkes, - yet can you not be so welcom unto them as you have this daye left som - body in payne who shall never be meary till he haue seene you agayne.' - I asked him who it was; he tooke me about the body and said 'One of - his folkes that hath left you this daye.' Gesse you the rest. - - This day I have wrought till two of the clock vpon this bracelet, to - putt the keye in the clifte of it, which is tyed with two laces. I - have had so little tyme that it is very yll, but I will make a fayrer; - and in the meane tyme take heed that none of those that be heere doo - see it, for all the world wold know it, for I have made it in haste in - theyr presence. - - I go to my tedious talke. You make me dissemble so much that I am - afrayde therof with horrour, and you make me almost to play the part - of a traytor. Remember that if it weare not for obeyeng I had rather - be dead. My heart bleedith for yt. To be shorte, he will not com but - with condition that I shall promise to be with him as heretofore at - bed and borde, and that I shall forsake him no more; and vpon my word - he will doo whatsoever I will, and will com, but he hath prayed me to - tarry till after to morrow. - - He hath spoken at the fyrst more stoutly, as this bearer shall tell - you upon the matter of the Englishmen and of his departure; but in the - end he cometh to his gentlenes agayne. - - He hath told me, among other talk, that he knew well, that my brother - hath told me at Sterling that which he had said there, wherof he - denyed the halfe, and specially that he was in his chamber. But now to - make him trust me I must fayne somthing vnto him; and therfore when he - desyred me to promise that when he shuld be well we shuld make but one - bed, I told him fayning to believe his faire promises, that if he did - not change his mynd betwene this tyme and that, I was contented, so as - he wold saye nothing therof; for (to tell it betwen us two) the Lordis - wished no yll to him, but did feare lest, consydering the - threateninges which he made in case we did agree together, he wold - make them feel the small accompte they have made of him; and that he - wold persuade me to poursue som of them, and for this respecte shuld - be in --by and by-- jelousy if at one instant, without their knowledge - I did brake a game made to the contrary in their presence. - - And he said unto me very pleasant and meary 'Think you that they doo - the more esteem you therfore? But I am glad that you talked to me of - the Lordes. I hope that you desyre now that we shall lyve a happy - lyfe; for if it weare otherwise, it could not be but greater - inconvenience shuld happen to us both than you think. But I will doo - now whatsoever you will have me doo, and will love all those that you - shall love so as you make them to love me allso. For so as they seek - not my lyfe, I love them all egally.' Therupon I have willed this - bearer to tell you many prety things; for I have to muche to write, - and it is late, and I trust him upon your worde. To be short, he will - go any where upon my word. - - Alas! and I never deceived any body; but I remitt myself wholly to - your will. And send me word what I shall doo, and whatsoever happen to - me, I will obey you. Think also yf you will not fynd som invention - more secret by phisick, for he is to take physick at Cragmillar and - the bathes also, and shall not com fourth of long tyme. - - To be short, for that that I can learn he hath great suspicion, and - yet, nevertheles trusteth upon my worde, but not to tell me as yet - anything; howbeit, if you will that I shall avow him, I will know all - of him; but I shall never be willing to beguile one that puttith his - trust in me. Nevertheles you may doo all, and doo not estyme me the - lesse therfore, for you are the cause therof. For, for my own revenge - I wold not doo it. - - He giuith me certain charges (and these strong), of that that I fear - evin to saye that his faultes be published, but there be that committ - some secret faultes and feare not to have them spoken of lowdely, and - that ther is speeche of greate and small. And even touching the Lady - Reres, he said 'God grant, that she serve you to your honour.' And - that men may not think, nor he neyther, that myne owne power was not - in myselfe, seeing I did refuse his offres. To conclude, for a - suerety, he mistrustith vs of that that you know, and for his lyfe. - But in the end, after I had spoken two or three good wordes to him, he - was very meary and glad. - - I have not sene him this night for ending your bracelet, but I can - fynde no claspes for yt; it is ready therunto, and yet I feare least - it should bring you yll happ, or that it shuld be known if you were - hurte. Send me worde, whether you will have it and more monney, and - whan I shall returne, and how farre I may speak. Now as farr as I - perceive _I may doo much with you_; gesse you whithir I shall not be - suspected. As for the rest, he is wood when he hears of Ledinton, and - of you and my brother. Of your brother he sayth nothing, but of the - Earl of Arguile he doth; I am afraide of him to heare him talk, at the - least he assurith himselfe that he hath no yll opinion of him. He - speakith nothing of those abrode, nether good nor yll, but avoidith - speaking of them. His father keepith his chamber; I have not seene - him. - - All the Hamiltons be heere who accompany me very honestly. All the - friendes of the other doo come allwais, when I go to visitt him. He - hath sent to me and prayeth me to see him rise to morrow in the - morning early. To be short, this bearer shall declare unto you the - rest; and if I shall learne anything, I will make every night a - memoriall therof. He shall tell you the cause of my staye. Burn this - letter, for it is too dangerous, neyther is there anything well said - in it, for I think upon nothing but upon greefe if you be at - Edinboroughe. - - Now if to please you, my deere lyfe, I spare neither honor, - conscience, nor hazard, nor greatnes, take it in good part, and not - according to the interpretation of your false brother-in-law, to whom - I pray you, give no credit against the most faythfull lover that ever - you had or shall have. - - See not also her whose faynid teares you ought not more to regarde - than the true travails which I endure to deserve her place, for - obteyning of which, against my own nature, I doo betray those that - could lett me. God forgive me and give you, my only frend, the good - luck and prosperitie that your humble and faythfull lover doth wisshe - vnto you, who hopith shortly to be an other thing vnto you, for the - reward of my paynes. - - I have not made one worde, and it is very late, althoughe I shuld - never be weary in wryting to you, yet will I end, after kyssing of - your handes. Excuse my evill wryting, and read it over twise. Excuse - also that [I scribbled], for I had yesternight no paper when took the - paper of a memorial. [Pray] remember your frend, and wryte vnto her - and often. Love me allw[ais as I shall love you]. - - -LETTER III - -ORIGINAL FRENCH VERSION AT HATFIELD - -(See Calendar of Hatfield Manuscripts, vol. i. pp. 376-77.) - -J'ay veille plus tard la hault que je n'eusse fait si ce neust este pour -tirer ce que ce porteur vous dira que Je treuve la plus belle commoditie -pour excuser vostre affaire que se pourroit presenter. Je luy ay promise -de le luy mener demain ^si^ vous le trouves bon mettes y ordre. Or -monsieur j'ay ja rompu ma promesse Car vous ne mavies rien comande ^de^ -vous envoier ni escrire si ne le fais pour vous offencer et si vous -scavies la craint que j'en ay vous nauries tant des subcons contrairs que -toutesfois je cheris comme procedant de la chose du mond que je desire et -cherche le plus c'est votre ^bonne^ grace de laquelle mes deportemens -m'asseureront et je n'en disesperay Jamais tant que selon vostre promesse -vous m'en dischargeres vostre coeur aultrement je penseras que mon malheur -et le bien composer de ceux qui n'ont la troisiesme partie de la fidelite -ni voluntair obeissance que je vous porte auront gaigne sur moy l'avantage -de la seconde amye de Jason. Non que je vous compare a un si malheureuse -ni moy a une si impitoiable. Combien que vous men fassies un peu resentir -en chose qui vous touschat ou pour vous preserver et garder a celle a qui -seulle vous aporteins si lon se peult approprier ce que lon acquiert par -bien et loyalment voire uniquement aymer comme je fais et fairay toute ma -vie pour pein ou mal qui m'en puisse avenir. En recompence de quoy et des -tous les maulx dont vous maves este cause, souvenes vous du lieu icy pres. -Je ne demande que vous me tennes promesse de main mais que nous truvions -et que nadjousties foy au subcons quaures sans nous en certifier, et Je ne -demande a Dieu si non que coignoissies tout ce que je ay au coeur qui est -vostre et quil vous preserve de tout mal au moyns durant ma vie qui ne me -sera chere qu'autant qu'elle et moy vous serons agreables. Je m'en vois -coucher et vous donner le bon soir mandes moy de main comme vous seres -porte a bon heur. Car j'enseray en pein et faites bon guet si l'oseau -sortira de sa cage ou sens son per comme la tourtre demeurera seulle a se -lamenter de l'absence ^pour^ court quelle soit. Ce que je ne puis faire ma -lettre de bon coeur si ce nestoit que je ay peur que soyes endormy. Car je -nay ose escrire devant Joseph et bastienne et Joachim qui ne sont que -partir quand J'ay commence. - - -LETTER IV - -ORIGINAL FRENCH VERSION - -(In the Record Office State Papers, Mary Queen of Scots, vol. ii. No. 63.) - -Mon cueur helas fault il que la follie d'une famme dont vous connoisses -asses l'ingratitude vers moy soit cause de vous donner displesir veu que -je neusse sceu y remedier sans le scavoir; et despuis que men suis apersue -Je ne vous lay peu dire pour scauoir comment mi guovejernerois car en cela -ni aultre chose je ne veulx entreprandre de rien fayre sans en scavoir -votre volontay, laquelle je vous suplie me fayre entandre car je la -suiuray toute ma vie plus volontiers que vous ne me la declareres, et si -vous ne me mandes ce soir ce que volles que jen faise je men deferay au -hazard de la fayre entreprandre ce qui pourroit nuire a ce a quoy nous -tandons tous deus, et quant elle sera mariee je vous suplie donnes men vne -ou ien prandray telles de quoy vous contanteres quant a leur condition -mayes de leur langue ou fidelite vers vous ie ne vous en respondray Je -vous suplie qune opinion sur aultrui ne nuise en votre endroit a ma -constance. Soupsonnes moi may quant je vous en veulx rendre hors de doubte -et mesclersir ne le refeuses ma chere vie et permetes que je vous face -preuue par mon obeissance de ma fidelite et constance et subjection -volontaire, que je prands pour le plus agreable bien que je scaurois -resceuoir si vous le voulles accepter, et nen faytes la ceremonie car vous -ne me scauriez dauantage outrasger ou donner mortel ennuy. - - -LETTER V - -ORIGINAL FRENCH VERSION AT HATFIELD - -Monsieur, helas pourquoy est vostre fiance mise en personne si indigne, -pour subconner ce que est entierement vostre. Vous m'avies promise que -resouldries tout et que ^me^ manderies tous les jours ce que j'aurais a -faire. Vous nen aves rien fait. Je vous advertise bien de vous garder de -vostre =faulx beau frere= Il est venu vers moy et sens me monstrer rien de -vous me dist que --vous-- luy mandies qu'il vous escrive ce qu'auries a -dire, et ou, et quant vous me troveres et ce que faires touchant luy et la -dessubs m'a presche que c'estoit une folle entrepri--n--se, et qu'avecques -mon honneur Je ne vous pourries Jamaiis espouser, veu qu'estant marie vous -m'amenies et que ses gens ne l'endureroient pas et que les seigneurs se -dediroient. Somme il est tout contrair. Je luy ay dist qu'estant venue si -avant si vous ne vous en retiries de vous mesmes que persuasion ne la mort -mesmes ne me fairoient faillir --de-- a ma promesse. Quant au lieu vous -estes trop negligent (pardonnes moy) de vous en remettre a moy. Choisisses -le vous mesmes et me le mandes. Et cependant je suis malade je differeray -Quant au propose cest trop tard. Il n'a pas tins a moy que n'ayes pense a -heure. Et si vous neussies non plus change de --propos-- pensee depuis mon -absence que moy vous ne series a demander telle resolution. ^Or^ il ne -manque rien de ma part et puis que vostre negligence vous met tous deux au -danger d'un faux frere, s'il ne succede bien je ne me releveray Jamais. Il -vous envoy ce porteur. Car Je ne --m--'ose me fier a vostre frere de ces -lettres ni de la diligence, il vous dira en quelle estat Je suis, et Juges -quelle amendement--e-- m'a porte ce incertains Nouvelles. Je voudrais -estre morte. Car Je vois tout aller mal. Vous prometties bien autre chose -de vostre providence. Mais l'absence peult sur vous, qui aves deux cordes -a vostre arc. Depesches la responce a fin que Je ne faille et ne ^vous^ -fies de ceste entrepri--n--se a vostre frere. Car il la dist, et si y est -tout contrair. - -Dieu vous doint le bon soir. - - -LETTER VI - -PUBLISHED SCOTS TRANSLATION - -Of the place and ye tyme I remit my self to zour brother and to zow. I -will follow him, and will faill in nathing of my part. He findis mony -difficulteis. I think he dois advertise zow thairof, and quhat he desyris -for the handling of himself. As for the handling of myself, I hard it ains -weill devysit. - -Me thinks that zour services, and the lang amitie, having ye gude will of -ye Lordis, do weill deserve ane pardoun, gif abone the dewtie of ane -subject yow advance yourself, not to constrane me, bot to asure yourself -of sic place neir unto me, that uther admonitiounis or forane -perswasiounis may not let me from consenting to that that ye hope your -service sall mak yow ane day to attene. And to be schort, to mak yourself -sure of the Lordis, and fre to mary; and that ye are constraint for your -suretie, and to be abill to serve me faithfully, to use ane humbil -requeist joynit to ane importune actioun. - -And to be schort, excuse yourself, and perswade thame the maist ye can, -yat ye ar constranit to mak persute aganis zour enemies. Ze sall say -aneuch, gif the mater or ground do lyke yow; and mony fair wordis to -Lethingtoun. Gif ye lyke not the deid, send me word, and leif not the -blame of all unto me. - - -LETTER VII - -SCOTS VERSION - -My Lord, sen my letter writtin, zour brother in law yat was, come to me -verray sad, and hes askit me my counsel, quhat he suld do efter to morne, -becaus thair be mony folkis heir, and amang utheris the Erle of -Sudderland, quha wald rather die, considdering the gude thay have sa -laitlie ressavit of me, then suffer me to be caryit away, thay conducting -me; and that he feirit thair suld sum troubil happin of it: Of the uther -syde, that it suld be said that he wer unthankfull to have betrayit me. I -tald him, that he suld have resolvit with zow upon all that, and that he -suld avoyde, gif he culd, thay that were maist mistraistit. - -He hes resolvit to wryte to zow be my opinioun; for he hes abaschit me to -se him sa unresolvit at the neid. I assure myself he will play the part of -an honest man: But I have thocht gude to advertise zow of the feir he hes -yat he suld be chargeit and accusit of tressoun, to ye end yat' without -mistraisting him, ze may be the mair circumspect, and that ze may have ye -mair power. For we had zisterday mair than iii. c. hors of his and of -Levingstoun's. For the honour of God, be accompanyit rather with mair then -les; for that is the principal of my cair. - -I go to write my dispatche, and pray God to send us ane happy enterview -schortly. I wryte in haist, to the end ye may be advysit in tyme. - - -LETTER VIII - -ORIGINAL FRENCH VERSION - -(In the Record Office State Papers, Mary Queen of Scots, vol. ii. No. 66.) - -Monsieur si lenuy de vostre absence celuy de vostre oubli la crainte du -dangier, tant promis d'un chacun a vostre tant ayme personne peuuent me -consoller Je vous en lesse a juger veu le malheur que mon cruel sort et -continuel malheur mauoient promis a la suite des infortunes et craintes -tant recentes que passes de plus longue main les quelles vous scaves mais -pour tout cela Je me vous accuserai ni de peu de souuenance ni de peu de -soigne et moins encores de vostre promesse violee ou de la froideur de vos -lettres mestant ja tant randue vostre que ce quil vous plaist mest -agreable et sont mes penses tant volonterement, aux vostres a subjectes -que je veulx presupposer que tout ce que vient de vous procede non par -aulcune des causes de susdictes ains pour telles qui son justes et -raisoinables et telles qui Je desir moy --mesme-- qui est lordre que maves -promis de prendre final pour la seurete et honnorable service du seul -soubtien de ma vie pour qui seul Je la veus conserver et sens lequel Je ne -desire que breve mort or pour vous tesmoigner combien humblement sous voz -commandemens Je me soubmets Je vous ay envoie en signe d'homage par paris -lornement du cheif conducteur des aultres membres inferant que vous -investant de sa despoille de luy qui est principal le rest ne peult que -vous estre subject et avecques le consentement du cueur au lieu du quel -puis que le vous ay Ja lesse Je vous envoie un sepulcre de pierre dure -poinct de noir seme d'larmes et de ossements, la pierre Je le la compare a -mon cueur qui comme luy est talle en un seur tombeau ou receptacle de voz -commandements et sur tout de vostre nom et memoire qui y sont enclos, -comme me cheveulz en la bague pour Jamais nen sortir que la mort ne vous -permet fair trophee des mes os comme la bague en est remplie en signe que -vous aves fayt entiere conqueste de moy, de mon cueur et iusque a vous en -lesser les os pour memoir de vre victoire et de mon agreable perte et -volontiere pour estre mieux employe que ie ne le merite Lesmail demiron -est noir qui signifie la fermete de celle que lenvoie les larmes sont sans -nombre ausi sont les craintes de vous desplair les pleurs de vostre -absence et de desplaisir de ne pouvoir estre en effect exterieur vostre -comme je suys sans faintise de cueur et desprit et a bon droit quant mes -merites seroint trop plus grands que de la plus perfayte que Jamais feut -et telle que je desire estre et mettray poine en condition de contrefair -pour dignement estre emploiee soubs vostre domination, reseues la donc mon -seul bien en aussi bonne part, comme avecques extreme Joie Jay fait vostre -mariage, qui jusques a celuy de nos corps en public ne sortira de mon -sein, comme merque de tout ce que Jay ou espere ni desire de felicite en -ce monde or craignant mon cueuer de vous ennuyer autant a lire que je me -plaire descrir Je finiray apres vous avoir baise les mains daussi grande -affection que je prie Dieu (O le seul soubtien de ma vie) vous la donner -longue et heureuse et a moy vre bonne grace le seul bien que je desire et -a quoy je tends Jay dit a ce porteur ce que Jay apris sur le quel Je me -remets sachant, le credit que luy donnes comme fait celle que vous veult -estre pour Jamais humble et obeisante loyalle femme et seulle amye qui -pour Jamais vous voue entierement le cueur le corps sans aucun changement -comme a celuy que J fait possesseur du cueur du quel vous pouves tenir -seur Jusques a la mort ne changera car mal ni bien onque ne estrangera. - -[Illustration: PLATE F - -MODERN IMITATION OF MARY'S HAND - -The text is part of the 'Original French' of Letter VIII. (III.) - -The purpose is to show how far Mary's hand can be imitated] - - -LETTER IX - -THE FRENCH 'SONNETS' - - O dieux ayes de moy compassion - E m'enseignes quelle preuue certane - Je puis donner qui ne luy semble vain - De mon amour et ferme affection. - Las n'est il pas ia en possession - Du corps, du cueur qui ne refuse peine - Ny dishonneur, en la vie incertane, - Offence de parents, ne pire affliction? - Pour luy tous mes amys i'estime moins que rien, - Et de mes ennemis ie veulx esperere bien. - I'ay hazarde pour luy & nom & conscience: - Ie veux pour luy au monde renoncer: - Ie veux mourire pour luy auancer. - Que reste il plus pour prouuer ma constance? - - Entre ses mains & en son plein pouuoir - Je metz mon filz, mon honneur, & ma vie, - Mon pais, mes subjects mon ame assubiectie - Et toute a luy, & n'ay autre vouloir - Pour mon obiect que sens le disseuoir - Suiure ie veux malgre toute l'enuie - Qu'issir en peult, car ie nay autre envie - Que de ma foy, luy faire apparceuoir - Que pour tempest ou bonnace qui face - Iamais ne veux changer demeure ou place. - Brief ie farray de ma foy telle preuue, - Qu'il cognoistra sens feinte ma constance, - Non par mes pleurs ou feinte obeissance, - Come autres ont fait, mais par diuers espreuue. - - Elle pour son honneur vous doibt obeissance - Moy vous obeissant i'en puys resseuoir blasme - N'estat, a mon regret, come elle vostre femme. - Et si n'aura pourtant en ce point preeminence - Pour son proffit elle vse de constance, - Car ce n'est peu d'honneur d'estre de voz biens dame - Et moy pour vous aymer i'en puix resseuoir blasme - Et ne luy veux ceder en toute l'obseruance - Elle de vostre mal n'a l'apprehension - Moy ie n'ay nul repos tant ie crains l'apparence - Par l'aduis des parents, elle eut vostre acointance - Moy maugre tous les miens vous port affection - Et de sa loyaute prenes ferme asseurance. - - Par vous mon coeur & par vostre alliance - Elle a remis sa maison en honneur - Elle a jouy par vous de la grandeur - Dont tous les siens n'auoyent nul asseurance - De vous mon bien elle a eu la constance,[436] - Et a guagne pour vn temps vostre cueur, - Par vous elle a eu plaisir et bon heur, - Et pour vous a receu honneur & reuerence, - Et n'a perdu sinon la jouissance - D'vn fascheux sot qu'elle aymoit cherement. - Ie ne la plains d'aymer donc ardamment, - Celuy qui n'a en sens, ni en vaillance, - En beaute, en bonte, ni en constance - Point de seconde. Ie vis en ceste foy. - - Quant vous l'aymes, elle vsoit de froideur. - Sy vous souffriez, pour s'amour passion - Qui vient d'aymer de trop d'affection, - Son doil monstroit, la tristesse de coeur - N'ayant plesir de vostre grand ardeur - En ses habitz, mon estroit sens fiction - Qu'elle n'auoyt peur qu'imperfection - Peult l'affasser hors de ce loyal coeur. - De vostre mort ie ne vis la peaur - Que meritoit tel mary & seigneur. - Somme de vous elle a eu tout son bien - Et n'a prise ne iamais estime - Vn si grand heur sinon puis qu'il n'est sien - Et maintenant dist l'auoyr tant ayme. - - Et maintenant elle commence a voire - Qu'elle estoit bien de mauuais iugement - De n'estimer l'amour d'vn tel amant - Et vouldroit bien mon amy desseuoir, - Par les escripts tout fardes de scauoir - Qui pour tant n'est en son esprit croissant - Ayns emprunte de quelque auteur eluissant. - A feint tresbien vn enuoy sans l'avoyr - Et toutesfois ses parolles fardez, - Ses pleurs, ses plaints remplis de fictions. - Et ses hautes cris & lamentations - Ont tant guagne que par vous sont guardes. - Ses lettres escriptes ausquells vous donnez foy - Et si l'aymes & croyez plus que moy. - - Vous la croyes las trop ie l'appercoy - Et vous doutez de ma ferme constance, - O mon seul bien & mon seul esperance, - Et ne vous peux ie[437] asseurer de ma foy - Vous m'estimes legier je le voy, - Et si n'auez en moy nul asseurance, - Et soubconnes mon coeur sans apparence, - Vous deffiant a trop grande tort de moy. - Vous ignores l'amour que ie vous porte - Vous soubconnez qu'autre amour me transporte, - Vous estimes mes parolles du vent, - Vous depeignes de cire mon las coeur - Vous me penses femme sans iugement, - Et tout cela augmente mon ardeur. - - Mon amour croist & plus en plus croistra - Tant que je viuray, et tiendra a grandeur, - Tant seulement d'auoir part en ce coeur - Vers qui en fin mon amour paroitra - Si tres a cler que iamais n'en doutra, - Pour luy ie veux recercher la grandeure, - Et faira tant qu'en vray connoistra, - Que ie n'ay bien, heur, ni contentement, - Qu' a l'obeyr & servir loyamment. - Pour luy iattendz toute bon fortune. - Pour luy ie veux guarder sante & vie - Pour luy tout vertu de suiure i'ay enuie - Et sens changer me trouuera tout vne. - - Pour luy aussi ie jete mainte larme. - Premier quand il se fit de ce corps possesseur, - Du quel alors il n'auoyt pas le coeur. - Puis me donna vn autre dure alarme - Quand il versa de son sang maint drasme - Dont de grief il me vint lesser doleur,[438] - Qui me pensa oster la vie, & la frayeur - De[439] perdre las la seule rempar qui m'arme. - Pour luy depuis iay mesprise l'honneur - Ce qui nous peut seul prouoir de bonheur. - Pour luy iay hasarde grandeur[440] & conscience. - Pour luy tous mes parents i'ay quiste, & amys, - Et tous aultres respects sont a part mis. - Brief de vous seul ie cherche l'alliance. - - De vous ie dis seul soubtein de ma vie - Tant seulement ie cherche m'asseurer, - Et si ose de moy tant presumer - De vous guagner maugre toute l'enuie. - Car c'est le seul desir de vostre chere amye, - De vous seruir & loyaument aymer, - Et tous malheurs moins que riens estimer, - Et vostre volunte de la mien suiure. - Vous conoistres avecques obeissance - De mon loyal deuoir n'omettant la science - A quoy i'estudiray pour tousiours vous complaire - Sans aymer rien que vous, soubs la suiection - De qui ie veux sens nulle fiction - Viure & mourir & a ce j'obtempere. - - Mon coeur, mon sang, mon ame, & mon soussy, - Las, vous m'aues promes qu'aurois ce plaisir - De deuiser auecques vous a loysir, - Toute la nuit, ou ie languis icy - Ayant le coeur d'extreme peour transie, - Pour voir absent le but de mon desir - Crainte d'oubly vn coup me vient a saisir: - Et l'autrefois ie crains que rendursi - Soit contre moy vostre amiable coeur - Par quelque dit d'un meschant rapporteur. - Un autrefoys ie crains quelque auenture - Qui par chemin deturne mon amant, - Par vn fascheux & nouueau accident - Dieu deturne toute malheureux augure. - - Ne vous voyant selon qu'aues promis - I'ay mis la main au papier pour escrire - D'vn different que ie voulou transcrire, - le ne scay pas quel sera vostre aduise - Mais ie scay bien qui mieux aymer scaura - Vous diries bien qui plus y guagnera. - - - - -CRAWFORD'S DEPOSITION - -(State Papers, Scotland, Elizabeth, vol. xiii. No. 14. Cal. Foreign State -Papers, Elizabeth, vol. viii. No. 954, February 1566-7.) - - - The Wordes betwixt the Q. and me Thomas Crawforde bye the waye as she - came to Glasco to fetche the kinge, when mye L. my Master sent me to - showe her the cause whye he came not to mete her him sellfe. - -Firste I made my L. mye masters humble comendacons vnto her Ma{ti} w{th} -thexcuse y{t} he came not to mete her praing her grace not to thinke it -was eath{r} for prowdnesse or yet for not knowinge hys duetye towardes her -highnesse, but onelye for want of hely{e} at y{e} present, and allso y{t} -he woulde not psume to com in her presence vntille he knewe farder her -minde bicause of the sharpe Wordes y{t} she had spoken of him to Robert -Cuningh{a}m hys servant in Sterling. Wherebye he thought he Was in her -Ma{tis} displesvre Notwithstanding he hathe sent hys servant and frend to -waite vppon her Ma{ti}. - -She aunswered y{t} there was no recept against feare. - -I aunswered y{t} mye L. had no feare for anie thinge he knewe in him -sellf, but onelye of the colde and vnkinde Wordes she had spoken to hys -servant. - -She aunswered and said y{t} he woulde not be a fraide in case he were not -culpable. - -I aunswered y{t} I knewe so farr of hys Lordsh. y{t} he desired nothing -more than y{t} the secretts vf everye creatures harte were writte in -theire face. - -She asked me yf I had anie farder comission. - -I aunswered no. - -Then she comaunded me to holde mye peace. - - The Wordes y{t} I rememb{r} were betwixt the Kinge and the Q. in - Glasco when she took him awaie to Edinbrowghe. - -The Kinge for y{t} mye L. hys father was then absent and sicke, bye reason -whereof he could not speke w{th} him him sellfe, called me vnto him and -theise wordes that had then passed betwixt him and the Quene, he gaue me -in remembraunce to reporte vnto the said mye Lord hys father. - -After theire metinge and shorte speking to geth{r} she asked him of his -lres, wherein he complained of the cruelltye of som. - -He aunswered y{t} he complained not w{th}owt cause and as he beleved, she -woulde graunte her sellfe when she was well advised. - -She asked him of hys sicknesse, he answered y{t} she was the cause -thereof, and moreover he saide, Ye asked me What I ment bye the crueltye -specified in mye lres, yt procedeth of yo{w} onelye y{t} wille not accepte -mye offres and repentaunce, I confesse y{t} I haue failed in som thing, -and yet greater fautes haue bin made to yo{w} sundrye times, w{ch} ye haue -forgiue. I am but yonge, and ye will saye ye haue forgiue me diverse -tymes. Maye not a man of mye age for lacke of Counselle, of w{ch} I am -verye destitute falle twise or thrise, and yet repent and be chastised bye -experience? Yf I haue made anye faile y{t} ye but thinke a faile, howe so -ever it be, I crave yo{r} pdone and protest y{t} I shall never faile -againe. I desire no oth{r} thinge but y{t} we maye be to geath{r} as -husband and wife. And yf ye will not consent hereto, I desire never to -rise forthe of thys bed. Therefore I praye yo{w} give me an aunswer here -vnto. God knowethe howe I am punished for makinge mye god of yo{w} and for -having no oth{r} thowght but on yo{w}. And yf at anie tyme I offend yo{w}, -ye are the cause, for y{t} whe anie offendethe me, if for mye refuge I -might open mye minde to yo{w}, I woulde speak to no other, but whe anie -thinge ys spoke to me, and ye and I not beinge as husband and wife owght -to be, necessite compelleth me to kepe it in my breste and bringethe me in -suche melancolye as ye see me in. - -She aunswered y{t} it semed him she was sorye for hys sicknesse, and she -woulde finde remedye therefore so sone as she might. - -She asked him Whye he woulde haue passed awaye in Thenglishe shipp. - -He aunswered y{t} he had spoke w{t} thenglishe ma but not of minde to goe -awaie w{t} him. And if he had, it had not bin w{th}owt cause consideringe -howe he was vsed. For he had neath{r} to susteine him sellfe nor hys -servant, and nede not make farder rehersalle thereof, seinge she knewe it -as well as he. - -Then she asked him of the purpose of Hegate, he aunswered y{t} it was -tolde him. - -She required howe and bye whome it was told him. - -He aunswered y{t} the L. of Minto tolde him y{t} a lre was presented to -her in Cragmiller made bye her own divise and subscribed by certeine -others who desired her to subscribe the same, w{ch} she refused to doe. -And he said that he woulde never thinke y{t} she who was his owne propre -fleshe, woulde do him anie hurte, and if anie oth{r} woulde do it, theye -shuld bye it dere, vnlesse theye took him sleping, albeit he suspected -none. So he desired her effectuouslye to beare him companye. For she ever -fownde som adoe to drawe her selfe fro him to her owne lodginge and woulde -never abyde w{t} him past two howres at once. - -She was verye pensiffe. Whereat he fownd faulte he said to her y{t} he was -adv{r}tised she had browght a litter w{t} her. - -She aunswered y{t} bicause she vnderstoode he was not hable to ryde on -horseback, she brought a litter, y{t} he might be caried more softlye. - -He aunswered y{t} yt was not mete for a sick ma to travelle y{t} coulde -not sitt on horsebacke and especiallye in so colde weather. - -She aunswered y{t} she would take him to Cragmiller where she might be -w{t} him and not farre from her sonne. - -He aunswered y{t} vppon condicon he would goe w{th} her w{ch} was that he -and she might be to geath{r} at bedde and borde as husband and wife, and -y{t} she should leaue him no more. And if she would promise him y{t}, -vppon her worde he would goe w{th} her, where she pleised w{th}owt -respecte of anye dang{r} eath{r} of sicknesse, wherein he was, or -otherwise. But if she would not condescend thereto, he would not goe w{th} -her in anye wise. - -She aunswered that her comminge was onelye to that effecte, and if she had -not bin minded thereto, she had not com so farre to fetche him, and so she -graunted hys desire and p{o}mised him y{t} it should be as he had spoken, -and therevppon gave him her hand and faithe of her bodye y{t} she woulde -love him and vse him as her husband. Notwithstanding before theye coulde -com to geath{r} he must be purged and clensed of hys sicknesse, w{ch} she -truisted woulde be shortlye for she minded to giue him the bathe at -Cragmill{r}. Than he said he would doe what soever she would have him doe, -and would love all that she loved. She required of him in especialle, -whome he loved of the nobilitie and Whome he hated. - -He aunswered y{t} he hated no ma, and loved all alike well. - -She asked him how he liked the Ladye Reresse and if he were angrye w{th} -her. - -He aunswered y{t} he had litle minde of suche as she was, and wished of -God she might serve her to her hono{r}. - -Then she desired him to kepe to him sellfe the promise betwixt him and -her, and to open it to nobodye. For padventure the Lordes woulde not -thinke welle of their suddine agrement, consideringe he and theye were at -some wordes before. - -He aunswered that he knew no cause whye theye shulde mislike of it, and -desired her y{t} she would not move anye of the against him even as he -woulde stirre none againste her, and y{t} theye would worke bothe in one -mind, otherwise it might tourne to great{r} inconvenience to them bothe. - -She aunswered y{t} she never sowght anye waie bye him, but he was in fault -him sellfe. - -He aunswered againe y{t} hys faultes were published and y{t} there were -y{t} made great{r} faultes than ever he made y{t} beleved were vnknowne, -and yet theye woulde speke of greate and smale. - -Farder the Kinge asked me at y{t} present time what I thowght of hys -voyage. I aunswered y{t} I liked it not, bicause she tooke him to -Cragmill{r}. For if she had desired him w{th} her sellf or to have had hys -companye, she would haue taken him to hys owne howse in Edinbr. Where she -might