The Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots THE CASKET LETTERS AND MAEY QUEEN OF SCOTS BIOGRAPH THE CASKET LETTERS u AND MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS miH APPENDICES EDINBURGH ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK 1890 PREFACE. The ' Casket Letters ' controversy — imfortctnt though the issues involved in it may he — has latterly heen regarded hy many as practically f utile, the supposition being that no evidence is now oUaincible adequate to justify a very definite conclusion on one side or the other. The character latterly assumed hy the contro- versy in this country has afforded some ground for this prevailing opinion. It is only on the Continent — and especially in Germany — that the importance and significance of the discoveries of original versions of the letters have heen recognised. In the present volume an endeavour is made to shoio that loithin recent years substantial progress has heen made towards a definite conclusion ; hut the chief reason for its publication is the discovery of the vital evidence contained in Morton's Declaration. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. TNTRODTJCTORY. PAGE Historical Interest of the Casket Problem, ... 1 Mary's Prominent Place in Scottish History, . . 3 The Regent Moray, Cecil, and Elizabeth, ... 3 Mr. Skelton's Middle Position as to Mary's Guilt, . . 4 Mary's Attitude towards Bothwell, . . . 6 Mr. Swinburne's Alternative, .... 8 Bearing of the Casket Evidence, . . " . . 9 The Regent Moray's Position, .... 10 CHAPTER II. PRODUCTION OF THE LETTERS IN SCOTLAND. Bothwell and Mary after Kirk-o'-Field," . . 12 Discovery of the Casket — Morton's Declaration, . . 13 The Privy Council Reference, . . . .13 Throckmorton's Statement, . ... .14 Were the Letters produced at Lochleven ? . . . 15 De Silva and the Regent Moray, . . . .16 Drury's Statement, . . . . .17 Were the Letters produced on 4th December ? . . 19 Professor Schiern's Ingenious Theory, ... 20 Hosack's supposed Discovery, .... 21 Were the Letters produced in the Scottish Parliament ? . 24 vii viii CONTENTS. CHAPTER III. THE niODUCTION OF THE LETTERS IN ENGLAND. PAGE Mary's Flight to England, ..... 27 Negotiations of the Regent Moray, .... 27 Commission at York, ..... 28 Character and Powers of the Commission, ... 29 The Letters shown privately, .... 30 Was the French Version produced at York ? . . 31 The Westminster Conference, .... 32 Declaration of the Scottish Commissioners, . . 34 Examination of the Letters, . . . .35 Criticism of Hosack adopted by Professor Schiern and Mr. Skelton, ...... 36 The Charge of Carelessness — the Persons at Fault, . 38 The Two Minutes, ...... 39 Tendency of the Weight of Evidence, ... 40 Return of the Scottish Commissioners with the Casket, . 40 CHAPTER IV. THE PUBLICATION OF THE LETTERS. Disappearance of the Letters, . . . 42 By whom were they destroyed ? . . . .43 By Mary's Accusers ?..... 45 By the Marian Party ?..... 46 By James VI. ? ...... 46 Buchanan's Detection, ..... 47 Mr. Skelton on Cecil and Buchanan, ... 48 Was there a " Transparent Mystification " ? . . 49 Cecil's Obscure Activity," .... 50 CONTENTS. ix CHAPTER V. THE CONTROVERSY. PAGE Goodall's Demonstration, . . . . . 51 Hosack's Modification of Goodall's Theory, . . 53 Mr. Skelton's Exposition of the Theory, ... 53 Hosack*s Discoveries, . . . . .54 Compromising Expressions in Letter 4, . . .55 Did Darnley know French ? . . , .56 Belief of Lennox in the ' ^ Handwrite, " . ^ . 58 Could the Letters not have been sent to Bothwell ? . 59 Hazardous Character of Hosack's Theory, ... 60 Letter 2 and Crawford's Declaration, . . . 61 Baron de Lettenhove's Discovery at Hatfield, . . 62 Dr. Bresslau's Criticism of the Letters, ... 63 Mr. Skelton's Latest Opinions, .... 63 Mr. Skelton and Markham Thorpe, • . . 64 Professor Mandell Creighton's Views, ... 65 The Editors of the Hatfield Calendar, ... 65 Demolition of the Modified Goodall Theory, . . 66 Mr. Skelton and Recent Continental Writers, . . 67 Recent German Theories, ..... 67 The supposed Manipulations," .... 68 Dr. Bresslau's Conclusions, ..... 69 How far these Conclusions are warranted, ... 70 CHAPTER VL LETTER 2. Peculiar Structure of the Letter, . . . .72 An '^Unaccountable Intimation," . . . .73 Mr. Eroude's Estimate, . . . . .73 Mr. Skelton's Opinion, ..... 73 X CONTENTS. Hosack's Criticism, ...... PAGE 74 The Coarseness of Tone," . .... 75 Minute References in the Letter, .... 76 Was it originally written in French ? . . . 77 Examples of the Influence of a French Original, 77 The Letter and Crawford's Declaration, 82 Was there Collusion " ? ..... 83 Was the Letter partly forged from Crawford's Statements ? 85 r^oiilH flip TiPtfpr Tin VP hppn wvi ffpn "PrnTYi frljiciD'nw ? 86 In what Sense the Evidence is Negative, . 89 CHAPTER YIL MUlliUJN o iJHiULiAxtAi lUiN . Discovery of the Declaration, .... 90 Its Exhaustive Statements, .... 90 The *'Sichting" of the Documents, 91 The Witnesses to the " Sichting," .... 92 The Catholic Nobles, ..... 93 Testimony of Atholl, ..... 94 Testimony of Lord Home, ..... 94 Testimony of other Nobles, .... 94 What the Testimony proves, . . 95 The " most Notable Witness, " . . . . 95 Maitland of Lethington and Queen Mary, . 96 Morton and Maitland, . . . . 96 Maitland's Silence, ...... 97 Was Maitland the Forger ? . 98 Mr. Skelton's Past and Present Views, 99 Mr. Skelton on Morton, . . . . ' . 99 Mr. Skelton's Vindication of Maitland, 100 Maitland and Darnley — the Verdict of not proven," 101 Mr. Skelton's Dilemma, ..... 102 Morton's Declaration and Moray's Receipt, 103 Conditions essential to the Forgery Theory, 104 CONTENTS. xi CHAPTER YIII. CONCLUSION. PAGE Mary's Denial, . . . . . .105 Mary's Silence, . . . . . .106 Attitude of France and Spain, . . . .107 The Catholics and the Murder of Darnley, . . . 108 The Protestant Nobles of Scotland and the Murder, . 108 The only Excuse for their Conduct, . . . 109 The Regent Moray and his Sister, . . . .109 Elizabeth's Treatment of Mary, . . . .109 APPENDICES. APPENDIX A. Morton's Declaration, . • . . .113 APPENDIX B. Lord Home's Deposition, . . . . .117 Deposition of William Kirkaldy of Grange, . . 119 APPENDIX C. CASKET DOCUMENTS. Markiage Contracts. The First Contract, . . . . . .121 The Second Contract, . . . . .122 The Casket Letters. Letter I. Scots and English Translations, . . . .124 Latin and French Translations, . . . .125 xii CONTENTS. Letter II. PAGE Scots and English Translations, . . . .127 Latin and French Translations, . . . .141 Letter III. Original French Version and Scots Translation, . . 156 Letter IV. Original French Version, and French and Latin Transla- tions, ....... 159 Scots and English Translations, . . . .163 Letter V. Original French Version, and French and Scots Transla- tions, ....... 165 Letter VI. Original French Version, and French Translation, . 167 Scots and English Translations, , . . .169 Letter VII. Scots and French Translations, . . . .171 Letter VIII. Scots and French Translations, ... . . 172 Letter IX. "French Sonnets," . . . . . . 173 APPENDIX D. I. Act of Secret Council, . . . . .177 II. Act of Parliament anent the Retention of our Souverane Motheris Person, . . . 182 III. Journal of the Proceedings of the Lords of the Privy Council of England, 14th day of December 1568, . 