[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 inAppendix, ‘Casket Letters.’
[338]‘Yesternicht’ is omitted in the English. SeeAppendix 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 inAppendix. Mr. Henderson, in hisCasket 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 fornotes 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 Lennoxdossierrepresents 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 Journalsays, ‘January 23 ... Erle Huntly and Bothwell returnitthat same nychtto Edynt [Edinburgh]and Bothwell lay in the Town.’ TheBook of Articleshas ‘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 theBook of Articlesclearly knewCecil’s Journal; perhaps he wrote it. Yet he makes Mary stay but one night at Callendar;Cecil’s Journalmakes 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 chambersat 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’sMary, 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 delafaire 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 à 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 thecustomaryconclusion—the prayer that God will give the recipient long life, and to her—something else.Thatformula 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’sBook 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 inMaitland 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]RobertsonInventories, 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’sDiary, 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.’