more easely visit him, than to travelle two myles owt of the towne -to a gentlemais house. Therefore mye opinio was y{t} she tooke him awaye -more like a prison{r} than her husbande. - -He aunswered y{t} he thowght litle lesse him sellf and feared him sellfe -indeid save the confidence, he had in her promise onelye, notwithstandinge -he woulde goe w{th} her, and put him sellfe in her handes, thowghe she -showlde cutte hys throate and besowghte God to be iudge vnto them bothe. - -_Endorsed_: 'Thomas Crawford deposit.' - - - - -INDEX - - - Abercairnie, Laird of, Mary's appeal to him on behalf of evicted - cottars, 8 - - 'Actio,' the, quoted, on Darnley's murder, 141, 142 - - 'Admonition to the Trew Lordis,' cited, 151 - - Ainslie's band, purport of, 177, 178; - defaulters from, 181; - Morton's stipulation, 254; - signers of, 329, 330; - Morton's adhesion to, 383 - - Alava, Beaton's statement to him about Moray, 210 - - Alloa, Mary at, 80 - - 'Appeal to Christian Princes,' cited, 240 - - Argyll, Earl of, disliked by Darnley, 73; - lodged by Mary in Edinburgh Castle during her labour, 73, 75; - at Craigmillar, 98; - Paris's statement as to him and Mary on the night of Darnley's murder, - 161; - in confederation against Bothwell, 181; - cited, 38 - - Arran, Earl of, blamed by Bothwell as the cause of the Protestant - rebellion, 47; - feud with Bothwell, 47, 49; - reconciled to him through Knox, 50; - discloses to Knox Bothwell's plot to seize Mary, 50; - apprises Mary of the plot, 51 - - Atholl, Earl of (member of council), 172; - confederated against Bothwell, 181; - cited, 203 - - - Baillie Hamilton, Lady, on the Hamilton casket, 368, 369, 370 - - Balcanquell, Rev. Walter, receives Morton's confession, 148 - - Balfour, Sir James, concerned in the murder 'band' against Darnley, 88, - 90, 99; - gives Bothwell the keys of Mary's room at Kirk o' Field, 163; - persuaded by Lethington to surrender Edinburgh Castle, 186; - charged by Mary with complicity in Darnley's murder, 189; - the Casket in his keeping, 198; - holds Edinburgh Castle, 274 - - Ballantyne, Patrick, said to have menaced Mary's life, 38 - - 'Band of assurance for the murder' of Riccio, 67, 68 - - Bannatyne (Knox's secretary), his account of the death of the Earl of - Huntly, 38 - - Bannister (Norfolk's servant), Norfolk's statement to him regarding - Letter II., 357 - - Bargany, Laird of, at cards with Archibald Douglas, 32 - - Barham, Serjeant, asserts that Lethington stole the Casket Letters and - that his wife copied them, 248; - denies that Mary received French copies, 249 - - Beaton, Archbishop (Mary's ambassador in France), communicates with Mary - about Hiegait and Walker, 110, 114; - affirms that Moray is Mary's mortal enemy, 210 - - Beaton, Archibald (Mary's usher), Mary's concern for, 6; - misses the keys at Kirk o' Field, 164, 165 - - Beaton, James (Archbishop Beaton's brother), joins Mary at Dunbar, 186; - with her at Carberry Hill, 187; - on Lethington's treacherous behaviour to Mary, 190 - - Beaton, Mary (one of the Queen's Maries), 4; - and Ogilvy of Boyne, 26; - her aunts at feud with Mary, 356; - her handwriting, 364 - - Beaufort, Jane (widow of James I.), 45 - - Bedford, Earl of (Elizabeth's ambassador), fears that Mary secretly - abetted Bothwell, 56; - on Riccio, 59; - declares Bothwell to be hated in Scotland, 80; - instructs his suite not to recognise Darnley as king, 106 - - Bellenden (Justice Clerk), member of council, 172, 203; - implicated in Riccio's murder, 203 - - Binning (Archibald Douglas's servant), his confession, 148 - - Birrel ('Diary'), on the blowing up of Kirk o' Field, 140; - on the date Mary left Edinburgh, 292; - nd that of her visit to Glasgow, 379, 380 - - Black Friars, the Dominican Monastery of, 124, 125, 126, 127, 130, 131 - - Blackader, William (Bothwell's retainer), hanged denying his guilt, 153, - 195; - cited, 165 - - Blackwood, on unsigned letters attributed to Mary, 198, 212 - - Blavatsky case, the, cited, 278, 279 - - Bolton, Mary at, 249, 250, 251, 283 - - Book of Articles, cited, 59, 86, 94, 95, 107, 114, 255, 271, 272, 278, - 279, 280, 281, 316, 318 note, 322; - on the conference at Craigmillar, 96; - on Darnley's murder, 141, 142, 148; - on the Glasgow letters, 308, 317; - its supposed author, 318 - - Borthwick Castle, Mary and Douglas at, 185 - - Bothwell (James Hepburn, Earl of), personal appearance, 14, 18; - age at Darnley's murder, 14; - literary tastes, 15; - character as depicted by his foes, 15; - his courage in question, 16; - handwriting, 17; - study of works on art magic, 17; - accused of winning Mary's favour by witchcraft, 17, 36; - his standard of culture compared with that of Scots nobles, 18; - masterful nature, 18; - hatred of Maitland of Lethington, 25; - epitome of early career, 46; - espouses the cause of Mary of Guise, 47; - seizes Cockburn of Ormiston, 47, 49; - deceives and deserts Anne Throndsoen under promise of marriage, 47; - said to have had three wives simultaneously, 48; - at the French Court, 49; - feud and reconciliation with Earl of Arran, 47, 49, 50; - solicits Arran's aid in a plot to seize Mary, 50; - warded in, but escapes from, Edinburgh Castle, 51, 53; - in league with Huntly, 53; - Lieut.-General and Admiral, 54; - Elizabeth's prisoner at Holy Island, 54; - Captain of the Scottish Guards in France, 54; - said to have accused Mary of incestuous relations with her uncle the - Cardinal, 54; - returns to Scotland and his Border fastness, 56; - outlawed, 56; - summoned by Mary to assist her, 57; - ill-feeling towards Darnley, 57; - marries Lady Jane Gordon, 26, 68; - rescues Mary from prison after Riccio's murder, 69; - intrigues with Darnley for the ruin of Moray and Lethington, 72, 73; - at the Border during Mary's accouchement, 76; - Bedford's statement that he was the most hated man in Scotland, 80; - reconciled by Mary to Lethington, 81; - his guilty intimacy with Mary, 82, 83; - concerned in the murder 'band' against Darnley, 90, 98, 99; - wounded in Liddesdale, 93; - visited by Mary at Hermitage Castle, 93; - his share in Darnley's murder, 117, 118, 136, 139, 142, 144, 145, 147, - 148, 149, 150, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 171, - 172, 175; - escapes to Denmark, 154; - Paris's evidence as to familiarities between him and Mary, 162; - his possession of the keys to Mary's room at Kirk o' Field, 163, 164, - 165; - influence over Mary, 176; - objects of 'Ainslie's band,' 177, 178, 181, 329, 330, 383; - seizes Mary and takes her to Dunbar, 179, 330, 332; - is created by Mary Duke of Orkney, and marries her, 183; - intimacy with his divorced wife after marriage with Mary, 27, 184; - at Carberry Hill, 16, 186; - gives Mary a copy of the Darnley murder band, 187; - summons from the Lords for Darnley's murder and Mary's abduction, 202; - tried and declared innocent of Darnley's murder, 177; - Mary's alleged letter inciting him to Darnley's murder, 211, 212 - (_see_ Casket Letter II.); - the Privy Council's Declaration, 239; - Mary's submissive attitude to him, 315; - said to have been present at the brawl between Darnley and Lord Robert - Stuart, 328; - advice given by Mary as to his relations with the Lords, 331; - ring sent him by Mary, 335, 337, 341; - betrothal ring given by him to Mary, 340; - letters to his wife after his marriage with Mary, 351; - place of his death and burial, 371, 372, 373. - _See_ Mary Stuart - - Bothwell, Lady. _See_ Lady Jane Gordon - - Bowes (Elizabeth's envoy to Scotland), 365; - tries to induce Gowrie to give up the Casket, 366 - - Bowton, Hepburn of, his statement of Darnley's murder, 143, 144, 146, - 158, 165, 170, 233, 278, 280, 310; - dying confession, 167; - execution, 139 - - Boyd, Lord, 73 - - Brantome, on Bothwell's personal appearance, 18; - on the Casket Sonnets, 344 - - Branxholme, the Lady of, rails at Mary's marriage with Bothwell, 184 - - Bresslau, Herr, on the Casket Letters, 387 - - Buchan, Earl of (grandfather of Christian Stewart), 19 - - Buchan, Master of, killed at Pinkie, 19 - - Buchanan, George (poet and historian), celebrates Mary's virtues, 15; - his inaccurate accounts of her behaviour, 33, 34; - anecdotes of visions portending Darnley's fate, 37; - tale of Mary at Alloa with Bothwell, 80; - on the guilty intimacy of Mary and Bothwell, 81; - respecting Lady Reres, 82, 83; - on the Craigmillar conference, 96, 97, 98; - Latin elegiacs on Mary, 105; - on Darnley's murder, 141; - his treatment of the Darnley case, 148-151; - on Paris's Deposition, 157; - on Darnley's meek endurance of Mary's slights, 314; - account of a brawl between Darnley and Lord Robert Stuart, 323, 328 - - - Caithness, Earl of (member of council), 172 - - Calderwood, on Morton's warrant from Mary for signing Ainslie's band, 254 - - Callendar, Mary at, 112, 318 note - - Camden, on Lethington counterfeiting Mary's handwriting, 357, 358 - - Carberry Hill, Mary and Bothwell at, 186 - - Cardauns, M., on the translations of the Casket Letters, 386 - - Carwood, Margaret, Mary's intended bequest of a casket to, 365 - - Casket, the, official description of, 365; - the one in possession of the Hamilton family, 367-370 - - Casket Letter I., its place in order of composition, 290, 291; - question of date, 291, 292; - intelligible if classed as Letter II., 293; - purport, 293; - reference to Lethington in English copy, 294; - possibly authentic and indicating a presumptively authentic Letter - II., 295; - published Scots and English translations, 391-393 - - Casket Letter II., shows Mary's complicity in the murder of Darnley, 14; - not genuine if the chronology of Cecil's Journal be accepted, 296; - authenticity opposed by the letter cited by Moray and Lennox, 296, 320; - probably garbled, 297, 300; - difficulties of internal chronology, 297; - Crawford's corroboration of parts, 297; - theory of dovetailing by a forger, 300 et seq.; - objections based on Crawford's written Deposition, 302-304; - verbal identities with Crawford's account, 305, 306; - differences from, 307; - reveals Darnley's unconcealed knowledge of Mary's relations with - Bothwell, 307; - German theory respecting correspondence of deposition with, 308; - influence of Mary's memoranda with regard to genuineness, 309; - forgery--balance of probabilities, 309, 313, 314; - not inconsistent with Mary's style and character, 313; - shows Mary's remorse and submission to Bothwell, 315; - reasons pointing to partial genuineness, 316; - the phrase 'a more secret way by medicine,' 317; - confused by Buchanan with the letter described by Moray and Lennox, - 318; - the 'ludgeing' in Edinburgh, 318; - the Craigmillar reference, 319, 320; - represents Mary as tortured by remorse, 348; - published Scots and English translations, 393-414; - concerning, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 229, 232, 245, 253 - - Casket Letter III., copy of the French original, 322; - gives brawl between Darnley and Lord Robert Stuart, 323-328; - its affected style, 325, 328; - original French version at Hatfield, 414, 415 - - Casket Letter IV., subject of, 329; - original French version, 416 - - Casket Letter V., concerning Mary's abduction by Bothwell, 329, 330; - the several translations, 330; - original French version at Hatfield, 417, 418 - - Casket Letter VI., Mary advises Bothwell as to his relations with the - Lords, 331; - her excuses for her marriage with Bothwell, 331, 332; - published Scots translation, 418 - - Casket Letter VII., subject of, 333; - coincidence with Mary's instructions to Bishop of Dunblane, 359, 360; - Scots version, 419 - - Casket Letter VIII. (III. in Henderson): reproaches Bothwell with - coldness, 334; - concerning the enamel ring sent by Mary to Bothwell, 335; - refers to a betrothal ring received by her from Bothwell, 336; - affectation of its style, 336; - Mary's gift of a symbolic mourning ring to Bothwell, 337, 341; - contract of marriage with Bothwell, 337, 338; - unknown date, 339; - theory of its having been written to Darnley, 339; - circumstances in Mary's relations with Bothwell referred to, 339; - original French version, 420, 421 - - Casket Letter IX.: the French Sonnets, 422, 426 - - Casket Letters: their discovery, 195, 274, 275; - early tampering with suggested, 198, 199, 200, 208; - published in Scots, Latin, and French, 198; - Scots versions compared with French originals, 226, 243; - unsigned copies, 240; - Scots versions sent to Mary by Lethington's wife, 248; - French copies, 273; - English translations, 274; - original language in which they were written, 346; - phraseology and orthography, 347; - tone and style, 347, 348; - compared with the Sonnets, 349, 350; - uniformity of sentiment and passion, 350, 351, 352; - authenticity considered, 352; - Lethington's suspected garbling, 361; - Archibald Douglas a possible forger, 362; - translations of, 385-391. - _See_ under each Casket Letter - - Casket Sonnets, 217; - Mary's love for Bothwell depicted, 235; - topics of, 345; - prove Mary's passion for Bothwell, 345; - compared with the Letters, 349; - the French, 422, 426 - - Cassilis (member of council), 172 - - Catherine de Medicis, 84, 85, 87, 89, 92, 192 - - Catholic League, the, 64 - - Cauldwell, Alexander (a retainer of Eglintoun's), arrested by Mary, 103; - denies the rumour that Darnley was to be put in ward, 110, 111 - - Cecil (William Lord Burghley), his account of Riccio's murder, 68; - avers that Bothwell obtained his divorce by accusing himself of an - amour with Lady Reres, 82; - circulates libels about Mary, but does not use Paris's confession, 168; - knows of the existence of the Casket Letters and their proposed uses, - 201; - Jhone a Forret's mission to him, 209; - receives the Itinerary of Mary, 277, 291, 296; - on Mary's stay at Callendar, 318 note; - Kirkcaldy's letter to him, 359; - hints at Lethington's manipulation of the Casket Letters, 361; - his description of the Casket, 369 - - Chalmers, David (a friend of Bothwell), 82 - - Charles IX. of France, 80; - resents the publication of the Casket Letters, 200 - - Chastelard, cited, 39 - - Chatelherault, Duke of (heir to the Scottish Crown), 10; - suit to be restored, 61; - acquires and builds a chateau on land near Kirk o' Field, 125 - - Clark, Captain (in command of Scots in Danish service), Paris extradited - to him, 154, 374; - in correspondence with Moray, 154 - - Clernault (Frenchman), on the blowing up of Kirk o' Field, 140 - - Cockburn of Ormiston, seized by Bothwell while carrying English money to - the Lords, 47; - his son carried off by Bothwell, 49 - - Coventry, Mary at, 337 and note - - Craig (Protestant preacher), denounces Mary's marriage with Bothwell, - 183; - Lethington's statement to him of his offer to Mary, 188 - - Craigmillar Castle, conference at, 91, 95, 96, 98, 99, 103, 319, 320 - - Crawford, Thomas (Lennox's retainer), 35; - on Mary's visit to Darnley at Glasgow, 113; - Lennox's letter to him, 226; - deposition at Westminster, 276; - second deposition, 280, 310; - substantiates part of Letter II., 297; - verbal identities of his deposition with, and differences from, Letter - II., 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 385, 389, 390; - his private character, 309, 310, 312; - one indication of the truth of his oath, 311; - deposition anglicised from the Scots, 312; - full text of his deposition, 427-431 - - Crokat, May (Mrs. Stirling), sees the murderers of Darnley, 147 - - Cullen, Captain James (a soldier of fortune), 35; - officer of the guard to Mary, 151; - share in the Darnley murder, 152; - executed, 153; - his evidence burked, 156 - - Cunningham, Robert (Lennox's retainer), Lennox's letter to him, 226 - - - Dalgleish, George (Bothwell's valet), his confession regarding Darnley's - murder, 84, 143, 144, 145, 146, 167, 195, 274, 278; - under torture reveals the Casket, 275; - executed, 144 - - Darnley, Henry Lord (son of Earl of Lennox), genealogy, 10; - letter to Mary Tudor, 10; - physical, moral and mental characteristics, 11, 18; - influence on Mary, 12; - marries her, 13, 57; - petulance and arrogance of his disposition, 13; - habits and health, 13; - on the possessions of Moray, 19; - his tragic end foretold in spiritual visions, 37; - at feud with the Lennox Stewarts, 58; - estranged from Mary, 59; - fondness for hunting, 60, 61, 62, 63; - removed from Mary's Council, 60, 62; - at Peebles, 62; - affects to believe in, and have proofs of, Riccio's amour with Mary, - 63, 65, 67; - schemes with his father to obtain the crown, 66; - in league with Ruthven and Morton, 67; - present at Riccio's slaying, 67; - list of those who aided him in the murder, 67; - his treachery to his associates after Riccio's murder, 71; - Mary's growing dislike of him, 73; - tale of Mary's proposal to him to make Lady Moray his mistress, 74, 86; - urged to ruin Moray and Lethington, 76; - Mary's gift of a bed to him, 81; - at Meggatdale with Mary, 81; - threatens to fly the country, 84, 85; - invited to state his grievances before the Council, 85; - powerful nobles against him, 85, 87; - determined not to be present at the baptism of his son, 86; - evidence of a signed 