186 IV, Journal of the Proceedings of the Lords of the Privy Council of England, 15th day of December 1568, . 189 CORRIGENDA, P. 92, line 10 from bottom, for "Andrew" read "Archibald." P. 99, line 4 from top, for "large scale " read " larger theatre." P. 126, col. 1, line 6 from bottom, /or " inclinaturam " read "inclina- turum." P. 146, col. 2, line 4 from bottom, for " clerement " read " cherement." P. 156, col. 2, line 6 from top, /or "seray" read "feray." PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION IN REPLY TO ORJECTIONS. The careful consideration awarded to the arguments of this small volume encourages me to take this opportunity of endeavouring to remove some misapprehensions as to its aim, and of dealing with the more serious objections that have been urged against its conclusions. At the outset it may be advisable to disavow certain pretensions that have been ascribed to it. It does not claim — as a writer in the Atlienceum supposes — to " have established for the first time the genuineness of the Casket Letters.'^ On the contrary, it aims to show that their genuineness was practically admitted during the lifetime of Queen Mary, and that the arguments of successive writers have been ineffectual in disproving this. Mr. Skelton, with irrelevant irony, compliments me on the rapidity with which I have solved a riddle which has baffled the finest wits." ^ That the Casket problem is "a riddle which has baffled the finest wits," is his assumption, not mine. The "finest wits,'' wdth the exception of Mr. Skelton, do not themselves admit it. Historians of this ^ See The Casket Letters and Mary Stuart : A Reply to certain Critics," by John Skelton, C.B., LL.D., in Blackwood^s Magazine for December 1889. xiil xiv THE CASKET LETTERS. period, such as Hume, Robertson, Laing, Mignet, P. F. Tytler, Hill Burton, and Mr. Froude, are at one as to the genuineness of the documents. \ Other writers, such as Gobdall, Chalmers, AYhitaker, Miss Strickland, Hosack, and ]\r. Philippson, who have studied this period almost exclusively in reference to Queen INIary, affirm without any apparent hesitation that they are forgeriesj But, as Mr. Skelton is confessedly baffled by the riddle, it is he who occupies a position conspicuously different from that of the "finest wits." Undoubtedly Hosack's statement of the case against the genuineness of the documents produced considerable temporary efi'ect. But with the peculiar merits, it united the special defects of an able barrister's address to a British jury. It was avowedly the work of a partisan. There was no pretence of im- partiality. The weak points of the case were hidden as skilfully as might be, and the strong ones marshalled in their most efi'ective array. History, however, cannot be altered even by the most skilful manipulation of facts. Surely, if slowly, the facts reassume the old significance. Less convinced than "puzzled" by Hosack's statement of the case, the general reader Avas inclined to regard the controversy as " practically futile ; " but so largely were Hosack's arguments based on mere assumption, that in addition to the crumbling process to which they were exposed by independent examination of authorities, new information was almost 'certain to directly contradict them. His ingenious theory as to the method of the forgery had really nothing to commend it except its ingenuity. It has been fatally damaged by the recent discoveries of original versions of the letters ; and, if Morton's declaration as to the "sichting" of the docu- PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XV ments be accepted, the whole basis of the forgery theory is demoHshed. Morton's declaration is thus "practically decisive as to the authenticity of the documents." Mr. Skelton himself affirms in his Life of Maitland,^ that the external evidence — the true history of the casket and its contents as affecting the statements made by those who produced it for a specific purpose — is that which is virtually decisive.'' Morton's declaration completes the chain of external evidence. The presumption was that Morton did give a satisfactory account of how the casket came into his possession ; but the discovery of his declaration establishes tliis beyond further dispute. The question as to whether Dr. Bresslau or I was the first to make historical use of Morton's narrative is scarcely even a " side issue." I am therefore the more surprised that Mr. Skelton should have felt himself called upon to make against me on this score an insinua- tion which he was confessedly unable to prove. " I am not sure," he writes, " that Mr. Henderson's claim to the copyright of the discovery will be admitted without protest. If M. Philippson at least is to be believed, Morton's narrative had been largely used by Bresslau so long ago as 1882." Then follows a passage from M. Philippson, which, however, contains no such statement as that which Mr. Skelton attributes to him. M. Philippson certainly quotes a summary of the document from Dr. Bresslau. But what summary*? Merely the summary given in the Fifth Eeport of the Historical Manuscripts Commission ! ]^ot only so, but Dr. Bresslau himself states, immediately after the passage quoted by M. Philippson, 1 Vol. ii. p. 300. XVI THE CASKET LETTERS. that the document lias never been used for the history of Mary Stuart. "So laatet," he says, "der im 'Fiftli Eeport of the Eoyal Commissioners of Historical Manu- scripts ' (London 1876), S. 308, veroffentliche Auszug aus einer imter den Papieren des Sir A. Malet hefindlichen Copie dieses wichtigen Actenstiicks, das bisher noch nicht vollstiindig gedruckt und niemals filr die Geschichte Maria Stuart's benutzt worden ist."i It is rather hard that I should be made the innocent victim of Mr. Skelton's ignorance of German, or at least his ignorance of Bresslau ; but any resentment awakened by his infelicitous surmise is necessarily at once extinguished in amusement at the illustration it afibrds of the dire possibilities associated with unguarded applications of the ''imaginative insight" which is "invaluable to the historian.'' In a footnote Mr. Skelton says : "M. Philippson goes on to point out that, according to Sir James Melville (whose statement is otherwise corroborated), Dalgleish was captured, not in Edinburgh in June, but in Orkney a month later." The actual statement of Sir James Melville is that Grange while in pursuit of Bothwell captured one of his ships, "and therewith the Lard of Tallow, Jhon Hebroun of Bowtown, Dagleis and dyuers vthers of the said Erlis seruandis." ^ Melville's Memoirs, as Mr. Skelton in reference to their bearing on another matter deemed it advisable to remark, were written "in his old age ; " and, according to the same authority, his "memory sometimes played him false." That his memory played him false on this occasion is beyond doubt. So far from his statement being "otherwise corroborated," ^ Historisches Taschenbuch, 1882, p. 22. 