PRINTED BYSPOTTISWOODE AND CO. LTD., NEW-STREET SQUARELONDON
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’sDetection.
[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 BannatyneMiscellany, vol. i. p. 184.
[15]See description by Alesius, about 1550, in BannatyneMiscellany, 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 Cecilut 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 whereamantium iræis 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’sInventories, 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 Médicis, 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’État, 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]SeeAppendix 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 Mauvissière, 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’sBothwell.
[161]Laing, ii. 269.
[162]Bain, ii. 698.
[163]SeeAppendix 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, inThe 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’sLost Chapter in the History of Queen Maryfor 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’sMemorials, 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.Thathe 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]Fénelon,Dépêches(1838), i. 19, 20.
[217]Fénelon, i. 22. To this point we shall return.
[218]La Mothe Fénelon, 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, Châtelherault, 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 anabdication. 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. 119et 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 (olim175). ‘And gif it beis allegit, yat hir matzwretting producit in pliamẽt, sould proiff hir g, culpable. It maybe ansrit yat yäre 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 hisDetection. 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 theBook of Articleshave 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]SeeAppendix 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, inKassetenbriefen, pp. 21, 23, 1881. In 1889, Mr. Henderson published a text in hisCasket Letters. That of Mr. Bain,ut supra, is more accurate (ii. 730et seq.). Mr. Henderson substitutes Andrew for the notoriousArchibaldDouglas, 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 hisseconddeposition, made on December 13, is not given; we know it from the Lennox Papers. TheDiurnalavers 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 byTom 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 Fénelon, 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 theBook 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.)