'band' against him, 87, 88, 90; - visits Mary at Jedburgh, 95, 96; - warned by Lennox of a plan to put him in ward, 101; - does not attend his son's baptism, 105; - denied his title to the kingship, 106; - will not associate with the English therefor, 106; - anecdote of his treatment by Mary, at Stirling, 107; - wild projects attributed to him, 108; - complains of Mary to the Pope and Catholic Powers, 109; - rumours of his intended arrest, 111; - falls ill at Glasgow, 112; - his reply to Mary when she offers to visit him, 112; - Crawford's account of his interview with Mary, 113; - returns with her to Edinburgh, 113; - the poison suggestion of his illness, 114; - brought to Kirk o' Field, 115; - situation, environs, and interior of Kirk o' Field, 123-133; - his letter to Lennox three days before his death, 133; - Mary's interview with him on the eve of the explosion, 135; - his last hours, 136; - statements and theories of the manner of his death, 136, 138, 139, - 140, 141, 142, 149, 150; - confessions of some of his murderers, 141-153; - his probable murderers, 169; - the band for his murder, 381-385 - - De Foix (French ambassador), Cecil's account to him of Riccio's murder, - 68 - - De Silva (Spanish ambassador) discusses, with Elizabeth, Mary's share in - Darnley's murder, 171, 172; - knowledge of the Casket Letters, 197; - mentions their existence to Elizabeth, 201; - statement made to him by Mary's confessor, 210; - Moray reports a guilty letter of Mary's, 211, 214; - notifies Elizabeth of the Lords' possession of the Casket Letters, 353 - - 'Detection,' on the Craigmillar conference, 96; - on the Casket Letters, 200 - - 'Diurnal of Occurrents,' quoted, 36, 139, 292, 378, 380 - - Douglas, Archibald (cousin of Morton), the 'parson of Glasgow,' 30, 31; - in Riccio's murder, 31; - in Darnley's murder, 31, 147, 148, 274; - Morton's go-between, 31; - judge of Court of Session, 32, 147; - career of treachery, 32, 33; - states the existence of the Darnley murder band, 87, 90; - letter to Mary in exile, 89; - account of the band signed by Moray, 91; - endeavours to propitiate Mary, 117, 118, 119; - considered as a forger of the Letters, 362 - - Douglas, George, concerned in Riccio's murder, 65; - witness against Moray and Lethington, 76 - - Douglas, Lady (Moray's mother), 20 - - Douglas, Robert (brother of Archibald), at the discovery of the Casket - Letters, 275 - - Douglas, Sir George (father of the Earl of Morton), his treacherous - character, 29 - - Douglas, William, rescuer of Mary from Loch Leven, 6, 7, 34 - - Douglas, William (of Whittingham), accuses his brother Archibald of - forging letters, 32, 362 - - Dragsholm, Castle of, in Denmark, where Bothwell died, 372, 373 - - Drummond Castle, Mary at, 112 - - Drumquhassel, 35 - - Drury, quoted, on Captain Cullen, 152; - aware of Bothwell's projected seizure of Mary, 180; - stays Nelson at Berwick, 319 note - - Du Croc (French ambassador), on Bothwell's courage, 16; - on differences between Darnley and Mary, 85, 86, 95; - high opinion of Mary, 87; - on Bothwell's wound, 93; - declines to meet Darnley, 106; - finds Mary in tears at Stirling, 107; - opposed to Mary's marriage with Bothwell, 183; - on Lethington's interview with Mary after Carberry, 188; - leaves Scotland with copies of Casket Letters, 197, 198, 199 - - Dunbar, Mary at, 180, 186 - - Dunblane, Bishop of, letter presented by him to the Court of France in - excuse of Mary's marriage with Bothwell, 331, 333; - coincidence of Mary's instruction to, with Letter VII., 359, 360 - - Durham, Sandy (Bothwell's servant), asks Paris for the key of Kirk o' - Field, 163 - - Durie, Rev. John, receives Morton's confession, 148 - - - Edinburgh, Mary's midnight revels in, 4; - in Mary's time, 40, 41, 42; - insanitariness, 41; - street brawling, 43; - social condition, 43; - house in, referred to in Mary's letters, 316, 317, 318 - - Edinburgh Castle, Bothwell prisoner in, 51, 53; - Mary gives birth to James VI. at, 75; - Sir James Balfour holds, 274 - - Eglintoun, Lord, an untrustworthy Lennoxite, 110, 111; - evades subscription to the Ainslie band, 178 - - Elizabeth, Queen, acknowledges Mary's physical and mental charm, 3, 4; - regards her as a rival, 9; - opinion of Maitland of Lethington, 24; - pestered to recognise Mary as her successor, 55; - congratulations on birth of James VI., 76; - her baptismal gift as godmother, 105; - receives Paris's deposition, 154; - discusses with De Silva Darnley's murder, 171, 172; - Lords appeal to her against Mary, 184, 185; - wavers between Mary and the dominant Scots party, 195; - acquainted with the discovery of the Casket Letters, 196; - angry with Lethington about them, 201; - communicates with Mary in Lochleven, 202; - demands of Moray the reason of the Lords' rebellion, 228, 229; - favourably inclined to Mary, 237; - removes the conference from York to London, 260; - her Council at Hampton Court, 264; - declines Mary's appeal for a hearing before her, 269; - asks for the Letters, 269; - adds to commissioners at Westminster, 277; - debars Mary her presence, 281, 282; - offers Mary three choices, 283; - refuses to permit Mary the sight of originals or copies of the - Letters, 284; - absolves both Moray and Mary, 285; - suspects Lethington of tampering with Letters, 353, 355, 358; - acquaints Mary with Robert Melville's efforts, 355 - - Elphinstone, Nicholas (Moray's messenger), not allowed to give Mary - Moray's letters at Loch Leven, 210 - - Erskine, Arthur, 34; - escorts Mary to Dunbar, 69 - - - Faarvejle Church, Denmark, Bothwell's body and grave in, 371 et seq. - - Fitzwilliam, John (of Gray's Inn), Lesley's letter to him, 286 note - - Fleming, Dr. Hay, on Bothwell's outlawry, 56 - - Fleming, Mary (Queen Mary's favourite attendant), 4; - her love affair with Maitland of Lethington, 24; - when Lethington's wife, copies the Letters, 247, 248 - - Fleming (member of council), 172 - - Forbes of Reres, kills Moray's secretary, 33 - - Foster, Sir John, 54; - on Mary's visit to Bothwell, 94; - on the Liddesdale reivers, 180 - - Froude, Mr. (historian), his opinion of Moray, 22; - on the discovery of the Casket Letters, 196; - on the Glasgow Letter, 212, 213; - on Mary's attitude towards the Letters, 245 - - - Galloway, Bishop of (member of council), 172 - - Glasgow, in the sixteenth century, 39; - Darnley ill at, 112 - - Glasgow Letter, the, 135, 162, 168, 211, 212, 213, 214, 225, 229, 255. - _See_ Letter II. - - Glencairn, Earl of, received by Mary at Edinburgh Castle, 73, 92 - - Goodall, quoted, 312 note - - Gordon, John (Mary's servant), 7 - - Gordon, Lady Jane (daughter of Huntly, the Cock of the North), wife of - Bothwell, 26, 53, 68; - her literary love letters, 26; - conditions of her consent to a divorce with Bothwell, 27, 218; - relations with Bothwell after her divorce, 27, 184; - marries the Earl of Sutherland, and, on his death, Ogilvy of Boyne, - 27, 218; - literary contest with Mary, 349, 350 - - Gowrie, Earl of, in possession of the Casket Letters, 366; - Bowes seeks to obtain them from him, 366; - insists on James's consent before giving them up, 367; - executed for treason, 367 - - Greville, Fulke, attracted by the personality of Archibald Douglas, 33 - - Gueldres, Mary of (widow of James II.), 45 - - - Hamilton, Archbishop of St. Andrews, resides at Hamilton House to - prevent Darnley's occupation, 116; - there on the eve of Kirk o' Field explosion, 149; - accessory to Darnley's murder, 150; - member of council, 172; - hanged by Lennox, 150 - - Hamilton Casket, the, doubts as to its being the true Casket, 369 - - Hamilton, present Duke of, the Casket in his possession, 367, 368 - - Hamilton House, 115, 116, 131, 149 - - Hamilton, John, singular death of, 37 - - Hamilton, Lord Claude (Gloade), 149 - - Hampton Court, 264, 279 - - Handwriting, problems of, 363, 364 - - Hay, the Younger, of Tala, his complicity in Darnley's murder, 35, 90, - 143, 144, 145, 146, 157, 160, 165, 169, 328; - confession, 278; - execution, 139, 280 - - Henderson, quoted, on Letter II. and Crawford's Deposition, 310, 312 - note; - his text of the Casket Letters, 387 - - Henri II. of France, 5 - - Hepburn of Riccartoun (Bothwell's agent), 56, 57 - - Hepburn, Patrick (Bishop of Moray), Bothwell's great-uncle, 14 - - Hepburn, Patrick (parson of Kynmoir), evidence to a plot to kill Moray, - 375, 376, 377, 378 - - Hepburns, the, character of, 45, 46 - - Hermitage Castle, Bothwell visited by Mary at, 39, 54, 93, 94 - - Herries, Lord, on Mary's abduction, 241; - at the York Conference, 251; - at Westminster, 267; - challenged to battle by Lindsay, 285 - - Hiegait, William (Town Clerk of Glasgow), arrested by Mary, 103; - his tale of Darnley's scheme to kidnap James VI., 108, 109, 110; - denies same before the Council, 110, 111; - cited, 301 - - Holy Island, Bothwell prisoner at, 54 - - Holyrood, fable of secret passage between it and Kirk o' Field, 115, 116; - its environs, 124; - Sebastian's marriage, 136 - - Hosack, Mr., on the authenticity of Letter II., 232; - on Glasgow Letter, 296 - - Hubert, Nicholas, his dying confession, 166 - - Hume, on Hubert's confession, 166 - - Hume, Major Martin, on the Casket Letters, 197 - - Hunter, Michael, slain by the Black Laird of Ormistoun, 35, 36 - - Huntly, Earl of (Cock of the North), Mary's chief Catholic supporter, 52; - dies in battle against her, 53 - - Huntly, Earl of (son of the Cock of the North; Bothwell's - brother-in-law), influences his sister Lady Jane in her marriage - to and divorce from Bothwell, 53; - rescues Mary from prison after Riccio's murder, 69; - complicity in Darnley's murder, 90, 167, 168; - at Craigmillar, 98; - evidence against him suppressed, 143; - on the Council, 172; - Mary distrusts him, 330; - trusts him, 331; - manner of his death, 37, 38 - - - James V. of Scotland, 18 - - James VI. of Scotland (I. of England), birth of, 59, 75; - baptism, 105; - his godmother Queen Elizabeth's gift, 105; - crowned, 222 - - James Stuart (Mary's great-great-grandson), 3 - - Jedburgh, Mary at, 93, 94, 95, 96 - - Jhone a Forret (? John Wood), supposed bearer of copies of Casket - Letters to Moray and Cecil, 209, 212, 219, 226, 233, 321 note - - Joachim (a servant of Mary), cited, 298, 299 - - Jordan, Sandy (Earl of Morton's servant), bearer of the Casket to - Gowrie, 366 - - Jusserand, M., on the corpse of Bothwell, 14 note; - on Bothwell's remains and burial place, 371 et seq. - - - Keith, Agnes (daughter of the Earl Marischal), married to Moray, 20 - - Ker, Andrew, of Faldonside (one of Riccio's murderers), 101, 152 note - - Killigrew, his report of the Darnley case, 171 - - Kirk o' Field (St. Mary in the Fields), 41, 124; - house prepared for Darnley, 115, 140, 141, 142; - blown up, 140; - site, situation, and environs, 123-132; - map of 1647 and chart of 1567, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131; - interior of the house, 132, 133; - cited in Letter II., 316, 317 - - Kirkcaldy of Grange, 34; - action against Mary, 184, 185; - Mary's surrender to him at Carberry Hill, 187; - letter to Cecil, 359 - - Knollys, his estimate of the character of Mary, 3; - Mary's accusation against him, 245; - on Mary at the York Conference, 257 - - Knox, John, denounces the fripperies of women, 4; - in argument on the Mass with Maitland of Lethington, 23, 24; - credited with winning a bride by witchcraft, 37; - patches up a reconciliation between Bothwell and Arran, 50; - Arran reveals to him Bothwell's plot to seize Mary, 51; - on Bothwell's escape from Edinburgh Castle, 53; - on Darnley's sporting tastes, 60; - his drastic advice in the case of Mary, 66; - witch story concerning Lady Reres related to him, 82 - - Koot Hoomi's (Blavatsky case) correspondence, cited, 278, 279 - - - La Forest (French ambassador), reports the existence of letters proving - Mary's complicity in the death of Darnley, 197; - his copies and the published Letters, 200 - - La Mothe Fenelon (French ambassador), on the Lords' possession of - Letters written and signed by Mary, 198, 199; - on their publication in 'Detection,' 200; - pleads for Mary to be allowed to see originals or copies of Casket - Letters, 284; - opinion of the Casket Sonnets, 344, 345 - - Laing, Malcolm (historian), on Letter III., 325, 326; - on the Hamilton Casket, 367 - - Lennox, Earl of (Darnley's father), 10; - forfeited estates restored, 55; - complains of Mary's intimacy with Riccio, 58; - a competitor for the Scottish crown, 62; - wishes to see Darnley at Peebles, 62, 63; - schemes to get the crown for Darnley, 66; - accuses Mary of threatening to avenge Riccio with her own hands, 72; - avers that improper relations began between Mary and Bothwell soon - after the birth of James VI., 79; - on Mary's behaviour at Stirling, 80; - warned of a plot to put Darnley in ward, 100; - 'Discourse' prepared by him for York conference, 101; - 'Brief Discourse' put in at Westminster, 102; - on a second conference at Craigmillar, 103; - not present at James VI.'s baptism, 105; - sends men to guard Darnley at Stirling, 107, 110, 111; - Minto, Walker, and Hiegait working in his interests, 111; - denies that either Darnley or himself suspected foul play from Mary, - 113; - Darnley's letter to him respecting Mary, 133; - urges the collection of the sayings and reports of all Mary's - servants, 138; - account of his son's murder, 141; - asks for the deposition of the priest of Paisley, 150; - states that Mary caused a hagbut to be fired as a signal for the - Kirk o' Field explosion, 173; - describes Mary's conduct at Seton, 175; - asks for the arrest of Bothwell, 176; - flight after his son's death, 180; - his account of the Glasgow Letter tallies with Moray's, 214, 215; - his additions to and differences from that Letter, 216 et seq.; - marginal note to Sonnet IV., 217, 218; - common source of his and Moray's reports, 221; - proposed co-regency, 223; - collects extraneous evidence regarding Mary, 224, 226; - avers that Wood knows the murderers of Darnley, 227; - knowledge of the contents of the Casket Letters, 227, 228; - his indictments against Mary, 222, 223, 229, 230; - cites Letter II., 231; - activity in getting up evidence against Mary before the York - Commissioners, 253; - attitude at Westminster, 266; - on Crawford's talk with Mary, 311, 312 note; - seeks to prove that the Kirk o' Field plan was arranged between - Bothwell and Mary before Mary met Darnley at Glasgow, 316; - Papers, quoted, 58, 59, 74 - - Lennox, Lady, Mary complains to Elizabeth of her, 225 - - Lesley (Bishop of Ross), considers Bothwell a handsome man, 18; - wishes Mary to put Moray in ward, 75; - Huntly's statement to, respecting Mary's counter accusations, 96; - member of council, 172, 178; - asserts the Letters were not signed, 198; - on unsigned Letters attributed to Mary, 212; - one of Mary's commissioners at York, 246; - share in the schemes of the Duke of Norfolk, 246; - report of an interview with Mary at Bolton, 247; - confession contradicted by Melville's, 250; - conference with Lethington about the Letters, 258; - pleads for Mary to be heard in person before Elizabeth, 267; - protests against Moray's production of the Letters, 270; - Elizabeth's three choices to him, 283; - charge against Moray and the Lords, 285; - curious letter to John Fitzwilliam, 286 note; - on counterfeiters of Mary's handwriting, 356 - - Lethington, Sir Richard (father of Maitland of Lethington), 23 - - Lethington (William Maitland, the younger), early life and culture, 23; - arguments with Knox, 23, 24; - Secretary to Mary of Guise, 23; - desires the union of the crowns of England and Scotland, 23; - friendly advances to Mary before her arrival in Scotland, 24; - character, 24; - allied by marriage with the Earl of Atholl, 24; - love affair with Mary Fleming, 24; - in every scheme against Darnley, 25; - dislikes and is hated by Bothwell, 25; - joins Mary's enemies, 25; - nicknamed Michael Wylie (Machiavelli), 26; - political principles, 52; - counsels drastic measures against Riccio, 66; - reconciled by Mary to Bothwell, 81; - concerned in the murder 'band' against Darnley, 88, 90; - his method of dealing with Darnley, which Parliament would support, - 98, 99, 103; - favours a project of marriage between Norfolk and Mary, 155; - charged with complicity in the Darnley murder, 155, 156, 159; - refuses to aid Moray in betraying Norfolk, 156; - in attendance on Mary, 179; - prisoner at Dunbar, 179, 180, 181; - declares that Mary means to marry Bothwell, 181; - escapes from Bothwell, 182; - question of friendship for or enmity to Mary, 182; - flies to confederated Lords, 185; - persuades Sir J. Balfour to surrender Edinburgh Castle, 186; - interview with Mary, 188, 189; - reasons for his treachery to Mary, 190, 191, 192; - statement to Throckmorton respecting his conduct towards her, 204; - Randolph accuses him of advising Mary's death, 204; - statement to Throckmorton about the letters, 205; - Mary's documentary charge against him, 243, 244; - conduct at the York Conference, 246, 252; - accused of stealing the Casket Letters, and having them copied by his - wife, 248; - explains the reason