2 Memoirs, Bannatyiie ed. p. 186. PKEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. Xvii it is directly and absolutely contradicted by the very evidence which M. Philippson adduces in its support, the evidence of Throckmorton in a letter to Elizabeth of the 18th July. The Avords of Throckmorton are: "The earle of Bodwells porter and one of hys other servauntes of hys chamber, beinge apprehended, have confessed such soundrie cyrcumstances as yt appearethe evydently that he, the sayde earle, was one of the pryncypall executors of the murder in hys owne person." ^ Throckmorton does not state when the servants were apprehended, but the servants referred to can be no others than Powrie and Dalgleish, whose depositions are dated respectively the 23rd and 26 th June. The other servants of Both well mentioned by Melville were not captured till September, In the same letter Throckmorton mentions that a pro- clamation had been issued against Bothwell. This was done on the 26th June, and it declared Bothwell to have been the executor of the murder " with his awin handis, as his awin servandis, being in company with him at that unworthie deid, lies testifiit." As no other servants had then testified against Bothwell, the reference can only be to the depositions of Powrie and Dalgleish. But this is not all. M. Philippson wittily endeavours to clinch the matter with the terse truism : " II (Bothwell) " ne pent done " (the proclamation being only issued against him on the 26th June) avoir quitte les Orcades, avoir ete poursuivi par Grange et prive de quelques-uns de ses na vires avant le 19 ou 12 Juillet, et non pas le 20 Juin.'' ^ The conclusion is ridiculously cogent, but, as Grange had ^ Printed in full in Illustrations of the Reign of Mary (Mait- land Club), pp. 219-223. ^ Eevue Historique, vol. xxxiv. p. 236. xviii THE CASKET LETTERS. not set out against Bothwell even hy the 12th July, it is equally indisputable that he could not have captured one of his ships by that date. It will be observed that Throckmorton does not state that the servants of Bothwell were caught in Orkney, or in BothwelVs ship, and that Sir James Melville, **even in his old age," did not state that BothwelFs ship was captured in July, And why ? Because, as every one acquainted with the main facts of Bothwell's career knows, Bothwell's ship was captured not in July, but in September, It is thus plain that if the servants of Bothwell referred to were caught before the 18th July, they could not have been caught when Both- well's ship was captured. A word may here be added in explanation of the absence of any reference to the casket in Dalgleish's deposition. Mr. Skelton, though in comparatively mild and ambiguous terms, still directs attention to this as a suspicious circumstance. ^SStrangely enough," he says, no question about the casket or its contents was put to him." But what could Dalgleish know about its contents, since he carried it locked 1 And if he had known anything, his information would surely have been superfluous to those in whose presence the casket had been opened. They had obtained all the information he had to give about the casket, by threatening him with torture. His deposition related wholly to matters about which the Council needed information, — the connection of Bothwell with the murder. Mr. Skelton's doubts as to the genuineness of the document (the copy of Morton's declaration) do not appear to be very grave. That it should have been described as " the copy of a letter " would probably not PKKFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. xix have puzzled him had he reflected that in early times the word " letter " was a general synonym for all kinds of written documents. He is also mistaken in supposing that there was no meeting of the Commission on the 8th December, when the document is stated to have been given to Cecil. The writer of the second description of the document appears, however, to have been misinformed as to the date when Morton made his declaration on oath. Such vague generalities as that " Some time " (what time 1) " during last century there appears to have been a perfect craze " (was there a " perfect craze ?) " for manufacturing ancient manuscripts,'' and that the late Mr. Hill Burton had collected some information on this subject, which may perhaps be still among his papers," are little better than solemn trifling. If the manuscript be a modern fraud, it must surely be possible to detect and expose the forgery. Naturally Mr. Skelton would prefer that no importance should be attached to the use of the term " sichtit " to the documents, but, curiously enough, his chief reason for making light of its use is that it renders Morton's statement as "precise and impressive as possible." Not- withstanding the "precise and impressive" signification of the term, he has no difliculty in asserting that to suppose that " each of the numerous " (" numerous" is a happy thought of Mr. Skelton's) " writings was scanned closely and attentively is palpably absurd." Would it not rather be " palpably absurd " to suppose — even had no such term as "sichtit " been used — that they were not " scanned closely and attentively " % Even apart from imperative State reasons, the natural curiosity of those before whom the casket was opened would be certain to XX THE CASKET LETTERS. promj^t a close and exhaustive examination of the purport of its contents. While deeming it necessary to allude to AthoU's relation to the declaration, Mr. Skelton carefully avoids directly touching on -what, to the admirers of his Life of Maitlancl, is the specially interesting question of the possible bearing of the declaration on Maitland's attitude towards Mary. On this matter Mr. Skelton ventures nothing beyond a casual remark, apropos of something else, that Maitland, it is to be presumed, had ceased to attend the meetings." Even had he ceased to attend them, it cannot be supposed that he was ignorant of the tenor of Morton's declaration. At any rate, it may be inferred, from Mr. Skelton's novel and extraordinary hypothesis, that if Maitland had not ceased to attend them, Mr. Skelton would be at a loss to account for his silence. But are we to be told, sim2:)ly on the evidence of Mr. Skelton's "imaginative insight," that Maitland would be allowed by Moray and his colleagues to discredit them by taking up the same attitude to the inquiry as that of Mary's Commissioners ? and that, notwithstanding this, his conduct, with that of his fellow Commissioners, would be approved on his return to Scotland, and he would be per- mitted to hold for nearly a year the office of Secretary ? But, leaving Maitland out of account, Mr. Skelton evidently regards the possible testimony of Atholl and other Catholic lords to the '^sichting" as of serious consequence. The able writer in the Saturday Jievieiv does seem to manifest " excessive scepticism " when he proposes to reject every kind of testimony in regard to the documents "from whatever quarter it proceeds among the Scottish nobles." doubt many PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION". Xxi of the Scottish nobles were actuated in their political conduct by questionable motives, but baseness and perfidy were by no means so rampant among them as to warrant such an impotent conclusion. The honour, for example, of such nobles as Mar and Glencairn has never been questioned. Moreover, it is perfectly well known that many of the nobles who had banded together for the Queen's " deliverance " from Both well cherished no animosity whatever against the Queen personally. Much of the apparent