The Mystery of Mary Stuart

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 (#pgepubid00028), ‘Casket Letters.’

338

‘Yesternicht’ is omitted in the English. See Appendix E (#pgepubid00028), ‘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