for Mary's abduction, 255; - his privy disclosure of the Letters, 257; - shakes Norfolk's belief in same, 258; - discriminating attitude between private and public exhibition of - Letters, 287; - writes letter to be presented to the French Court concerning Mary's - marriage with Bothwell, 331; - directs the scheme of garbling the Casket Letters, 353; - (?) despatches Melville to Cecil on the day of the finding of the - Casket Letters, 355; - privately hints that he had counterfeited Mary's handwriting, 357, 358; - case against him, 358, 359; - 'Instructions' drawn by him, 360; - Randolph hints at his tampering with the Letters, 361; - Herr Bresslau's inferences of tampering, 387 - - Liddesdale reivers, the, 180 - - Lindsay, Sir David, pardoned, 112; - the Lords send him to Loch Leven to induce Mary to abdicate, 204; - challenges Herries to combat on Moray's account, 285; - appointed Lyon King at Arms, 376 - - Livingstone, Lord, member of council, 172; - his knowledge of Mary's amour with Bothwell, 253 - - Livingstone, Mary (Queen Mary's attendant), 4; - wife of John Sempil, 356; - on ill terms with Mary, 356 - - Loch Leven, Mary imprisoned at, 192; - Lindsay sent to, to extort her abdication, 204; - Mary's escape from, 242 - - Logan of Restalrig, treasure-finding, 375 - - Lords, Scots, of the Privy Council, banded against Mary, 185; - success at Carberry Hill, 195; - Casket Letters in their possession, 196, 201; - summons against Bothwell, 202; - their mixed character, motives, and statements, 203, 204; - demand of Mary her abdication, 204; - formulate charges against her, 205; - extort from her a consent to their proposals, 205; - vacillations with regard to the Letters, 206, 207; - obtain Mary's signature to her abdication, 206; - forward copies of Casket Letters to Moray, 212; - publish their Declaration, 238; - accuse Mary of being privy to Darnley's murder, 239; - on Mary's handwriting, 241; - cause of their action against Mary, 355 - - Luzarche, M. Victor, his Coffret de Bijoux, 365 - - - Maitland of Lethington. _See_ Lethington - - Mameret, Roche (Mary's confessor), on the character of the Queen, 210 - - Mar, Earl of, entertains Mary at Alloa, 80; - deprived of the custody of Edinburgh Castle, 172; - confederated against Bothwell, 181 - - Marryat, Mr. Horace, and the body of Bothwell, 373 - - Mary of Gueldres, 45 - - Mary of Guise, Regent, 19; - her secretary Lethington, 23; - deserted by her nobles, 47; - Bothwell espouses her cause, 47 - - Mary Stuart Queen of Scotland: the Morton portrait, 3; - periwig, 3 note; - midnight revels and masculine energy, 4, 5, 8; - her 'four Maries,' 4; - costumes and jewels and their donors, 5; - moods, spirit, and gratitude, 5, 6, 7; - brow-beaten by Knox, 7; - causes provoking hardness of heart, 8; - centre of intrigue, 8, 9; - Elizabeth's rival, 9; - disposition to yield to masterful men, 9; - Bothwell's defects instanced against her, 15; - presented by Ruthven with a ring as an antidote to poison, 17, 36; - pensions the assassin of Moray, 22; - kindness to Lethington, 24; - Morton her prosecutor, 31; - virulence of the Preachers of Righteousness against her, 35, 36; - 'bewitched' by Bothwell, 36; - social condition of Scotland when she became queen, 43; - informed by Arran of Bothwell's plot to seize her, 51; - political position during her first years in Scotland, 52, 53, 54; - her compromise between Catholicism and Protestantism, 52; - suspected by the Protestant party of favouring Bothwell, 53; - intercedes with Elizabeth to allow Bothwell to go to France, 54; - efforts to fix her as Elizabeth's successor, 55; - sees Darnley and admires him, 12, 55; - action in Bothwell's outlawry, 56; - weds Darnley, 13, 57; - summons Bothwell from France against her opponents, 57; - estrangement from Darnley, 13, 57; - political use made of her intimacy with Riccio, 58; - twitted with favouring Riccio and Bothwell, 59; - anger against Moray, 56; - amour with Riccio not credible, 60, 63; - removes Darnley from her Council, 60; - illness, 61; - letter to Pius V., 63, 64; - arranges Bothwell's marriage with Lady Jane Gordon, 64; - insists on free Mass for all men, 65; - schemes for killing Riccio in her presence, 68; - rescued by Bothwell, Huntly, and Atholl after Riccio's murder, 69; - at Dunbar, 69, 70, 71; - seeks to quiet the country, 71; - growing hatred of Darnley, 71; - threatens that a fatter than Riccio should soon lie anear him, 72; - pardon of the rebel Lords demanded of her, 72; - befriends Moray, 73; - represented by Lennox as trying to induce Darnley to make love to - Moray's wife, 74; - her bequests to Darnley, 75; - allows Moray and Argyll to be at the Castle during her accouchement, - 75; - gives birth to James VI., 75; - protects Moray from Darnley and Bothwell, 77; - Darnley's jealousy of her favour to Moray, 77; - increasing dislike to Darnley, 78, 80; - passion for Bothwell, 18, 26, 79; - conduct at Alloa and Stirling, 80; - gift of a bed to Darnley, 81; - reconciles Lethington and Bothwell, 81; - Buchanan's account of her amour with Bothwell, 82, 83; - this legend supported by Sonnet IX. and Dalgleish's confession, 84; - strained relations with Darnley, 84, 85; - in Jedburgh at a Border session, 93; - visits wounded Bothwell at Hermitage Castle, 93, 94; - illness at Jedburgh, 94; - returns to Craigmillar Castle, 95; - letter from Darnley, 95; - divorce proposed, 96; - Buchanan insinuates her desire to involve Moray in the Darnley murder, - 97; - Lennox's statement that she would have Darnley in ward after James's - baptism, 100, 102; - arrests Hiegait, Walker, Laird of Minto, Cauldwell, 103; - festivities at the baptism of her child at Stirling, 105; - baptizes him by the Catholic rite, 105; - Bedford's advice, 106; - treatment of Darnley at Stirling, 107; - anxiety concerning Darnley's projects, 108, 109; - warned by Beaton and the Spanish ambassador of Darnley's intention to - kidnap James VI., 109; - causes Hiegait and Walker to be questioned before the Council, 110; - distress of mind, 111; - at Drummond Castle, Tullibardine, Callendar, and Holyrood, 112; - letter to Beaton, 110, 114; - offers to visit sick Darnley at Glasgow, 112; - Crawford's account of her visit to Darnley, 113; - induces Darnley to return with her to Edinburgh, 113, 119; - brings him to Kirk o' Field, 115; - aware of the plot against Darnley, 116, 117; - refuses a written warrant asked for by the conspirators, 118; - hypotheses for her conduct, 120, 121; - her shift of beds at Kirk o' Field, 134, 162; - story drawn from a Casket Letter, 135, 136, 142; - visits Darnley on the eve of the explosion, 135; - at the marriage of her servant Sebastian that same night, 135, 136, - 173; - curious anecdote respecting her, 137; - at supper with the Bishop of Argyle on the night of the murder, 161; - Paris's evidence as to familiarities between her and Bothwell, 162; - Bothwell asks for the key of her room at Kirk o' Field, 163, 164, 165; - said to have endeavoured to incite her brother Lord Robert Stuart - against Darnley, 135, 165, 166, 323-328, 353; - dying confessions regarding her participation, 167, 169, 170; - theory of her accusers, 170; - conduct after Darnley's murder, 171; - her letters from and to Beaton, 173; - inference which her letters were meant to suggest, 174; - makes no effort to avenge Darnley, 175, 176; - seized by Bothwell and conveyed to Dunbar, 179; - evidence of the Casket Letters as to her collusion, 179; - Lethington's attitude towards her, 182; - creates Bothwell Duke of Orkney and is married to him, 183; - her distrust of Huntly, 185; - appeals to the loyalty of her subjects, 185; - surrenders to Kirkcaldy at Carberry Hill, 186; - parting with Bothwell, 187; - conditions of her surrender, 187; - interview with Lethington, 188, 189; - complains of being parted from Bothwell, 188, 194; - denounces Lethington and the members of the Darnley murder band, 189; - incarcerated in Loch Leven Castle, 192; - reported to have prematurely given birth to twins, 194; - motives of the Lords against her, 194; - the compromising Casket Letters, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, - 202, 203, 205, 206, 207 (_see_ Casket Letters); - communication from Elizabeth respecting Melville, 202; - her abdication demanded by the Council, and charges formulated against - her, 204, 205; - signs the deeds of her abdication, 207; - her confessor's opinion of her, 210; - the Glasgow Letter, 135, 162, 168, 211, 212, 213, 214, 225, 229, 255; - complains to Elizabeth of Lady Lennox, 225; - the Glasgow Letter as rendered in the Lennox Papers, 234, 235; - her love for Bothwell as presented in the Casket Sonnets, 235; - the Glasgow Letter discredited, 236; - the Lords' specific charge against her, 239; - demands to be heard in the Parliament at Edinburgh, 240; - escapes from Loch Leven, 242; - claims the right of confronting her accusers, 243; - her line of defence, 243, 245; - on the handwriting of her accusers, 244; - letter to Lesley, 245; - Lesley's details of an interview with her at Bolton, 248; - copies of the letters forwarded to her by Lethington, 248, 249; - theory of her translation of Scots copies into French, 249 note; - arrival of her commissioners at York, 250; - assents to Moray's compromise, 251; - attitude at York, 257; - consents to the removal of inquiry from York to London, 260; - terms of her compromise, 260, 262, 265; - change in her plan of defence, 262; - plea for a hearing before Elizabeth, 267, 268; - injury done to her cause by friends' renewed efforts for a compromise, - 269, 270; - withdrawal of her commissioners from Westminster, 275; - refuses to acknowledge Elizabeth as a judge, 282; - her letter from Bolton, 283; - asks to see the copies and originals of the Casket Letters, 284; - makes their delivery a condition of her production of charges and - proofs, 286, 287; - causes of her detestation of Lethington, 288; - her submissive attitude to both Bothwell and Norfolk, 315; - suggestion of marriage with Norfolk, 155; - distrusts Huntly, 330; - trusts him, 331; - her excuses for marrying Bothwell, addressed to the French Court, 331, - 332; - sends Bothwell a symbolic mourning ring, 337; - letter to Norfolk from Coventry, 337 and note; - contract of marriage with Bothwell, 338; - receives betrothal ring from Bothwell(?), 340; - hypothesis of her contest in literary excellence with Lady Bothwell, - 350; - tone of her letters to Norfolk, 351; - suspicions of Lethington in her instructions to her commissioners, 356; - coincidence between Letter VII. and her instructions to the Bishop of - Dunblane, 331, 359, 360; - facsimiles of her own and imitated handwriting, 363, 364; - date of her visit to Glasgow, 379, 380; - charges Balfour, Morton and Lethington with complicity in Darnley's - murder, 189, 382 - - Meggatdale, Mary and Darnley at, 81 - - Melville, Robert, against Mary, 185; - sent to Elizabeth with news of the discovery of the Casket Letters, - 196, 201, 320, 355; - acting for the Lords, 202; - denies his visit to Mary at Bolton before going to commissioners at - York, 249, 250; - Lesley's confession contravened by his, 250; - Moray sends him to Bolton to compromise with Mary, 251; - negotiates with Mary on a compromise, 259; - his statement, 261; - sent by Lethington on 'sudden despatch' to Cecil, 354, 355; - friendly efforts in Mary's behalf, 355; - suspects Kirkcaldy of Grange of counterfeiting Moray's handwriting, 361 - - Melville, Sir James, on George Buchanan's veracity as a historian, 34; - dissuades Mary from putting Moray in ward, 75; - on Darnley's murder, 140; - on Bothwell's behaviour in the Queen's chamber, 181; - at the York conference, 259 - - Mertine, Barbara, encounters the murderers of Darnley, 147 - - Middlemore, Mary's statement to him regarding her accusers, 245 - - Minto, Laird of, arrested by Mary, 103; - working in Lennox's interests, 111; - cited, 150 - - Moray, Regent (natural son of James V.), an enigma, 19; - Protestant and warrior, 19; - acquisitiveness, 19, 20; - secures the Buchan estates in spite of the legal rights of Christian - Stewart, 20; - marries Agnes Keith, 20; - ambition, 20; - treachery and caution, 21, 22; - alibis, 21; - as Regent, 22; - Mr. Froude's estimate of him, 22; - his secretary, John Wood, 33; - believes that Ruthven gave Mary a ring with magical properties, 36; - urged by the preachers to burn witches, 36; - political bias and theological tenets, 52; - tells Mary that either he or Bothwell must quit Scotland, 56; - his rising to prevent Mary marrying Darnley, 59; - seeks for the restoration of Morton and Ruthven, 72; - in favour with Mary, 73, 76, 121; - permitted by Mary to reside in the Castle during her accouchement, 75; - said to be banded against Darnley, 89, 90, 91, 92, 98; - denies that any unlawful ends were mooted at Craigmillar, 98; - winks at the conspiracy against Darnley, 116, 122; - account of the numbers engaged in Darnley's murder, 141; - laxity in their prosecution, 144, 145; - gives records of examinations to English commissioners, 145; - reasons for not summoning Paris as witness, 154, 155; - opposes marriage between Mary and Norfolk, 155; - takes the evidence of Paris, 155; - delays in forwarding it to Cecil, 156; - seeks to betray Norfolk, 156; - story of his presence at a wrangle between Darnley and Lord Robert - Stuart, 166, 323, 327; - informed of the Casket Letters, 196 note; - his sources of information as to Mary's correspondence, 208; - from friend becomes enemy of Mary, 209, 210; - reports a guilty letter from Mary to Bothwell, 211, 213; - his additions to and differences from the Glasgow letter, 216 et seq.; - common source of his and Lennox's reports, 221; - 'not capable' of employing a forged document, 234; - 'most loth' to accuse Mary, 242; - Scots translations and French originals of Casket Letters, 242; - treats for a compromise with Mary at York, 251; - seeks to know the powers of the English commissioners at York, 253; - exhibits 'privately' to them the Casket Letters and other papers, 254; - confers with Norfolk at York, 259; - puts in his proofs at Westminster, 266, 270, 271, 272, 273; - complains of being slandered by Mary's commissioners, 285; - Mary's joy at the news of his murder, 22 - - Moretta (Savoyard ambassador), on Darnley's murder, 140 - - Morton, Earl of, joins the Protestants, 29; - sanctimonious remark to Throckmorton, 29; - private life, 30; - schemes with all parties in his own ends, 30; - helps to organise the murder of Riccio, 30; - portrait of, 31; - Regent, 32; - political principles, 52; - in league with Darnley to restore Moray, 67; - Moray endeavours his recall, 73; - feud with Darnley, 78; - pardoned, 89, 112; - concerned in Darnley's murder, 31, 90; - desires the Queen's warrant before proceeding to extremities with - Darnley, 117; - his confession, 118, 147, 148, 167, 168; - confederated against Bothwell, 181; - advised by Lethington to espouse Mary's cause, 191; - accused by Mary of Darnley's murder, 244; - Casket Letters entrusted to him, 195, 365; - declaration at Westminster respecting them, 272; - his story of the discovery of the Casket Letters, 274, 275, 276, 277; - in his dying declaration denounces Archibald Douglas, 32; - executed, 382 - - - Napier of Merchistoun (soothsayer), 17, 36 - - Napier of Merchistoun (inventor of logarithms), 17; - treasure-finding, 375 - - Nau, Claude, on Mary's escape to Dunbar, 72; - on the motives of Darnley's murderers, 90; - on Mary's abdication, 241; - on the band for Darnley's murder given to Mary by Bothwell, 243; - account of Lethington's conduct towards Mary, 288 - - Nelson (Darnley's servant), in Kirk o' Field at the explosion, 116; - on the position of Kirk o' Field, 129; - escape, 140; - statement on the custody of the keys, 165, 175; - evidence at Westminster, 276; - on Darnley's refusal to stay at Craigmillar, 319; - detained by Drury at Berwick, 319 note - - Norfolk, Duke of, his proposed marriage with Mary, 155; - schemes, 246; - on the York commission of inquiry, 246, 252; - excuses delays of Scots Lords, 256; - for a compromise, 256; - confers with Moray, 259; - opposes a compromise, 261, 262; - doubts authenticity of Letters and would marry Mary, 257, 258, 259, - 262; - prevents Mary from abdicating, 262; - Mary's submissive attitude to him, 315; - Lethington asks him not to believe in Mary's guilt, 357, 358 - - Northumberland, Earl of, in arms for Mary, 277 - - - Ogilvy of Boyne, loved by Lady Jane Gordon and Mary Beaton, 26; - marries the divorced Lady Bothwell, 27, 218 - - Orkney, Bishop of, marries Mary to Bothwell, 62, 183 - - Orkney, Duke of, Bothwell created, 183 - - Ormistoun, Black Laird of (one of Darnley's murderers), his treatment by - Mary in prison, 6; - his exordium before being hanged, 35; - confession of a murder-band against Darnley, 99; - executed, 139 - - Ormistoun, Hob (one of Darnley's murderers), 101, 139, 339, 341; - executed, 139 - - - Paris (Nicholas Hubert), on the Craigmillar plot against Darnley, 103; - escapes with Bothwell to Denmark, 154; - extradited to Captain Clark, 154; - evidence