inconsistency in the acts of the Council and Parliament at this time is due to the fact that they were the result of a compromise agreed upon with the Catholic nobles. Had the Queen been directly accused, the support of the Catholics would have been lost ; and it therefore cannot be for a moment supposed that these same Catholics would knowingly be parties to a conspiracy for the irretrievable ruin of the Queen's character. Unqualified denunciations of Morton, besides indicating the predominance of passion over argument, are wholly irrelevant to the question at issue. A writer in the Month, oblivious for the moment of the fate of the unhappy Mary, naively accuses Morton of having " died by the hands of the public executioner." On the subject of Morton's ^' honour " Mr. Skelton also expends much needless wit. He now professes to entertain doubts as to whether Morton is not entitled to the palm for corruptness " against even Sir James Balfour. To such an estimate it might be enough to reply that his previous opinion of Maitland was very much on a par with his present opinion of Morton. In regard to Morton's wariness and prudence he observes a careful silence, and, in arguing that Morton's declaration should be accepted, xxii THE CASKET LETTERS. I have not claimed for him the possession of higher qualities than these. In the circumstances it would have been sheer madness in Morton to have made such a declara- tion had it been false. Moreover, if it be a question of honour, the honour of more than Morton is involved. To say the least, the honour of all the Scottish Commissioners is involved, for they must have known whether he spoke the truth or not ; and the honour of the Privy Council of Scotland is involved, for they also must have known the account he had to give of the discovery of the casket. There is, in truth, no reason to suppose that any secret was made about the matter. That Morton left a written declaration with Cecil may be taken as a proof that he was not afraid of inquiry, and the fact that a copy of the declaration has been preserved is a sufficient answer to previous insinuations that it had been suppressed. The main controversy as to the genuineness of the letters is now concentrated round the famous Letter 2. Of course, if the letter be a 2)sychological impossibility, there is nothing more to be said ; but on this point the opinions of the principal historians, besides being quite as unbiassed, are entitled on other grounds to quite as much respect as the opinions of those who have written specially in Mary's defence. If it be a literary monstrosity," surely this may be demonstrated so as to silence all gainsayers. If it be an "incoherent jumble," as Mr. Skelton says, how were the eyes of such competent critics as Hume, Mignet, Charles Kingsley, and Mr. Froude, to mention no more, blinded from perceiving this*? But even to illustrate his assertion as to the " unsavouriness " of certain passages, Mr. Skelton first garbled — unwittingly no doubt — the passage selected, and when his alteration PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. xxiii is challenged he has chosen, in order to give a semblance of credibility to his interpretation, to forsake the Scots version which he holds to be the original, for the English version, which, being less clear, is more easily misunder- stood. His estimate of the letter as a "singular and incoherent jumble " is his own ; no such extreme opinion had been expressed by previous writers, but in support of it he now inconsequently quotes M. Philippson's views as to "la gaucherie du style, la faiblesse de la composition," forgetting at the same time that such a characterization is opposed to his own previous affirmation that its language is "racy of the soil, instinct with the life and force of original composition." Eaciness and force are hardly the English equivalents of "gaucherie" and "faiblesse." So far as the French translation of Letter 2 is concerned, M. Philippson's opinion is entitled to respect, and is no doubt correct ; but he cannot be cited as an authority on Scots, and probably he actually borrowed his estimate of the style from Mr. Skelton himself, who had described it as " coarse, awkward, and the merest patchwork." Towards the question as to whether the letter was originally written in Scots, Mr. Skelton's attitude is scarcely what it was even a year ago. In Maitkmd of Letliington, he classes Goodall's philological contribution to the controversy alongside the "works of the great critics who have exercised their wits on classical antiquity,'' and now he telJs us that he has "never attached excessive importance to Goodall's method." Formerly his dictum was, that "as regards those portions of the letters from which Goodall mainly derived his illustrations, no reply to him is possible ; " and now all that he can say for Goodall is that, if " he had confined his argument to the xxiv THE CASKET LETTERS. Glasgow letter (or letters), or rather to certain portions of the Glasgow letter^' (the italics are ours), "his position would have been strong." Thus the great philological achievement of Gooilall is narrowed down to this merely accidental appositeness of his arguments to "certain portions of the Glasgow letter." Be it remembered, Goodall applied the same methods, the same arguments, and illustrations of the same kind to prove that each of the letters is written in Scots. That there were certain special letters or portions of letters from which " he mainly derived his illustrations," is a devout imagination of Mr. Skelton's. An unsophisticated person may therefore be excused if he be puzzled to understand how Goodall, who confessedly blundered so desperately in regard to the other letters, should have manifested such remarkable critical skill as regards " certain portions " of the Glasgow letter. But in any case, we are now told that he ought to have confined himself merely to these " certain portions." Let Mr. Skelton therefore make up his mind as to the portions of the letter on which Goodall ought to have taken his stand ; let him point out the passages which, notwithstanding their "gaucherie" and "faiblesse," never came "from the tame pen of a translator." He has ventured to affirm that on " precisely the same lines " as that adopted by me with regard to Letter 2, it would be possible to prove that the compositions of the Scots poets of this period were translations from the French. Of course most people know that the Scottish language was somewhat affected by French idioms and phrases. The question is one of degree, and Mr. Skelton, although he calls to his aid such an ambiguous expression as " precisely the same lines," does not venture to assert that the use of PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XXV French idioms and phrases by these poets is so constant and perpetual as in Letter 2. Moreover, if it were, how could Mr. Skelton be sure that " certain " (not specified) "portions of the Glasgow letter are idiomatic and original But why go to Scots poetry, when the question concerns merely plain prose 1 There is the Detection itself written, one version of it, in Scots. The Scots version may have been translated from the Latin by another than Buchanan, but Mr. Skelton has pronounced it the ^'most