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 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 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 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 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