taken by Moray, 155, 156; - nature of his deposition and the circumstances under which it was - made, 156-170; - account of Lady Reres, 162; - receipt and delivery of Glasgow Letter, 292, 293, 299; - on the Glasgow Letter, 316, 327; - cited, 339, 340, 341, 342; - hanged at St. Andrews, 157, 378 - - Percy, Sir Harry, on Bothwell, 54 - - Periwigs, worn by Mary, 3 note - - Philippson, M., on the translations of the Casket Letters, 386, 388 - - Pinkie, battle of, 19 - - Pitcairn's 'Criminal Trials,' cited, 56 - - Pius V., Mary's letter to him on political matters, 63 - - Pluscarden, Prior of, and the Casket, 365 - - Pollen, Father, cited, 230 - - Powrie (Bothwell's servant), statement of, concerning Darnley's murder, - 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149, 195, 280 - - Preston, Laird of Craigmillar (Provost of Edinburgh), Mary imprisoned in - his house, 188 - - Price, Mr. F. Compton, cited, 363 - - - Ramsay, Robert (Moray's servant), hears Paris avouch the truth of his - deposition, 157 - - Randolph (English ambassador at Holyrood), his opinion of Darnley, 11, - 12; - on the Earl of Arran, 49; - reports Bothwell and Atholl all-powerful, 57; - on Lennox at Glasgow, 61; - reports 'private disorders' between Mary and Darnley, 63; - on Mary's demand for free Mass for all men, 65; - aware of Darnley's and Lennox's schemes for obtaining the crown, 66; - favours Moray, 73; - on a murder-band, kept in a casket, aimed at Darnley, 87; - on the conduct of Lethington and Kirkcaldy towards Mary, 194, 360; - accuses Lethington of advising Mary's death, 204; - hints at Lethington having tampered with the Letters(?), 361 - - Read, John (Buchanan's secretary), supplies Cecil with a list of the - signatories to Ainslie's band, 177 - - 'Relation,' the, cited on Riccio's murder, 65 - - Reres, Lady, alleged confidant of Mary's amour with Bothwell, 33, 48, - 82, 83; - telepathic story assigned to her, 82; - Paris's account of her as a go-between, 162; - rails at Mary's marriage with Bothwell, 184 - - Reres, Laird of (son of Lady Reres), 83 - - Riccio, David, his intimacy with Mary, 58, 59; - complained of as a foreign upstart by Scots nobles, 58, 65; - reasons for discrediting his amour with Mary, 60; - Darnley's hatred and jealousy of him, 63, 64, 65, 66; - 'band of assurance' for his murder, 67; - nobles and others concerned, 67; - murdered, 69 - - Ridolfi plot, the, 6 - - Robertson, Dr. Joseph, on Lady Reres as wet nurse to Mary's baby, 83; - on the Paris deposition, 158; - on the Glasgow Letter, 296 - - Rogers, William, informs Cecil of Darnley's design to seize the Scilly - Isles, 108 note - - Ronsard (poet), quoted, 314; - on the Casket Sonnets, 344, 349 - - Ross, Bishop of. _See_ Lesley - - Ruthven Earl of, his account of Riccio's murder, 17; - presents Mary with a ring as an antidote to poison, 17; - conspiring with Darnley, 67; - seeks refuge in England, 70; - his dying vision, 37; - death, 73 - - - Sadleyr (one of Elizabeth's commissioners), at the York inquiry, 246 - - St. Andrews, in Mary's time, 40 - - St. Mary in the Fields. _See_ Kirk o' Field - - Sanquhar, signs the band for delivering Mary from Loch Leven, 275, 276 - - Scarborough, Darnley's designs on, 108 - - Schiller's 'Marie Stewart,' cited, 2 - - Scilly Isles, Darnley's designs on, 108 note - - Scots Parliament, Casket Letters produced before, 241 - - Scottish Guards (in France), Bothwell captain of, 54 - - Scott's 'Abbot,' cited, 2 - - Scrope, quoted, on Captain Cullen, 151-3 - - Sebastian (Mary's servant), his marriage at Holyrood, 136, 148 - - Sempil, John, husband of Mary Livingstone, 356 - - Sepp, Dr., on the Casket Letters, 242 - - Seton, Mary (Mary's attendant), 'the finest busker of a woman's hair,' - 3, 4 - - Seton, Mary's conduct at, 175 - - Skelton, Sir John, on Bothwell's age, 14; - his 'Maitland of Lethington' cited, 23; - on Mary's knowledge of the plot against Darnley, 116, 117; - on Mary's submissive attitude to Bothwell, 315 - - Sorcery, belief in, in the sixteenth century, 36 - - Spens (Black Mr. John), 175 - - Standen (brothers Anthony), one of them boasts that he saved Mary from - assassination, 38; - Darnley's companions, 60; - their immorality put to Darnley's account, 75; - romantic memoirs of one of them imprisoned in the Tower, 75; - assist Darnley in his schemes, 108; - the younger, 137, 319 note - - Stewart, Christian (heiress to the Buchan earldom), contracted in - marriage with Lord James Stewart, 19; - legal inheritress to Buchan estates, 20; - married to Lord James, 20 - - Stewart d'Aubigny (Duke of Lennox), James's banished favourite, 367 - - Stewart, Lord James (Moray's brother), contracts himself in marriage to - the Buchan child-heiress, 19; - secures the right of redemption of the Buchan estates, 19; - marries the heiress but loses the estates, 20 - - Stewart of Periven (Lennox's retainer), 226 - - Stewart of Traquair, escorts Mary to Dunbar, 69 - - Stewart, Sir William (Lyon Herald), burnt for sorcery, 17, 36, 156, - 374-379 - - Stirling, Mary at, 80; - baptism of James VI. at, 105, 106, 107; - full of 'honest men of the Lennox,' 109 - - Strickland, Miss, on Darnley's signature to State documents, 60 note - - Stuart, Lord Robert (Mary's brother), account of him drawn from a Casket - Letter, 135; - concerned in Darnley's murder, 162, 165, 166; - Mary's alleged attempt to provoke a quarrel between him and Darnley, - 323, 327 - - Sussex, Earl of (one of Elizabeth's commissioners), on Mary's defence, - 245; - believes in an intended compromise, 263; - doubts in judicial proof of Mary's guilt, 264; - on Mary's proofs, 287 - - Sutherland, Earl of, marries Bothwell's divorced wife, 27; - member of council, 172 - - - Tala. _See_ Hay of Tala - - Taylor (Darnley's servant), killed at Kirk o' Field, 132, 137, 139, 148 - - 'The Purpose' or talking dance, 39 - - Throckmorton, Sir Nicholas (English envoy), visits Mary in prison, 29; - in communication with Lords of Council, 203, 204; - Lethington acquaints him with Casket Letters, 205, 237; - mentions them to Elizabeth, 355 - - Throndssoen, Anne (Norwegian lady), Bothwell's treatment of her, 47; - alleges breach of promise of marriage against Bothwell, 48 - - Tombs of the Kings, the, 39 - - Tulchan bishops, the, 30 - - Tullibardine, Mary at, 112 - - Tullibardine, signs band for releasing Mary from Loch Leven, 276 - - - Walker (Archbishop Beaton's retainer), on Darnley's plot to kidnap the - infant James, 108, 110, 111 - - Walsingham, Sir Francis, and the Casket Letters, 365 - - Westminster Conference, proceedings at, 240, 266, 270-276 - - Westmorland, Earl of, in arms for Mary, 277 - - Whithaugh, Laird of, holds Ker of Faldonside prisoner, 101; - shelters the Ormistouns, 101 - - Wilson, Dr., asks Cecil for Paris's confession, 168; - on Mary, 247 - - Witchcraft and sorcery, 17, 36 - - Wood, John (Moray's secretary), helps Lennox in his case against Mary, - 150; - hears Paris testify to his deposition, 157; - bears letters to Moray and Cecil, 209, 226; - in custody of the Casket Letters, 196, 227, 228, 229; - on Lethington as a commissioner at Mary's trial, 244; - slain by Forbes of Reres, 33 - - - York, Commission of Inquiry at, 101, 226, 227, 230, 233, 246, 250 et seq. - - - Zytphen-Adeler, Baron, his care of Bothwell's remains, 372 - - PRINTED BY - SPOTTISWOODE AND CO. LTD., NEW-STREET SQUARE - LONDON - - - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1] _Blackwood's Magazine_, December, 1889. - -[2] Bond. - -[3] Laing, ii. 284. - -[4] See Murdin, p. 57. - -[5] Among the mysteries which surround Mary, we should not reckon the -colour of her hair! Just after her flight into England, her gaoler, at -Carlisle, told Cecil that in Mary Seton the Queen had 'the finest busker -of a woman's hair to be seen in any country. Yesterday and this day she -did set such a curled hair upon the Queen, that was said to be a perewyke, -that showed very delicately, and every other day she hath a new device of -head dressing that setteth forth a woman gaily well.' Henceforth Mary -varied the colour of her 'perewykes.' She had worn them earlier, but she -wore them, at least at her first coming into England, for the good reason -that, in her flight from Langside, she had her head shaved, probably for -purposes of disguise. So we learn from Nau, her secretary. Mary was -flying, in fact, as we elsewhere learn, from the fear of the fiery death -at the stake, the punishment of husband-murder. Then, and then only, her -nerve broke down, like that of James VIII. at Montrose; of Prince Charles -after Culloden; of James VII. when he should have ridden with Dundee to -the North and headed the clans. - -[6] The papers used by Lennox in getting up his indictment against Mary -are new materials, which we often have occasion to cite. - -[7] Mr. Henderson doubts if Darnley knew French. - -[8] M. Jusserand has recently seen the corpse of Bothwell. Appendix A. - -[9] _Actio_, probably by Dr. Wilson, appended to Buchanan's _Detection_. - -[10] Teulet, ii. p. 176. Edinburgh, June 17, 1567. - -[11] See a facsimile in Teulet, ii. 256. - -[12] Appendix B. 'Burning of the Lyon King at Arms.' - -[13] The private report is in the Lennox MSS. - -[14] See the sketch, coloured, in Bannatyne _Miscellany_, vol. i. p. 184. - -[15] See description by Alesius, about 1550, in Bannatyne _Miscellany_, i. -185-188. - -[16] Information from Father Pollen, S.J. - -[17] This gentleman must not be confused with Ormistoun of Ormistoun, in -Teviotdale, 'The Black Laird,' a retainer of Bothwell. - -[18] Riddell, _Inquiry into the Law and Practice of the Scottish Peerage_, -i. 427. Joseph Robertson, _Inventories_, xcii., xciii. Schiern, _Life of -Bothwell_, p. 53. - -[19] Randolph to Cecil, Edinburgh, Sept. 23, 1560. Foreign Calendar, -1560-61, p. 311. - -[20] Hay Fleming, _Mary Queen of Scots_, p. 236, note 32. - -[21] Cal. For. Eliz. 1561-62, iv. 531-539. - -[22] Knox, Laing's edition, ii. 322-327. Randolph to Cecil _ut supra_. - -[23] Knox, ii. 347. - -[24] Knox, ii. 473. - -[25] Hay Fleming, p. 359, note 29. - -[26] Knox, ii. 479. - -[27] See Cal. For. Eliz. 1565, 306, 312, 314, 319, 320, 327, 340, 341, -347, 351. - -[28] Calendar, Bain, ii. 223. - -[29] Bain, ii. 213. - -[30] _Ibid._ ii. 242, 243. - -[31] Hosack, i. 524. - -[32] Cal. For. Eliz. 1564-5, 464. - -[33] Bain, ii. 222-223. - -[34] Bain, ii. 225. Cal. For. Eliz. 1564-5, 464, 495. Hay Fleming, pp. -380, 381. - -[35] Miss Strickland avers that 'existing documents afford abundant proof, -that whenever Darnley and the Queen were together, his name was written by -his own hand.' - -[36] October 31, 1565. Bain, ii. 232. - -[37] Bain, ii. 234. - -[38] Randolph to Cecil, Nov. 19, Dec. 1, 1565. Bain, ii. 241, 242. - -[39] Bain, ii. 242. - -[40] Buchanan, _Historia_, 1582, fol. 210. - -[41] Bain, ii. 247. - -[42] The Foreign Calendar cites Randolph up to the place where _amantium -irae_ is quoted, but omits that. The point is important, if it indicates -that Randolph had ceased to believe in Mary's amour with Riccio. Cf. Bain, -ii. 248. - -[43] Nau, p. 192. - -[44] The subject is discussed, with all the evidence, in Hay Fleming, pp. -379, 380, note 33. - -[45] _Ruthven's Narrative._ Keith, iii. 260. There are various forms of -this Narrative; one is in the Lennox MSS. - -[46] Goodall, i. 274. - -[47] Bain, ii. 255. - -[48] Printed in a scarce volume, _Maitland's Narrative_, and in Tytler, -iii. 215. 1864. - -[49] Bain, ii. 259-261. - -[50] Goodall, i. 266-268. - -[51] Hosack, ii. 78, note 3. - -[52] See Dr. Stewart, _A Lost Chapter in the History of Mary Queen of -Scots_, pp. 93, 94. - -[53] This is alleged by Mary, and by Claude Nau, her secretary. - -[54] Goodall, i. 264, 265. - -[55] Bain, ii. 289. - -[56] Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 51. - -[57] Bain, ii. 276. Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 52. - -[58] Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 62. - -[59] Bain ii. 278. - -[60] _Ibid._ ii. 281. - -[61] See Joseph Robertson's _Inventories_, 112. - -[62] Bain, ii. 283. - -[63] Melville, pp. 154, 155. - -[64] Bain, ii. 288, 289. - -[65] Bain, ii. 290. - -[66] Bain, ii. 294. - -[67] Nau, 20, 22. - -[68] Bain, ii. 296. - -[69] _Detection_, 1689, pp. 2, 3. - -[70] Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 118. - -[71] Stevenson, _Selections_, pp. 163-165. - -[72] Cheruel, _Marie Stuart et Catherine de Medicis_, p. 47. - -[73] Robertson, _Inventories_, p. 167. - -[74] Bain, ii. 300. - -[75] _Detection_ (1689), p. 4. - -[76] Bain, ii. 440. - -[77] Bannatyne, _Journal_, p. 238. This transference of disease, as from -Archbishop Adamson to a pony, was believed in by the preachers. - -[78] Teulet, _Papiers d'Etat_, ii. 139-146, 147, 151. See also Keith, ii. -448-459. - -[79] Frazer, _The Lennox_, ii. 350, 351. - -[80] Cal. For. Eliz. ix. 354, 355. - -[81] Laing, ii. 331, 334. - -[82] Nau, p. 35. - -[83] Bain, ii. 599, 600. - -[84] Bain, ii. 276. - -[85] _Diurnal_, p. 99. - -[86] See the evidence in Hay Fleming, 414, note 61. - -[87] Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 139. _Diurnal_, 101. - -[88] Teulet, ii. 150. - -[89] Laing, ii. 72. - -[90] Hay Fleming, 418, 419. - -[91] _Queen Mary at Jedburgh_, p. 23. - -[92] Bain, ii. 597-599. Anderson, iv. pt. ii. 186. Keith, iii. 290-294. - -[93] Goodall, ii. 359. - -[94] _Historia_, fol. 214. - -[95] Keith, iii. 294. Bain, ii. 600. - -[96] Laing, ii. 293, 294. - -[97] The original MS. has been corrected by Lennox, in the passages within -brackets. The italics are my own. - -[98] Bain, ii. 516, 517. - -[99] De Brienne came to Craigmillar on November 21, 1566, _Diurnal_. - -[100] Nau, p. 33. - -[101] Bain, ii. 293, 310. - -[102] Melville, p. 172. (1827.) - -[103] Crawford, in his deposition against Mary, says that she spoke sharp -words of Lennox, at Stirling, to his servant, Robert Cunningham. - -[104] Keith, i. xcviii. - -[105] Bain, ii. 293. This Rogers it was who, later, informed Cecil that -'gentlemen of the west country' had sent to Darnley a chart of the Scilly -Isles. If Darnley, among other dreams, thought of a descent on them, as he -did on Scarborough, he made no bad choice. Mr. A. E. W. Mason points out -to me that the isles 'commanded the Channel, and all the ships from the -north of England,' which passed between Scilly and the mainland, -twenty-five miles off. The harbours being perilous, and only known to the -islesmen, a small fleet at Scilly could do great damage, and would only -have to run back to be quite safe. Darnley, in his moods, was capable of -picturing himself as a pirate chief. - -[106] Hay Fleming, p. 415, note 63. - -[107] Labanoff, ii. - -[108] Labanoff, i. 396-398. Mary to Beaton, Jan. 20, 1567. - -[109] Hosack, ii. 580. Crawford's deposition. - -[110] Hosack, i. 534. - -[111] Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 163, 164. January 9, 1567. - -[112] See Appendix C, 'The date of Mary's visit to Glasgow.' - -[113] The 'undermining and' are words added by Lennox himself to the MS. -They are important. - -[114] _Maitland of Lethington._ - -[115] Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 167-168. - -[116] On July 16, 1583, she wrote from Sheffield to Mauvissiere, the -French Ambassador, bidding him ask the King of France to give Archibald -Douglas a pension, 'because he is a man of good understanding and -serviceable where he chooses to serve, as you know.' She intended to -procure his pardon from James (Labanoff, v. 351, 368). She employed him, -and he betrayed her. - -[117] Laing, ii. 223-236. - -[118] Bain, ii. 599, 600. - -[119] _Registrum de Soltre_, p. xxxv, Bannatyne Club, 1861. - -[120] Records of the Burgh of Edinburgh, March 14, 1541. - -[121] _Registrum de Soltre_, xxxvii. - -[122] Burgh Records, Nov. 5, 1557. - -[123] Burgh Records, Feb. 19, 1560, March 12, 1560. - -[124] Burgh Records. - -[125] Keith, ii. 151, 152. Editor's note. - -[126] _Registrum de Soltre_, p. xli. - -[127] Burgh Records, Feb. 19, March 12, 1560. - -[128] Laing, ii. 254. - -[129] Lennox MSS. - -[130] See Hay Fleming, p. 434. - -[131] Lennox's sources must have been Nelson and the younger Standen, to -whom Bothwell gave a horse immediately after the murder. Standen returned -to England four months later. - -[132] _Diurnal_, 105, 106. - -[133] Keith, i. cii. - -[134] Register Privy Council, i. 498. - -[135] Melville, p. 174, Bannatyne Club. - -[136] Labanoff, vii. 108, 109, Paris. March 16, 1567. - -[137] Hosack, i. 536, 537. - -[138] Spanish Calendar, i. 635, April 23. - -[139] Hosack, i. 534. The 'Book of Articles,' of 1568, was obviously -written under the impression left by a forged letter of Mary's, or by the -reports of such a letter, as we shall show later. Yet the author cites a -Casket Letter as we possess it. - -[140] Bain, ii. 393. - -[141] This is not, I think, a letter of September 5, but of September 16, -but in Foreign Calendar Elizabeth, viii. p. 342, most of the passage -quoted by Mr. Hosack is omitted. - -[142] Laing, ii. 28. - -[143] Cal. For. Eliz. viii. p. 392. - -[144] Laing, ii. 256. - -[145] _Diurnal_, 127, 128. Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 393. - -[146] Hosack, ii. 245. - -[147] This was obvious to Laing. Replying to Goodall's criticism of verbal -coincidences in the confessions, Laing says, 'as if in any subsequent -evidence concerning the same fact, the same words were not often dictated -by the same Commissioner, or recorded by the Clerk, from the first -deposition which they hold in their hands.' It does not seem quite a -scientific way of taking evidence. - -[148] See the Confessions, Laing, ii. 264. - -[149] Bain, ii. 312, 313. - -[150] Arnott and Pitcairn, _Criminal Trials_. - -[151] Buchanan, _History_ (1582), fol. 215. - -[152] _Maitland Miscellany_, iv. p. 119. - -[153] French Foreign Office, _Registre de Depesches d'Ecosse_, 1560-1562, -fol. 112. - -[154] Cal. For. Eliz. viii. p. 7, No. 31. - -[155] Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 229. Drury would not here add to our -confidence by saying that 'Sir Andrew Ker' (if of Faldonside) 'with others -were on horseback near to the place for aid to the cruel enterprize if -need had been.' Ker, a pitiless wretch, was conspicuous in the Riccio -murder, threatened Mary, and had but lately been pardoned. After Langside, -he was kept prisoner, in accordance with Mary's orders, by Whythaugh. But -the Sir Andrew of Drury is another Ker. - -[156] Bain ii. 321, 325. - -[157] Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 252. - -[158] Bain, ii. 394. Cullen is spelled 'Callan,' and is described as -Bothwell's 'chalmer-chiel.' - -[159] Bain, ii. 355. - -[160] Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 500. Hosack, i. 350, note 2, and Schiern's -_Bothwell_. - -[161] Laing, ii. 269. - -[162] Bain, ii. 698. - -[163] See Appendix B, 'The Burning of the Lyon King at Arms.' - -[164] Bain, ii. 667, 668. - -[165] Laing, i. 256, 257. - -[166] Laing, ii. 253. - -[167] Murdin, i. 57. - -[168] Laing, ii. 286, 287. - -[169] Laing, ii. 259. - -[170] Laing, ii. 254. - -[171] Laing, ii. 267, 268. - -[172] Laing, ii. 287. - -[173] Anderson, 1, part II., 76, 77. - -[174] Nau, Appendix ii. 151, 152. The Jesuits' evidence was from letters -to Archbishop Beaton. - -[175] Murdin, p. 57. - -[176] In the 'Book of Articles,' and in the series of dated events called -'Cecil's Journal.' - -[177] Hay Fleming, p. 444. - -[178] Spanish Calendar, i. 628. For Moray's dinner party, cf. Bain, ii. -317. - -[179] Spanish Calendar, i. 635. - -[180] Laing, ii. 244. - -[181] Labanoff, ii. 2-4. - -[182] Venetian Calendar, vii. 388, 389. There were rumours that Lennox had -been blown up with Darnley, and, later, that he was attacked at Glasgow, -on February 9, by armed men, and owed his escape to Lord Semple. It is -incredible that this fact should be unmentioned, if it occurred, by Lennox -and Buchanan. - -[183] Hay Fleming, pp. 442-443. - -[184] Robertson, _Inventories_, p. 53. - -[185] Anderson, i. 112. Bain, ii. 322. - -[186] Keith knew a copy in the Scots College at Paris, attested by Sir -James Balfour as 'the authentick copy of the principall band.' This copy -Sir James sent to Mary, in January, 1581, after Morton's arrest. The names -of laymen are Huntly, Argyll, Morton, Cassilis, Sutherland, Errol, -Crawford, Caithness, Rothes, Boyd, Glamis, Ruthven, Semple, Herries, -Ogilvy, Fleming. John Read's memory must have been fallacious. There are -eight prelates in Balfour's band, including Archbishop Hamilton, the -Bishop of Orkney, who joined in prosecuting Mary, and Lesley, Bishop of -Ross (Keith, ii. 562-569). On the whole subject see a discussion by Mr. -Bain and Mr. Hay Fleming, in _The Genealogist_, 1900-1901. Some copies are -dated April 20. See Fraser, _The Melvilles_, i. 89. - -[187] Spanish Calendar, i. 662. - -[188] Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 213. - -[189] Bain, ii. 323, 324. - -[190] Melville, p. 177. - -[191] Melville, p. 178. - -[192] Drury to Cecil, Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 222. - -[193] Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 223-224. - -[194] May 6, Drury to Cecil. - -[195] Drury to Cecil, May 6. Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 223, 224. - -[196] Undated letter in Bannatyne, of 1570-1572. - -[197] See Stewart's _Lost Chapter in the History of Queen Mary_ for the -illegalities of the divorce. The best Catholic opinion is agreed on the -subject. - -[198] Melville, 182. Teulet, ii. 153, 170. - -[199] Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 235. - -[200] Drury to Cecil, Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 240. - -[201] Dates from James Beaton's letter of June 17. Laing, ii. 106, 115. - -[202] Nau, 46-48. - -[203] Laing, i. 113. June 17, 1567. - -[204] Melville, p. 183. - -[205] Teulet, ii. 179. - -[206] Teulet, ii. 169, 170. June 17. - -[207] Bannatyne's _Memorials_, p. 126. - -[208] Nau, 50-54. - -[209] Laing, ii, 115. - -[210] Bannatyne, _Journal_, 477, 482. - -[211] Chalmers, _Life of Mary, Queen of Scots_ (1818), ii. 486, 487, note. -I do not understand Randolph to bring these charges merely on the ground -of Mary's word. _That_ he only adds as corroboration, I think, of facts -otherwise familiar to him. - -[212] Mr. Froude has observed that the Lords, 'uncertain what to do, sent -one of their number in haste to Paris, to the Earl of Moray, to inform him -of the discovery of the Letters, and to entreat him to return -immediately.' Mr. Hosack says that Mr. Froude owes this circumstance -'entirely to his imagination.' This is too severe. The Lords did not send -'one of their number' to Moray, but they sent letters which Robert -Melville carried as far as London, and, seventeen days later, they did -send a man who, if not 'one of their number,' was probably Moray's agent, -John Wood (Hosack, i. 352). - -[213] Cal. For. Eliz. viii. p. 261. - -[214] Spanish Calendar, i. 657. - -[215] Cal. For. Eliz. ix. pp. 354, 355. - -[216] Fenelon, _Depeches_ (1838), i. 19, 20. - -[217] Fenelon, i. 22. To this point we shall return. - -[218] La Mothe Fenelon, vii. 275-276. - -[219] Cal. Span. i. 659. - -[220] Bain, ii. 336. - -[221] Bain, ii. 338. - -[222] Bain, ii. 339. - -[223] Bain, ii. 341. - -[224] Melville to Cecil, July 1. Bain, ii. 343. - -[225] Bain, ii. 350, 351. - -[226] Bain, ii. 322, 360. - -[227] _Ibid._ 358. - -[228] Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 297, 298. Keith, ii. 694, 700. - -[229] Already, on July 16, Mary had offered verbally, by Robert Melville, -to the Lords, to make Moray Regent: or, failing him, to appoint a Council -of Regency, Chatelherault, Huntly, Argyll, Atholl, Lennox, and, 'with much -ado,' Morton, Moray, Mar, and Glencairn. But she would not abandon -Bothwell, as she was pregnant. Throckmorton does not say that she now -promised to sign an _abdication_. A letter of Mary's, to Bothwell's -captain in Dunbar, was intercepted, 'containing matter little to her -advantage.' It never was produced by her prosecutors (Throckmorton, July -18. Bain, ii. 355,356). Robert Melville, visiting her, declined to carry -such a letter to Bothwell. See his examination, in Addit. MSS. British -Museum, 33531, fol. 119 _et seq._ - -[230] Bain, ii. 367. - -[231] Bain, ii. 328. - -[232] _Ibid._ i. 346-348. - -[233] Bain, ii. 346. - -[234] _Ibid._ 354. July 16. - -[235] Alava to Philip, July 17. Teulet, v. 29. - -[236] De Silva, July 26, August 2. Spanish Calendar, i. 662, 665. I have -occasionally preferred the Spanish text to Major Hume's translations. See -also Hosack, i. 215, 216. - -[237] Froude, iii. 118. 1866. - -[238] Lennox MSS. - -[239] The words within inverted commas are autograph additions by Lennox -himself. - -[240] Ogilvy of Boyne, who married his old love, Lady Bothwell, after the -death of her second husband, the Earl of Sutherland. See pp. 26, 27, -_supra_. - -[241] _A Lost Chapter in the History of Mary Stuart._ - -[242] Throckmorton to Elizabeth, July 18. Bain, ii. 355. - -[243] Throckmorton to Elizabeth, July 31, 1567. Bain, ii. 370. - -[244] _Maitland Miscellany_, vol. iv. part i. p. 119. - -[245] Teulet, ii. 255, 256. - -[246] Labanoff, ii. 106. - -[247] Bain, ii. 423. - -[248] _Ibid._ 441, 442. - -[249] I do not know where the originals of these five letters now are. -They were among the Hamilton Papers, having probably been intercepted by -the Hamiltons before they reached Moray, Lethington, Crawford, and the -others. - -[250] Bain, ii. 514. - -[251] _Ibid._ 523, 524. - -[252] For. Eliz. viii. 478, 479. Bain, ii. 426, 427. - -[253] Bowton's confession. Laing, ii. 256, 257. - -[254] Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 331. - -[255] Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 363. - -[256] Moray, Morton, Glencairn, Errol, Buchan, Home, Ruthven, Semple, -Glamis, Lindsay, Gray, Graham, Ochiltree (Knox's father-in-law), -Innermeith, the treacherous Bishop of Orkney, Sir James Balfour (deeply -involved in the murder), Makgill, Lethington, Erskine of Dun, Wishart of -Pitarro, Kirkcaldy of Grange, and others of less note. - -[257] Nau, pp. 71-73. - -[258] Teulet, ii. 247. - -[259] Act in Henderson, 177-185. - -[260] Nau, 74, 75. - -[261] Goodall, ii. 361. B. M. Titus, c. 12, fol. 157 (_olim_ 175). 'And -gif it beis allegit, yat hir ma{tz} wretting producit in pliamet, sould -proiff hir g, culpable. It maybe ansrit yat yaere is na plane mentione maid -in it, be ye quhilk hir hienes may be convict Albeit it wer hir awin hand -wreitt, as it is not And als the same is cuttit (cullit?) be yame selfis -in sum principall & substantious clausis.' - -[262] Sepp, _Tagebuch_, Munich, 1882. - -[263] Bain, ii. 441, 442. - -[264] _Maitland Club Miscellany_, iv. 120, 121. - -[265] Teulet, ii. 248. - -[266] Bain, ii. 517. - -[267] Bain, ii. 434. - -[268] Nov. 8, 1571. Murdin, p. 57. - -[269] State Trials, i. 978. - -[270] As to 'the subtlety of that practice,' which puzzled Mr. Froude, -Laing offers a highly ingenious conjecture. Mary was to do the Scots -translations, procured for her by Lethington, into her own French, -omitting the compromising portions. Lethington was next 'privately to -substitute or produce the Queen's transcript instead of the originals, -with the omission of those criminal passages, which might then be opposed -as interpolated in the translation.' But in that case 'some variance of -phrase' by Mary could bring nothing 'to light,' for there would be no -originals to compare. Lethington, while slipping Mary's new transcript -into the Casket (Laing, i. 145, 146), would, of course, remove the -original letters in French, leaving the modified transcript in their -place. 'Variance of phrase' between an original and a translation could -prove nothing. Moreover, if Lethington had access to the French letters, -it was not more dangerous for him to destroy them than to substitute a -version which Moray, Morton, Buchanan, and all concerned could honestly -swear to be false. The Bishop of Ross did, later, manage an ingenious -piece of 'palming' letters on Cecil, but, in the story of 'palming' fresh -transcripts into the Casket there is no consistency. Moreover Melville's -word is at least as good as Lesley's, and Melville denies the truth of -Lesley's confession. - -[271] British Museum Addit. MSS. 33531, fol. 119, _et seq._ The MS. is -much injured. - -[272] Murdin, pp. 52, 58. - -[273] Bain, ii. 524. - -[274] Addit. MSS. _ut supra_. - -[275] Goodall, ii. 111. - -[276] Bain, ii. 518, 519. - -[277] _Ibid._ 519. - -[278] Bain, ii. 524. - -[279] Lennox MSS. - -[280] Bain, ii. 520, 521. - -[281] Goodall, ii. 140. - -[282] The production is asserted, Goodall, ii. 87. - -[283] Calderwood, iii. 556. - -[284] For the Ainslie Band, and the signatories, see Bain, ii. 322, and -Hay Fleming, p. 446, note 60, for all the accounts. - -[285] Hosack, i. 543. - -[286] There are two sets of extracts (Goodall, ii. 148-153): one of them -is in the Sadleyr Papers, edited by Sir Walter Scott, and in Haynes, p. -480. This is headed 'A brief Note of the chief and principal points of the -Queen of Scots Letters written to Bothwell for her consent and procurement -of the murder of her husband, as far forth as we could by the reading -gather.' The other set is in Scots, 'Notes drawin furth of the Quenis -letters sent to the Erle Bothwell.' If this were, as Miss Strickland -supposed, an abstract made and shown in June-July, it would prove, of -course, that Letter II. was then in its present shape, and would destroy -my hypothesis. But Cecil endorses it. 'sent October 29.' I think it -needless to discuss the notion that Lethington and his companions showed -only the Scots texts, and vowed that they were in Mary's handwriting! They -could not conceivably go counter, first, to Moray's statement (June 22, -1568) that the Scots versions were only translations. Nor could they, -later, produce the Letters in French, and pretend that both they and the -Scots texts were in Mary's hand. Doubtless they showed the French (though -we are not told that they did), but the English Commissioners, odd as it -seems, preferred to send to Elizabeth extracts from the Scots. - -[287] Bain, ii. 526-528. See also in Hosack, ii. 496-501, with the -obliterated lines restored. - -[288] Bain, ii. 529-530. - -[289] Bain, ii. 533, 534. - -[290] Goodall, ii. 162-170. The dates here are difficult. Lesley certainly -rode to Bolton, as Knollys says, on October 13, a Wednesday. (See the -English Commissioners to Elizabeth. Goodall, ii. 173. York, October 17.) -By October 17, Lesley was again at York (Goodall, ii. 174). Therefore I -take it that Lesley's letter to Mary (Bain, ii. 533, 534) is of October -18, or later, and that the 'Saturday' when Norfolk and Lethington rode -together, and when Lethington probably shook Norfolk's belief in the -authenticity of the Casket Letters, is Saturday, October 16. - -[291] Bain, ii. 533, 534. - -[292] _Ibid._ ii. 693. - -[293] Bain, ii. 541. - -[294] _Ibid._ ii. 533. - -[295] Addit. MSS. _ut supra_. - -[296] His letter is given in full by Hosack, i. 518-522. - -[297] Goodall, ii. 179-182. - -[298] Bain, ii. 551. - -[299] Goodall, ii. 182, 186. - -[300] Goodall, ii. No. lxvi. 189. - -[301] Anderson, iv. pt. ii. 115-121. Goodall, ii. 203-207. - -[302] Teulet, ii. 237. - -[303] Anderson, ii. 125-128. Bain, ii. 562, 563. - -[304] See Hosack, i. 432, 583. The opinions of the Legists are taken from -La Mothe, i. 51, 54. December 15, 1568. - -[305] Goodall, ii. 222-227. But compare her letter of Nov. 22, p. 265, -_supra_. - -[306] Bain, ii. 565, 566. - -[307] Goodall, ii. 229. - -[308] In my opinion the book is by George Buchanan, who presents many -coincident passages in his _Detection_. On February 25, 1569, one Bishop, -an adherent of Mary's, said, under examination, that 'there were sundry -books in Latin against her, one or both by Mr. George Buchanan,' books not -yet published (Bain, ii. 624). Can the _Book of Articles_ have been done -into Scots out of Buchanan's Latin? - -[309] When Goodall and Laing wrote (1754, 1804) the Minutes of December 7 -had not been discovered. - -[310] Bain, ii. 569, 570. - -[311] Bain, ii. 571-573. (Cf. pp. 254, note 3, and 271, _supra_.) - -[312] See Appendix E, 'The Translation of the Casket Letters.' - -[313] The extant copy is marked as of December viii. That is cancelled, -and the date 'Thursday, December 29' is given; the real date being -December 9. (Bain, ii. 576, 593, 730, 731.) This Declaration was one of -the MSS. of Sir Alexander Malet, bought by the British Museum in 1883. The -Fifth Report of the Historical MSS. Commission contains a summary, cited -by Bresslau, in _Kassetenbriefen_, pp. 21, 23, 1881. In 1889, Mr. -Henderson published a text in his _Casket Letters_. That of Mr. Bain, _ut -supra_, is more accurate (ii. 730 _et seq._). Mr. Henderson substitutes -Andrew for the notorious _Archibald_ Douglas, and there are other -misreadings in the first edition. - -[314] See 'The Internal Evidence,' pp. 302-313. - -[315] Mr. Bain omits December 13; see Goodall, ii. 252. - -[316] Bain, ii. 579, 580. - -[317] Froude, 1866, iii. 347. - -[318] Proceedings of Society for Psychical Research, vol. iii. pp. 282, -283, 294. - -[319] See Bain, ii. 581, for Crawford; the matter of this his _second_ -deposition, made on December 13, is not given; we know it from the Lennox -Papers. The _Diurnal_ avers that Tala, on the scaffold, accused Huntly, -Argyll, Lethington, Balfour, and others of signing the band for the -murder, 'whereto the Queen's grace consented.' Naturally the Queen's -accusers did not put the confession about Lethington forward, but if Tala -publicly accused Mary, why did they omit the circumstance? - -[320] Ballad by _Tom Truth_, in Bain under date of December, 1568. - -[321] Goodall, ii. 257-260. Bain, ii. 580, 581. - -[322] Froude, viii. 484. Mr. Froude's page-heading runs: 'The English -nobles pronounce them' (the Letters) 'genuine.' But this, as he shows in -the passage cited, they really did not do. They only said that Elizabeth -must not see Mary, 'until some answer had been made first....' However, -Elizabeth would not even let Mary see the Letters; and so no 'answer' was -possible. - -[323] Lingard, vi. 