perfect specimen of the classical Scots that we possess." Let him therefore, on precisely the same lines, and with the same frequency of illustration as that adopted by me in reference to Letter 2, show that it is a translation from the French. The explanation of the words which follow " Eemember me " is not, as Mr. Skelton seems to imply, an invention of mine, but the explanation of them given by the Scottish Commissioners at York. On the other hand, Mr. Skelton is the first to assert that the letter was " addressed to Botliicell " (the italics are his) ; but, even had it been so addressed, the messenger might also have had certain verbal messages to deliver to Both well and others. The important question as to the bearing of Crawford's deposition on the authenticity of the letter Mr. Skelton asserts has been finally disposed of by M. Philippson, who, Mr. Skelton does not hesitate to say, *'has con- clusively proved that the letter was taken from the deposition." Nevertheless we are at the same time informed that this is perhaps a side issue. A side issue when such a conclusion absolutely decides the question as to forgery 1 a side issue when this argument is really the only tangible one now adduced in support of the forgery XXV i THE CASKET LETTERS. theory ! The hesitation to make it a main issue is, however, not difficult to understand, when we learn that the testimony which M. Pliilippson regards as "in itself sufficient to decide the question " is the letter of Lennox to Crawford of 11th June 1568. This matter is referred to on p. 85 of this volume, but it may be added here that M. Philippson thus virtually makes Lennox a party to the forgery, for Lennox must have known whether Letter 2 was in existence or not in June 1568. With a con- fidence equal to that of M. Philippson, Bernard Sepp holds an entirely opposite opinion as to Crawford's deposition, maintaining that it was borrowed from the letter. It may fairly be held that both leave the matter very much where it was. It must be remembered, however, 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. It is also absurd to suppose that Lennox, on the 11th June 1568, should have written to Crav/ford for notes which he had already in his own possession. It is, however, as likely as not that Crawfoid, the notes having been lost, refreshed his memory by perusal of the letter; and, in fact, there is no evidence in his deposition that he intended to do more than corroborate certain statements in the letter. At the same time, the dependence of the one statement on the other does not seem to be absolutely proved. Mr. Skelton "repeats" that " the verbal accord " between the two statements " is perfect," to which I can only reply that within the small compass of the passage quoted there are about one hundred variations of phrase. The words "overwhelming PKEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XXvii agreement" are not made use of by me, but by Hill Burton, who applies them not to the words but to the purport of the two statements. From Mr. Skelton's grotesque" caricature of the argument in support of the possibility of accidental coincidence, all that can be inferred is that in his opinion, when events are impressed with special vividness upon the mind, the subsequent recollection of them is feeble. That the opposite hypo- thesis is not untenable, may perhaps best be shown by an illustration. Mr. George Augustus Sala, in his account of that strange interview with the supposed perpetrator of a recent forgery, affirmed that so vividly were the circum- stances of the interview impressed upon his mind, that he could repeat every word of the man's story from beginning to end as he uttered it. Suppose therefore that immedi- ately after hearing it, Mr. Sala had repeated it in another room to a Frenchman, whose power of recollection, being artificially stimulated by the peculiar circumstances, was equally as good as Mr. Sala's, the two versions of the man's story would, it is plain, very closely resemble each other, even were one translated from the French. If it be remembered, then, that Darnley's short statement of his case may have been suggested to him by Crawford and got up by heart, the theory of accidental coincidence does not seem to be altogether untenable. At the same time, it seems more probable that Crawford, the original notes having been lost, refreshed his memory by perusal of the letter. M. Philippson's examination of the evidence bearing on the Casket Letters is decidedly the least original portion of his interesting " Studies." His interpretation of the facts is for the most part borrowed from Goodall, xxviii THE CASKET LETTERS. Chalmers, or Ilosack. lie follows very closely the line of argument adopted by Hosack and Mr. Skelton, but. he lacks the practised art in the management of a " case/' He is totally unskilled in the mysteries of light and shade and harmonious grouping. Where they artfully hint, imply, suggest, or insinuate, he boldly and nakedly asserts. He thus unwittingly brings into strong and untoward prominence the specially weak points of their case, and indeed much of his argument reads like an admirable redudio ad absurdum of their contentions. A few examples may render our meaning clear : — Not content with Mr. Skelton's ambiguous interpretation of the " unsavoury passage," he makes it to mean " elle se penche vers le lord et se cliauffe sur lid, tandis quHl Ventoure de ses hras,'^ the Scots which both regard as the original being merely, was lenand upon him warming me at the fyre," and he "thristit my body," a light, playful, but not amorous action. Still, implicitly believing in the substantial accuracy of Mr Skelton's eulogies of Goodall's demonstration, he chivalrously maintains that each one of the letters was originally written in Scots. The scornful designation of Huntly in one of the Stirling letters as " your brother-in-law tJiat was " is relied upon as sufficiently conclusive proof of the forgery of the letter. T\rhile Hosack and Mr. Skelton warily hint that the letters were not shown in the Parliament of Decem- ber 1567, he, to account for the absence of any reference to them as signed, does not hesitate to supjDOse that Morton was so infatuated as to show a Scots version there as the original version. Not only does he assert that the "fausset6" of each of the letters has been proved in a manner "incontestable/' but he is PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. xxix able without hesitation to point to the persons — Archi- bald Douglas and Douglas of Whittinghame — who have " evidently " forged them. He contends that the Scots version was shown as the original at York on the sole and simple ground that the extracts sent by Sadler in Scots are entitled " ^otes drawn furth of the Queens letters sent to the Earle Botliwell^^^ for — so he in all serious- ness remarks — if the notes were taken from a tramlcded version, they were not taken from the identical letters sent to BotJnvelL That Moray should commit the "enormity" of producing at York " des originaux 6cossais," and two months later at Westminster '^des originaux frangais," is, he affirms, merely what we might expect from Moray's "impudence;" and that the English Government should wink at the barefaced imposition is quite in keeping with their characteristic " bad faith." The procedure of Moray, " perilous " as he after all admits it to be, is readily accounted for by the simple assertion that, so difficult was the task of translating them "en un frangais correct et surtout d'accord avec la maniere ordinaire d'ecrire de leur malheureuse soveraine," that four months — from June to October 1568, the previous year being, of course, left out of account — was insufficient for the accomplish- ment of the work. The strange misrepresentation still clung to by Mr. Skelton of the manner in which the letters were examined and compared on the 14th December he improves upon thus : "La comparaison se fit sans ordre, avec turhulence en toide Imte;^'' and finally, he regards it as a conclusive argument against the letters, that Bothwell declined to show Morton the Queen's " handwrite " for the murder. Of course, notwithstanding such imprudent exposures XXX THE CASKET LETTERS. of the essential feebleness of the case aganist the letters, M. Philippsoii displays much acuteness in his criticism of the arguments on the opposite side. The most remarkable feature of his " Studies " is, however, the main position he takes up in Mary's defence. The impeccable and colourless saint " of the Mariolaters, the charming, impulsive, but faltering and weak-minded sinner" portrayed by Mr. Skelton, are rejected as equally impossible. That INIary was in any proper sense BothwelFs victim, that in accepting him she," as Mr. Skelton pleads, could not be accounted a free agent," he altogether scouts. \ He holds it to be proved that the hatred which filled her soul against her husband rendered her indifferent to his death and fanned the flame of a more and more violent love for Bothwell ; that the voice of duty and of prudence was annihilated in her before this irresistible passion; and that she employed " all the means of cunning and of violence " to assure herself " the possession of her beloved in sj^ite of the whole world." Matters being thus, to proceed further in search of the main agents of Darnley's murder might seem to most persons superfluous. But M. Philippson is not of this opinion. *'It was not Bothwell," he aflirms, "who killed the king, it was Huntly, Eobert Balfour, Douglas, and others; Bothwell and his servants were ordered to proceed to the explosion." It will thus be seen that M. Philippson's main argument is rather out of the beaten track of former defences of Mary, and as the literary merits of his contribution to the controversy are besides of a high order, it is to be hoped that the limitation of private" now circumscribing its circulation will soon be removed. THE CASKET LETTERS AND MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. CHAPTEE I. INTKODUCTOEY. As a strictly literary problem, the question of the authenticity of the Casket Letters, attributed to Mary Queen of Scots, can scarcely claim to rank on an equality witli that of the authorship of the Letters of Junius. On the other hand, it greatly exceeds it in importance as a historical problem. The historical issues involved in the authorship that may be assigned to the Letters of Junius are of comparatively minor moment, but in the case of the Casket Letters they are the main matter. The Iron Mask problem, like that of the Casket Letters, is essentially a historical problem ; but nevertheless the historical issues involved in it are not the main, or, necessarily, an important matter. Both these problems are flavoured by a strong human interest, but the one interest differs A 2 THE CASKET LETTERS. widely in character from the other. Both imply historical research, but they have scarcely one other historical characteristic in common. The Iron Mask problem is the more awesome and mysterious, and affords much wider scope for ingenious theory and learned historical plodding, but this is mainly because the character of the solution is by the conditions of the problem a matter of extremely wide uncertainty. From the nature of the case, it is impossible to pre- dict what exact amount of historical importance may attach to the solution of the problem, although that importance is not likely, on any supposition, to be exceptional. Tlie interest of the problem is thus only in an indirect sense historical. Apart from the curiosity awakened regarding the individuality of one whose identity was concealed with such per- sistent and careful precaution, the problem is almost as purely speculative and intellectual as a problem in chess or mathematics. The man in the Iron Mask is supposed to have been a political prisoner of high and probably royal rank, but the fascination of the problem is due chiefly to the fact that his personality is unknown. In the case of the Casket Letters, the uncertainty of the solution is limited by the fact that only one of two conclusions is possible. The range of inquiry is very definite and distinct, and the question is merely one of forgery. The forgery, if it was a forgery, is per- haps worthy to be regarded as the most daring, ingenious, complicated, and skilfully performed INTRODUCTORY. 3 forgery on record ; but, apart from this, the Casket Letters question has a special and indubitable pre- eminence over other forgery questions, from the important historical issues involved in its solution. The historical interest is here the predominant one. So far as it relates to Mary Queen of Scots, the solution of the problem may afford some special information regarding the character and conduct of a very remarkable and striking personality — one whose romantic and chequered career and pitiable fate have a peculiar fascination for the mere student of human nature as distinguished from the student of history; but it can never be forgotten that Mary was one of the most prominent political figures of her time. She lived during the crisis of a great religious and political conflict; she repre- sented the forlorn hope of the old Catholic faith in Scotland ; she was the occasion of a prolonged and bitter civil war. The passions aroused by the con- flict are not even yet altogether spent and dead; the echoes of the old sectarian watchwords are still heard; the partisanship which caused such deeds of cruelty and crime three centuries ago is even now more than a memory or a tradition. Moreover, in the solution of the problem, the characters of other persons are involved besides Mary ; and, in fact, it will be seen in the sequel that the question concerns still more directly and vitally the character and conduct of her political opponents, including both the Kegent Moray and 4 THE CASKET LETTERS. liis supporters, and Queen Elizabeth and her advisers. To establish the genuineness of the Casket Letters is necessarily to establish that Mary was a co-con- spirator with Bothwell in the murder of her husband ; for, notwithstanding the attempted apology of Bishop Leslie, based on the fact that the murder is not there referred to in so many words, the expressions in the letters are not consistent with an innocent purpose, or with the theory that she brought Darnley to Edinburgh in order to facilitate the obtaining of a divorce. Apart even from other corroborative evi- dence, the evidence of the letters, if their genuine- ness be admitted, is sufficient to establish her guilt. Inasmuch, however, as her entire innocence is not consistent with other evidence, it can scarcely be affirmed that the problem of the genuineness of the letters has an absolutely vital bearing on the cha- racter of Mary. Mr. Skelton, who does not admit the genuineness of the letters, and who may be reckoned one of the most distinguished and ingenious defenders of Mary in this country, has taken no pains to conceal his contempt for what he terms the theory of the ecclesiastics " — that Mary, during the whole progress of the plot against Darnley's life, was " innocent as a child, immaculate as a saint." He is unable to adopt a more friendly attitude towards her than that of an apologizer, and is compelled to attempt the assumption of a middle position — that she was neither wholly innocent nor wholly guilty ; INTKODUCTOEY. that, ignorant of the details and method of the plot, she only vaguely guessed that it was in progress, and failed merely in firmly and promptly forbidding its execution. But in a case of murder a middle position — a position of even partial indifference — is, except in very peculiar circumstances, well-nigh impossible ; in the case of a wife's attitude to the murder of her husband, tlie limit of impossibility is still more nearly approached ; but when the wife possesses such exceptional courage, fertility of resource, and strength of will as were possessed by Mary, the impossibility may be regarded as abso- lute. Besides, as a matter of fact, Mary was not indifferent in the matter. She had long regarded her husband's conduct with antipathy and indigna- tion ; she did not conceal her eager desire to be delivered from the yoke of marriage to him ; and she had abundant reasons, many of which were justifiable, for this desire. By admitting that Mary was not wholly ignorant of the plot, Mr. Skelton inevitably exposes himself to the following dilemma. If, on the one hand, it be said that Mary and Darnley had become fully reconciled at Glasgow: that his illness and contrition had aroused her pity and awakened old and slumbering feelings of affection, and that she brought him with her to Edinburgh in order that for the future they might live together as husband and wife ; then, knowing that his life w^as in peril, she would have taken prompt measures to avert the danger, and would not, above all, have 6 THE CASKET LETTERS. permitted the free access to his lodgings of such a "glorious, rash, and hazardous" personage as she knew Bothwell from old experience to be. If, on the other hand, she was not sincerely reconciled to her husband when she tended him with such watch- ful care, both during the journey from Glasgow and at Kirk-o'-Field, she could have had no other reason for bringing him to Kirk-o'-Field, except to aid the designs of the conspirators. Her attitude towards the chief conspirator was not of a merely passive kind. It was not only that she made no effort to discover the murderer, but she used every safe effort to prevent his detection and condemna- tion. In her letters to the Archbishop of Glasgow she endeavoured to represent the plot as one directed rather against her own life than that of her husband. Moreover, the final conclusion of the matter was, that she married the murderer. She knew suffici- ently well that the almost universal opinion of the people pointed to Bothwell as the main conspirator, and yet from the first her attitude to him remained, to say the least, as friendly as before ; he did not become in any degree a less favoured companion, nor did his influence in her counsels suffer any diminution. Her best friends, when they mentioned to her with hesitation the rumours that she intended to marry Bothwell, warned her against taking such a fatal step, but her only answer was that matters were not yet ^' that far agaitwait." ^ The excuses 1 Sir James Melville's Memoirs^ p. 177. INTRODUCTORY. 7 that have been made on the score of broken or uncertain health can scarcely be regarded seriously, for Mary, notwithstanding a very dangerous illness in October, had made her journey to Glasgow in midwinter, and also remained late at a ball on the very eve of the murder. If she was engaged in Such a conspiracy, no doubt anxiety, and perhaps remorse, might affect to some extent her health and spirits. That spells of perhaps somewhat artificial gaiety should be succeeded by fits of depression, or even of hysterics, was at least as consistent with guilt as with innocence. There is no evidence of anything approaching mental prostration, and no symptom that her presence of mind had deserted her. Severe mental conflict there probably was, and, it may be, some halting between two opinions, but all through the crisis her mental faculties were alert and keen. Her letters addressed to the Arch- bishop of Glasgow, and to Lennox, are all remark- able specimens of feminine tact, and their skilful fencing is wholly directed towards one purpose — that of parrying awkward suggestions as to the means which should be employed to avenge the murder- The question as to whether Mary was really in love with Bothwell is a comparatively minor one, for she could scarcely have been blind to the main motive which actuated Bothwell in carrying out the plot. Undoubtedly the evidence — apart even from the Casket Letters — favours the supposition that she was in love with him, rather than the supposition 8 THE CASKET LETTERS. that slie married him unwillingly. At any rate, he claimed his reward, and she granted him the reward he claimed. The fatal weakness, indeed, of all such arguments as are used to establish either Mary's absolute or partial innocence of the murder is, that they do not harmonize wdth the leading traits of her disposition. She w^as possessed of altogether exceptional decision and force of will; she was remarkably wary and acute; and she was a match for almost any of her contemporaries in the art of diplomacy. She was not one to be concussed into a course of action to which she had any strong aversion, and in all matters vitally affecting herself was in the habit of using her own independent judgment. Her conduct during the three months succeeding the murder can, however, only be regarded as consistent with her innocence, on the supposition, to use the cogent words of Mr. Swinburne, that " this conduct was a tissue of such dastardly imbecility, such heartless irresolution, and such brainless inconsistency, as for ever to dispose of her time-honoured claim to the credit of intel- ligence and courage." The bearing of the evidence of the Casket Letters on the guilt of Mary is thus in a sense, and as matters have turned out, subordinate. Up to the present time her guilt has been more manifest than the genuineness of the letters. The principal his- torians — Hume, Eobertson, Malcolm Laing, Mignet, Hill Burton, Froude — who before the publication of INTRODUCTORY. 9 Hosack's volume in 1869 supported the theory of her guilt, accepted the letters as genuine, but in this they were to some extent influenced by the sup- posed strength of the other evidence for her guilt. Since the publication of Hosack's volume, some who have no doubt of her guilt either reject the evidence of the letters or regard it with strong suspicion. For those who assert her innocence — and they are by no means few in number — the question of the genuineness of the letters is, however, of course vital ; and any new evidence bearing on this point is necessarily regarded by them with anxiety. By those who accept the other evidence as conclusive, the question of the genuineness of the letters can be regarded with comparative unconcern ; but in view of the large number who. do not share their opinions, the additional corroboration of their conclusions, afforded by the letters, is not to be despised. They, if genuine, also supply important information regarding the motives which actuated Mary in con- senting to the murder, and vividly exhibit the varying and tumultuous emotions by which she was agitated during the progress of the conspiracy. On the other hand, to prove that they are entire and com- plete forgeries does not tend inherently to weaken the other evidence against her. If the evidence be insufficient unsupplemented by the letters, then te prove the forgery would only remove corroborative support ; and if sufficient without support, the evi- dence would remain sufficient if the support were THE CASKET LETTERS. ^vithdrawn. It is, moreover, a peculiarity of the case, that adequate motives exist for the forgery even on the supposition that Mary was guilty. When the Casket Documents were produced, the evidence for her guilt was certainly not so legally sufficient and undeniable as it is now. Time has fully disclosed much that was then only suspected or only partially visible. Supposing, also, that the evidence available to the Eegent Moray had been sufficient, without the corrobora- tion of the Casket Letters, to secure the conviction of a lesser personage than a sovereign ; or even sufficient in the eyes of the majority of the Scottish nation to justify the condemnation of their queen, it might not have been sufficient to silence the scruples or remonstrances of Elizabeth. In any case, it was chiefly circumstantial evidence. Several of the nobles who supported Moray, if not Moray himself, were supposed to have been more or less directly involved in the murder; or to have given it, by the passive attitude they had adopted, their " manifest consent." Had the circumstantial evidence been narrowly examined, awkward secrets might have been brought to light. The direct palpable evidence of the letters would render the examination of this evidence unnecessary. Thus, if the guilt of Mary supplies the necessary har- monizing circumstances to render the existence of such letters conceivable or probable, there also remain sufficiently strong motives and harmonizing INTKODUCTORY. 11 circumstances to render the forgery conceivable. A forgery in such circumstances would undoubtedly have been specially dangerous — dangerous to the Eegent Moray in Scotland should it by any possi- bility have been discovered, probably still more dangerous to him should Elizabeth or her advisers have detected it, and dangerous to Elizabeth's repu- tation should she wittingly or unwittingly have per- mitted herself to be influenced by forged documents. Nevertheless, the position of the Eegent Moray would undoubtedly have been more dangerous had he been destitute of the peculiarly direct and unanswerable evidence which the Casket Documents supplied. Thus, if antecedent probabilities are rather in favour of the genuineness of the letters, there is nevertheless a considerable amount of presumptive evidence to favour the conclusion that they are forgeries. CHAPTEE 11. THE PRODUCTION OF THE LETTERS IN SCOTLAND. The explosion at Kirk-o'-Field took place about two o'clock in the morning of the 10th February 1567. Eothwell, who was the first to inform the Queen of the occurrence, and who also later in the morning informed her of Darnley's death, was indicted for the murder, and, after a trial notoriously and palpably delusive, was formally acquitted on the 12th April. That he should have consented to a verdict of acquittal after so perfunctory an inquiry, was necessarily regarded as in itself convincing proof of his guilt. He continued to retain his position as the most confidential counsellor of the Queen, but nevertheless carried her off to Dunbar, ostensibly against her will, on the 24th April. She declined deliverance from her supposed thraldom, formally pardoned him for the abduction on the 12th May, created him Duke of Orkney, and on the 15th gave him her hand in marriage. On the 14th June she surrendered to the Lords at Carberry Hill without a blow being struck in her defence, and Both well, in accordance with an agreement to allow him to 12 THE PEODUCTION OF THE LETTERS IN SCOTLAND. 13 escape unmolested, proceeded to his stronghold of Dunbar, the Queen, in violation of the letter of the agreement, being brought a prisoner to Edinburgh, and sent on the 16th to Lochleven. According to the declaration of Morton, made and subscribed at Westminster in December 1568, the famous silver casket containing the letters asserted to have been written by Mary to Bothwell, and other incriminating documents, came into his pos- session on the 20th June, or within six days of the Queen's surrender. The exact tenor of Morton's declaration has hitherto remained unknown. The name of the messenger on whom the casket was found, and the date of its discovery, were published by Buchanan ; but the circumstances in which it was found, and in which its contents were produced, — vitally as they affect the whole question, — have never hitherto been published. There was, of course, the possibility that Morton's declaration would contain little new information ; but it is rather curious that the special significance and im- portance of the declaration ^ should not have been even surmised by historians. Before considering its statements, it is, however, necessary to make a rapid survey of the history of the letters, and of the chief phases of the prolonged controversy to which they have given rise — a controversy marked by many alternations and full of strange surprises. There is a possible reference to the Casket Docu- ^ See Appendix A, p. 113. 14 THE CASKET LETTERS. ments in an Act of the Scottish Privy Council of 26th June,— six days after the date given for the discovery of the casket, — in which the Lords state that they have evident proof as well of witnesses as of writings " that Bothwell was the principal deviser of Darnley's murder, but the reference is perhaps too vague to be regarded as more than faintly corroborative. The only writings compro- mising Bothwell now known to have existed are the Casket Documents, and the supposed bond for Darnley's murder, which may or may not have been a casket document ; but, as other now unknown writings compromising him may then have been in existence, it cannot be asserted, apart from other evidence, that the reference is inevitably to the writings found in the casket. A statement of Throckmorton in a letter to Cecil of the 25tli July is much more definite. He men- tions the intention of the Lords to charge Mary with the murder " from the testimony of her own handwriting." True, he does not actually state that the handwriting is in the form of letters, far less of letters to Bothwell ; but, as a matter of fact, no other handwriting of Mary's, except that of the documents in the casket, ever was produced against her. The -f