94, note 2 (1855). - -[324] Bain, ii. 583. - -[325] Another account, by Lesley, but not 'truly nor fully' reported, as -Cecil notes, is in Groodall, ii. 260, 261. Compare La Mothe Fenelon, i. -82. Bain, ii. 585. - -[326] Hosack, i. 460. - -[327] Goodall, ii. 281. - -[328] La Mothe, January 20, 30, 1569, i. 133-162. - -[329] Goodall, ii. 272, 273. - -[330] Goodall, ii. 307-309. - -[331] Lesley, like Herries, had no confidence in Mary's cause. On December -28, 1568, he wrote a curious letter to John Fitzwilliam, at Gray's Inn. -Lesley, Herries, and Kilwinning (a Hamilton) had met Norfolk, Leicester, -and Cecil privately. The English showed the _Book of Articles_, but -refused to give a copy, which seems unfair, as Mary could certainly have -picked holes in that indictment. Lesley found the Englishmen 'almost -confirmed in favour of our mistress's adversaries.' Norfolk and Cecil 'war -sayrest' (most severe), and Norfolk must either have been dissembling, or -must have had his doubts about the authenticity of the Casket Letters -shaken by comparing them with Mary's handwriting. Lesley asks Fitzwilliam -to go to their man of law, 'and bid him put our defences to the -presumptions in writ, as was devised before in all events, but we hope for -some appointment (compromise), but yet we arm us well.' Mary, however, -would not again stoop to compromise. (Bain, ii. 592, 593.) - -[332] Bain, ii. 570. - -[333] In the Cambridge MS. of the Scots translations (C) our Letter II. is -placed first. This MS. is the earliest. - -[334] It is indubitable that 'Cecil's Journal' was supplied by the -prosecution, perhaps from Lennox, who had made close inquiries about the -dates. - -[335] Bresslau, _Hist. Taschenbuch_, p. 71. Philippson, _Revue -Historique_, Sept., Oct., 1887, p. 31. M. Philippson suggests that -Lethington's name may not have been mentioned in the French, but was -inserted (perhaps by Makgill, or other enemy of his, I presume) in the -English, to damage the Secretary in the eyes of the English Commissioners. - -[336] Hosack, i. 217, 218. - -[337] See the letter in Appendix, 'Casket Letters.' - -[338] 'Yesternicht' is omitted in the English. See Appendix E, -'Translation of the Casket Letters.' - -[339] The last italicised words are in the English translation, not in the -Scots. - -[340] Hosack, ii. 24. - -[341] Father Pollen kindly lent me collations of this Cambridge MS. -translation into Scots, marked by me 'C.' - -[342] See Letter and Crawford's Deposition in Appendix. Mr. Henderson, in -his _Casket Letters_ (second edition, pp. xxvi, xxvii, 82-84), argues that -the interdependence of Crawford's Deposition and of Letter II. 'does not -seem to be absolutely proved.' Perhaps no other critic doubts it. - -[343] Goodall, ii. 246. - -[344] The English runs, 'Indeede that he had found faulte with me....' Mr. -Bain notes 'a blank left thus' (Bain, ii. 723). - -[345] Lennox MSS. - -[346] Mr. Frazer-Tytler, who did not enter into the controversy, supposed -that Crawford's Deposition was the actual written report, made by him to -Lennox in January 1567. If so, Letter II. is forged. - -[347] Mr. Henderson writes (_Casket Letters_, second edition, p. xxvi): -'It must be remembered that while Crawford affirms that he supplied Lennox -with notes of the conversation immediately after it took place, he does -not state that the notes were again returned to him by Lennox in order to -enable him to form his deposition.' How else could he get them, unless he -kept a copy? 'It is also absurd to suppose that Lennox, on June 11, 1568, -should have written to Crawford for _notes which he had already in his own -possession_.' But Lennox did not do that; he asked, not for Mary's -conversation with Darnley, but for Crawford's with Mary, which Crawford -never says that he wrote down 'at the time.' Mr. Henderson goes on to -speak of 'the notes having been lost,' and 'these documents had apparently -been destroyed' (p. 84), of which I see no appearance. - -[348] Goodall, ii. 246. _Maitland Club Miscellany_, iv. pt. i. p. 119. It -will be observed that while Crawford swears to having written down -Darnley's report for Lennox 'at the time,' he says that he '_caused to be -made_' the writing which he handed in to the Commissioners, 'according to -the truth of his knowledge.' Crawford's Deposition handed in to the -Commissioners, in fact, has been 'made,' that is, has been Anglicised from -the Scots; this is proved by the draft in the Lennox Papers. This is what -Crawford means by saying that he 'caused it to be made.' There is a -corrected draft of the declaration in the Lennox MSS., but Crawford's -original autograph text, 'written with his hand' (in Scots doubtless), was -retained by the Lords (Goodall, ii. 88). - -[349] The Deposition, in Bain, ii. 313, is given under February, 1567, but -this copy of it, being in English, cannot be so early. - -[350] _Historia_, fol. 213. Yet the Lennox _dossier_ represents Darnley as -engaged, at this very time, at Stirling, in a bitter and angry quarrel -with Mary. He may have been in contradictory moods: Buchanan omits the -mood of fury. - -[351] _Maitland of Lethington_, ii. 337. - -[352] Mary to Norfolk, Jan. 31, 1570. Labanoff, iii. 19. - -[353] Labanoff, iii. 62. - -[354] The prosecution is in rather an awkward position as to Bothwell's -action when he returned to Edinburgh, after leaving Mary at Callendar, -which we date January 21, and they date January 23. _Cecil's Journal_ -says, 'January 23 ... Erle Huntly and Bothwell returnit _that same nycht_ -to Edynt [Edinburgh] _and Bothwell lay in the Town_.' The _Book of -Articles_ has 'Bot boithuell at his cuming to Edinburgh ludgit in the -toun, quhair customably he usit to ly at the abbay,' that is, in Holyrood -(Hosack, i. 534). The author of the _Book of Articles_ clearly knew -_Cecil's Journal_; perhaps he wrote it. Yet he makes Mary stay but one -night at Callendar; _Cecil's Journal_ makes her stay two nights. However, -our point is that both sources make Bothwell lie in the town, not at -Holyrood, on the night of his return from Callendar. His object, they -imply, was to visit Kirk o' Field privately, being lodged near it and not -in his official rooms. But here they are contradicted by Paris, who says -that when he brought Mary's first Glasgow Letter to Bothwell he found him -in his chambers _at Holyrood_ (Laing, ii. 282). - -[355] Nelson, according to Miss Strickland (_Mary Stuart_, ii. 178, 1873), -left Edinburgh for England, and was detained by Drury for some months at -Berwick. For this Miss Strickland cites Drury to Cecil, Berwick, February -15, 1567, a letter which I am unable to find in the MSS. But the lady is -more or less correct, since, on February 15, Mary wrote to Robert -Melville, in England, charging him, in very kind terms, to do his best for -Anthony Standen, Darnley's friend, who was also going to England (Frazer, -_The Lennox_, ii. 7). A reference to Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 193, No. 1029, -shows that a letter of Mary to Drury, asking free passage for Standen and -four other Englishmen, is really of March 15, not of February 15. Again, a -letter of March 8, 1567, from Killigrew, at Edinburgh, to Cecil, proves -that 'Standen, Welson, and Guyn, that served the late king, intend to -return home when they can get passport' (Bain, ii. 347, No. 479). Now -'Welson' is obviously Nelson. On June 16, Drury allowed Standen to go -south (Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 252, No. 1305). Nelson, doubtless, also -returned to Lennox. It is odd that Lennox, having these two witnesses, -should vary so much, in his first indictment, from the accepted accounts -of events at Kirk o' Field. This Anthony Standen is the younger of the two -brothers of the same name. The elder was acting for Darnley in France at -the time of the murder. He lived to a great age, recounting romances about -his adventures. - -[356] Mr. Hay Fleming suggests that 'Jhone a Forret' may be Forret of that -ilk--of Forret near Cairnie. Of him I have no other knowledge. - -[357] Hatfield MSS. Calendar, i. 376, 377. - -[358] Melville, _Memoirs_, 173, 174. Hosack's _Mary_, i. 536 (_The Book of -Articles_). Anderson, ii. 18, 19 (_Detection_). _Cecil's Journal_, under -date Saturday, February 8, has 'She confronted the King and my lord of -Halyrodhouse conforme to hir letter wryttin the nycht before:' that is, -this Letter III. - -[359] Mr. Hosack makes an error in averring that no letter as to this -intrigue was produced at Westminster or later; that the letter was only -shown at York in October, 1568. There and then Moray's party '_inferred_, -upon a letter of her own hand, that there was another meane of a more -cleanly conveyance devised to kill the King' (Goodall, ii. 142; Hosack, i. -409, 410). The letter was that which we are now considering. - -[360] The Scots has 'handling.' The Cambridge MS. of the Scots translation -reads 'composing of thame,' from 'le bien composer de ceux' in the -original French. - -[361] Dr. Bresslau notes several such coincidences, but stress cannot be -laid on phrases either usual, or such as a forger might know to be -favourites of Mary's. - -[362] Laing, ii. 286. - -[363] _Mary Queen of Scots_, vol. ii. No. 63. - -[364] 'Je m'en deferay au hazard de _la_ faire entreprandre:' the -translators, not observing the gender referring to the maid, have -blundered. - -[365] It appears that they did not officially put in this compromising -Ainslie paper. Cecil's copy had only such a list of signers 'as John Read -might remember.' His copy says that Mary approved the band on May 14, -whereas the Lords allege that she approved before they would sign. Bain, -ii. 321, 322. A warrant of approval was shown at York. Bain, ii. 526. Cf. -_supra_, p. 254, note 3. - -[366] Labanoff, ii. 32-44. - -[367] _Maitland of Lethington_, ii. 224. - -[368] Lethington to Beaton, October 24, 1566; cf. Keith, ii. 542. - -[369] 'The safety,' 'la seurete.' Mr. Henderson's text has 'la seincte.' -The texts in his volume are strangely misleading and incorrect, both in -the English of Letter II. and in the copies of the original French. - -[370] This means a ring in black enamel, with representations of tears and -bones, doubtless in white: a fantastic mourning ring. Mary left a diamond -in black enamel to Bothwell, in June, 1566. - -[371] This coincidence was pointed out to me by Mr. Saintsbury. - -[372] By the way, she says to Norfolk, in the same Letter, 'I am resolvid -that weale nor wo shall never remove me from yow, If yow cast me not -away.' Compare the end of this Letter VIII.: 'Till death nor weal nor woe -shall estrange me' (jusques a la mort ne changera, _car mal ni bien oncque -ne m'estrangera_). Now the forger could not copy a letter not yet written -(Labanoff, iii. 5). This conclusion of her epistle is not on the same -level as the _customary_ conclusion--the prayer that God will give the -recipient long life, and to her--something else. _That_ formula was usual: -'Je supplie Dieu et de vous donner bonne vie, et longue, et a moy l'eur de -votre bonne grasse.' This formula, found in Mary's Letters and in the -Casket Letters, also occurs in a note from Marguerite de France to the -Duchesse de Montmorency (De Maulde, _Women of the Renaissance_, p. 309). A -forger would know, and would insert the stereotyped phrase, if he chose. - -[373] On the point of wearing a concealed jewel in her bosom, the curious -may consult the anecdote, 'Queen Mary's Jewels,' in the author's _Book of -Dreams and Ghosts_. - -[374] In Laing, ii. 234. - -[375] _Cecil's Journal._ - -[376] _Cecil's Journal._ - -[377] Laing, ii. 285. - -[378] Laing, ii. 289. - -[379] Laing, ii. 325, 326. Laing holds that between April 21 and April 23 -Mary wrote Letters V. VI. VII. VIII. and Eleven Sonnets to Bothwell: -strange literary activity! - -[380] Froude, iii. 75, note 1. - -[381] Teulet, ii. 169, 170. - -[382] Labanoff, iii. 5. - -[383] Labanoff, iii. 64. - -[384] Spanish Calendar, i. 659. - -[385] Bain, ii. 329, 330. - -[386] Privy Council Register. - -[387] Bain, ii. 336. Sir John Skelton did not observe the coincidence -between the opening of the Casket and the 'sudden dispatch' of Robert -Melville to London. The letter in full is in _Maitland of Lethington_, ii. -226, 227. - -[388] Bain, ii. 339. - -[389] Goodall, ii. 342, 343. - -[390] Goodall, ii. 388, 389. - -[391] Camden, _Annals_, 143-5. Laing, i. 226. - -[392] Laing, ii. 224-240. - -[393] Bain, ii. 322. - -[394] As to Randolph's dark hint, Chalmers says, 'he means their -participation in Darnley's murder' (ii. 487). But that, from Randolph's -point of view, was no offence against Mary, and Kirkcaldy was not one of -Darnley's murderers. - -[395] Cal. For. Eliz. ix. 390. - -[396] See Hosack, ii. 217, 218. Bowes to Walsingham, March 25, 1581. -_Bowes Papers_, 174. Ogilvie to Archibald Beaton. Hosack, ii. 550, 551. - -[397] Bain, ii. 569. - -[398] Robertson _Inventories_, 124. - -[399] _Bowes Correspondence_, 236. - -[400] Bowes, 265. - -[401] Goodall, i. 35, 36. - -[402] Vol. lxxx. 131, _et seq._ - -[403] Before the Reformation it belonged to the Bishops of Roskilde, and -was confiscated from them, Henry VIII.'s fashion. - -[404] Bain, ii. 250. - -[405] Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 413, 414. - -[406] This picture seems to be lost. - -[407] _Diurnal_, p. 134. - -[408] Birrel's _Diary_, p. 17. - -[409] Cot. Lib. Calig. B. ix. fol. 272. Apud Chalmers, i. 441, 442. - -[410] Bain, ii. 516. - -[411] _Diurnal_, p. 146. - -[412] Bain, ii. 665. - -[413] Nau, p. 80. - -[414] Chalmers's date, as to Stewart's expedition to Denmark, differs from -that of Drury. - -[415] Such coffers were carefully covered. One had a cover of crimson -velvet, with the letter 'F' in silver and gold work (Maitland Club, -_Illustrations of Reigns of Mary and James_). Another coffer, with a cover -of purple velvet, is described in a tract by M. Luzarche (Tours, 1868). - -[416] Nau, p. 48. - -[417] Tytler, iv. 324, 1864. - -[418] _Diurnal_, p. 127. - -[419] Laing, ii. 293, 294. - -[420] Bain, ii. 322. - -[421] Laing, ii. 314-318. - -[422] Tytler, iv. 323, 1864. - -[423] Labanoff, ii. 213. - -[424] Bain, ii. 576. - -[425] Laing's efforts to detect French idioms lead him to take 'all -contrary'--as in - - 'Mary, Mary, - All contrary, - How does your garden grow?'-- - -and 'all goeth ill' for French too literally translated. - -[426] _Casket Letters_, pp. 82, 83. - -[427] 'He,' that is, Lennox. - -[428] 'He,' misread for 'I.' - -[429] The English translator apparently mistook 'signer' for 'saigner.' - -[430] 'They': Darnley and Lady Bothwell. - -[431] 'I cannot ceis to barbulze' (Y). - -[432] 'Humanitie' (C). - -[433] His fair promises (C). - -[434] 'Your brother.' Huntly. - -[435] 'Scriblit.' Barbulzeit (C). - -[436] Cambridge MS. 'l'acointance.' - -[437] Cambridge MS, 'je' omitted. - -[438] Cambridge MS. 'Dont de grief doil me vint ceste dolleur.' - -[439] Cambridge MS. 'Per.' - -[440] Cambridge MS. 'honneur.' - - - - -Transcriber's Notes: - -Passages in italics are indicated by _italics_. - -Underlined passages are indicated by =underline=. - -Passages that are struck through are indicated by --word--. - -Passages raised above the printed line with a carat are indicated by -^word^. - -Superscripted characters are indicated by {superscript}. - -The original text contains letters with diacritical marks that are not -represented in this text version. - -The original text includes an inverted L symbol that is represented as [L] -in this text version. - - - - - - -End of Project Gutenberg's The Mystery of Mary Stuart, by Andrew Lang - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE MYSTERY OF MARY STUART *** - -***** This file should be named 42910.txt or 42910.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/4/2/9/1/42910/ - -Produced by Chris Curnow, Anna Whitehead and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at - www.gutenberg.org/license. - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is - owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he - has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the - Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments - must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you - prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax - returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and - sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the - address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to - the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or - destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium - and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of - Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any - money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days - of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 -North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email -contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the -Foundation's web site and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |