CHAPTER VIII.

IN THE HANDS OF ELIZABETH.

Having landed in England, the Scottish Queen was, by order of Elizabeth, conveyed to Carlisle Castle, and there placed in custody of Sir Francis Knollys. She hastened to send Lord Herries to the English court, to request that Elizabeth, according to her promise, would help restore her to her throne; or at least would give her liberty to pass out of the kingdom and seek help elsewhere. Elizabeth could have pursued either course with honour, but she pursued neither; and as long as right is right and wrong is wrong--as long as justice is not synonymous with temporal advantage--so long will it remain impossible to frame a defence for Elizabeth Tudor in her conduct toward Mary Stewart. Her hostility to Mary, and her support of Mary's enemies, veil them as she would, were evident throughout the subsequent proceedings.

Mary's friends in Scotland were rising in large numbers and preparing to take the field against the Regent. Elizabeth, leading Mary to believe that she would reinstate her, prevailed on her to request her partizans to desist from warfare; the Regent in the meantime continued his work of destruction against those who had fought for the Queen. Elizabeth offered to act as umpire between the Regent's party and Mary. The whole affair, so Mary was given to understand, would turn out to her profit. Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk; Thomas Ratcliff, Earl of Sussex, and Sir Ralph Sadler, were nominated commissioners by Elizabeth to hear the charge of political misgovernment which the Regent would bring against Mary. No charge affecting Mary's personal honour was to be admitted.

The conference opened at York, in October, 1568. Of course it was mere fiction to speak of Mary's misgovernment. But would Cecil and Elizabeth lose their opportunity of disgracing, as far as they could, the Scottish Queen, in the eyes of the English people, and of rendering a compromise with her enemies in Scotland impossible? Such could hardly be expected. The Conference was transferred to Westminster, and, contrary to the conditions on which Mary had permitted her case to be referred to a commission, Moray was assured that he might bring forward accusations against her honour--in fact he was urged or encouraged to do so. He then accused her of being the author, with Bothwell, of her late husband's murder, and of having intended a like fate for her infant son; and in support of his charge he produced the celebrated documents known as the Casket Letters, consisting of letters and sonnets which, he claimed, had been written by Mary to Bothwell, and had fallen into the hands of the Earl of Morton, shortly after the surrender at Carberry Hill. Mary's commissioners protested against this violation of the conditions on which the conference had been opened, and demanded that, as Moray had been admitted to Elizabeth's presence, so should their Queen. Otherwise, they maintained, the conference was closed. Cecil disregarded their protests, and the Regent placed his accusations and papers before the commissioners and Lords of the Privy Council. Mary, hearing this, instructed her commissioners to declare that Moray himself and his faction were guilty of Darnley's murder, and that if she were furnished with the originals or even with copies of the Casket Letters, and admitted to the presence of Elizabeth as her accusers had been, she should prove them to be liars, and should convict certain persons of their number as the real murderers. But she was refused admittance to Queen Elizabeth. As soon as she was informed of the refusal, she directed her commissioners to resume the conference, and to throw back the charge of murder on Moray and his associates. But the conference was not resumed, nor was Mary furnished with the originals of the letters that had been brought forward as evidence against her honour. Elizabeth, Cecil and Moray shrank from a fair investigation of the case; and Moray, with his "Casket" and "Originals," and with L5,000 of Elizabeth's gold in his pocket, was hurried back to Scotland. Mary, however, was left as before--a prisoner whom Elizabeth would neither help to regain her throne, nor permit to pass out of the realm. Matters now seemed to stand in the condition in which Elizabeth had hoped to place them. The breach between Mary and the Regent's party had been rendered irreparable; and the English nation--in which she had had so many adherents--had been taught (so at least her enemies hoped), to regard the Scottish Queen as a criminal and abandoned woman.

The celebrated Casket Letters demand at least a brief consideration. If they are genuine, Mary was undoubtedly implicated in the murder of her husband. If they are forged or interpolated, they are not only worthless as evidence against her, but are a crowning proof of her innocence. Much of the matter of these letters might have been written by Mary--and probably was written by her, though not to Bothwell--without being evidence that she shared in the murder. It is commonly believed by her friends that the Casket Letters are partly made up of letters written by her to Darnley. It is well known that, while she was in Lochleven, Holyrood was ransacked by the Morton-Moray faction, and that her papers, as well as those which Darnley may have left there, were at their disposal. They could easily select those letters which could be most readily doctored up so as to bear a sinister meaning, and those which, as they stood, would appear criminal if addressed to other than Darnley. There is, however, one letter, or at least part of one letter, that could not be written by Mary if she was innocent, namely, letter No. 2, represented as written to Bothwell from Glasgow, while she was visiting Darnley in his sickness.

With regard to these letters, I would say, in the first place, that they cannot be adduced as conclusive evidence of Mary's guilt, because, at best, their genuineness is doubtful. I would say, in the second place, that at any rate as far as the incriminating portions are concerned, I cannot regard them as other than forged; and here in brief are my principal reasons for rejecting them:--

First. Because, in view of the ill-treatment to which in other things she was subjected, and of the unfair tactics used against her, by those interested in producing the Casket Letters, no accusation proceeding from that same source against her honour as a woman, can be accepted, unless it is clearly substantiated. It can hardly be controverted that, whatever Mary's faults may have been, the Morton-Moray faction had already treated her dishonourably and unjustly. They had plotted with foreigners against her before ever the Bothwell imbroglio arose; they had tried to brand her with dishonour at the time of the Rizzio murder; they had broken their promise, given at Carberry Hill, and had cast her into prison; they had brutally forced her to abdicate, and then, in open Parliament, solemnly professed that she had voluntarily resigned. Besides, the Earl of Morton, whose testimony is the principal evidence in support of the genuineness of the Casket Letters, was probably the most vicious and unscrupulous man in Scotland. Can the testimony of such men,--men who had acknowleged that they had gone too far to recede,--given to protect their most cherished interests, to defend perhaps their very lives, be accepted as conclusive evidence, where there are so many evident reasons to suspect their veracity?

Second. Because these letters, and these letters only, exhibit in Mary an indelicacy of language, and a jestful levity in treating of crime, which are altogether foreign to her character as learned from reliable and authentic sources.

Third. Because a score, or thereabouts, of the most distinguished Scottish peers, in the instructions which they issued in September, 1568, to Mary's commissioners in England, declared that at least the incriminating portions of these letters were not in the Queen's handwriting. This valuable document recounts clearly and briefly the history of the disturbance which had ended in Mary's overthrow, and exposes, according to the view of the subscribers, the deceitful conduct of her enemies. I am not aware of any external evidence bearing on the Casket Letters that can compare in force and authority with this document. Whoever is acquainted with the history of the Scottish nobility of that time, must admit that the men whose names are subscribed thereto were at least as honest and honourable as the leaders of the Regent's party; and that the vindication of the Queen's honour would be no more profitable to them than her complete overthrow would be to those who had usurped her power and authority. Now these instructions state, in express terms, what many other evidences, both internal and external, have since gone to establish, that, however much of the Casket literature was Mary's the compromising parts had been interpolated by her enemies. "If it be alleged" (thus the instructions) "that Her Majesty's writing produced in Parliament should prove culpable, it may be answered that there is no place mention made in it by which she may be convicted, albeit it were her own hand-writing--_which it is not_--and also the same is devised by themselves in some principal and substantial clauses."

Fourth. Because the papers that were passed off as the originals in Mary's hand-writing were kept out of sight and, far as can be known, were seen, neither then nor since, by anybody except the select few at Hampton Court; and though Mary repeatedly demanded them, they were never shown her.

Fifth. Another document, represented as a warrant from the Queen requiring the lords to sign the celebrated Anslie tavern "band" for her marriage with Bothwell, was said to be in the Casket also, and was furtively shown in the Conference at York, but was never produced in the official enquiry at Westminster. The suppression of such a document, which, by reason of its public nature, could easily have been proved genuine, if it really were so, seems to admit of only one explanation--it could not stand the light of criticism, it was forged. But if the other Casket papers were genuine, Mary's accusers had no need of forged ones.

Sixth. The Casket Letter number two, commonly known as the Glascow letter (because it was supposed to have been written to Bothwell from Glasgow while Mary was visiting her sick husband there) contains a report of a conversation between Mary and Darnley which corresponds so closely with another document adduced eighteen months later in evidence against the Queen, that the one must have been copied from the other. A brief explanation is necessary to make the importance of this circumstance clear. A certain Robert Crawfurd was in attendance on Darnley at Glasgow when Mary went thither to comfort him. At the request of the Earl of Lennox, Darnley's father, Crawfurd (so he states), noted down the conversations that passed between the royal couple; but, not being present at them, he learned what had been said only from the account which Darnley afterwards gave him. Also in the letter number two is recounted one of Darnley's plaintive discourses. It is clear, therefore, that if it could be shown that the conversation embodied in this letter was really held, something would be done to give an air of genuineness to the whole document. Hence, Crawfurd was called upon for an account of what had passed between Mary and Darnley, and his deposition was brought forward by the Regent and his associates before the English commissioners. Now, it turns out that Crawfurd's deposition and the portion of the Casket Letter that covers the same ground, agree almost verbally--agree, in fact, so wonderfully that, all the circumstances considered, it is impossible to resist the conclusion that either one must have been copied from the other, and that a fraud was practised somewhere, for both documents were represented as original. I have said, "all the circumstances considered." We must remember that reporters, especially if they are not skilled stenographers, recording a speech, even, while it is being delivered, exhibit a considerable divergence of vocabulary and phraseology in their respective reports. But here both Crawfurd and Mary reported from memory; in fact, Crawfurd had to struggle against the vagaries of two memories--his own and Darnley's. This is what makes the agreement suspiciously strange. More than that; Crawfurd's deposition was written in Scots, while the Casket letter was written in French, and afterwards translated into Scots; and it is these two documents which, in spite of so many causes why they should widely differ, are found to agree so closely.

Here are the passages in question:--

_Deposition of Crawfurd_.

"Ye asked me what I ment by the crueltye specified in my lettres; yat proceedethe of you onelye, that wille not accept mye offres and repentance. I confess that I have failed in som thingis, and yet greater faultes have bin made to you sundrye tymes, which ye have forgiven. I am but yonge, and ye will saye ye have forgiven me diverse tymes. Maye not a man of mye age, for lack of counselle, of which I am very destitute, falle twise or thrise, and yet repent, and be chastised bye experience? If I have made any faile that ye wul think a faile, howsoever its be, I crave your pardone, and protest that I shall never faile againe. I desire no other thinge but that we may be together as husband and wife. And if ye will not consent hereto, I desire never to ris futhe from this bed. Therefore I pray yow, give me an answer hereunto. God knoweth how I am punished for making mye god of yow, and for having no other thought but on yow. And if at ainie tyme I offend yow, ye are the cause; for that when anie offendethe me, if for mye refuge I might open mye minde to you, I would speak to no other; but when ainie thing is spoken to me, and ye and I not beinge as husband and wife ought to be, necessitee compelleth me to kepe it in my brest," etc.

_Alleged Letter of Mary's_.

(_Translated from French into Scots._)

"Ye ask me quhat I mene be the crueltie conteint in my letter; it is of you alone, that will not accept my offeris and repentance. I confess that I have faillit but not into that quihilk I ever denyit; and sicklyke hes faillit to sindrie of your subjeetis, quhilk ye have forgiven. I am young. Ye will say that ye have forgiven me ofttymes, and yit yat I return to my faultis. May not ane man of my age, for lack of counsell, fall twyse or thryse, or in lack of his promeis, and at last repent himself, and be chastisit be experience? If I may obtain pardoun, I proteste I shall never make faulte agane. And I craif na uther thing bot yat we may be at bed and buird togidder as husband and wyfe; and gif ye will not consent heirunto I sail nevir ryse out of yis bed. I pray yow tell me yoor resolution. God knawis how I am punischit for making my god of yow, and for having na uther thoucht bot on yow; and gif at ony tyme I offend yow, ye are the caus; because when ony offendis me, gif for my refuge I micht playne unto yow, I would speike it unto na uther body; but quhen I heir ony thing, not being familiar with you, necessitie constraine me to keip it in my briest," etc.

It will be noticed that, not only are the words the same (the differences of spelling do not affect the case), but the clauses and phrases occupy the same relative positions in both documents. And yet we are asked to believe that these are independent reports of the same discourse, written down from memory.

A distinguished Scottish writer has summed up the question thus: "That Mary and Darnley should have held a long private conversation on many topics of no particular importance; that after Mary was gone Darnley should have repeated the whole conversation to Crawfurd; that Crawfurd either then or eighteen months later should have written out a report in Scots of what Darnley had said; that Mary should have written within twenty-four hours a letter in French in which she also reported the conversation; that Mary's letter should have been afterwards translated into Scots; and that the Scots translation of Mary's letter should have been found to agree, word for word, with Crawfurd's report,--this series of marvels is more than the most devout credulity can stomach." (John Skelton, C.B., LL.D.)

Seventh. The history of these letters makes it tolerably clear that it was many months after they were said to have been discovered by Morton, before they took definite form; in other words, that they were being concocted, at least, to use the words of the loyal nobility, "in some principal and substantial clauses." Even as late as the month of August, 1567, the rebel lords reiterated that Bothwell had laid violent hands on the Queen, and that they had risen up to rescue her from his thraldom. But on December 4th, the same lords declared, as we read in the Act of the Secret Counsel, that they had taken arms against her because she was an accomplice of Bothwell's in the murder of her husband, as shown "be divers hir previe lettres written and subscrivit with hir awen hand, and sent by hir to James Erll Boithwell." This flat contradiction between the statements of the same parties arouses the strongest suspicion of treachery. Nor will it avail to say that in their excessive charity, they had for a time chosen to make liars of themselves rather than unnecessarily reveal the vices of their former Queen; for, according to the deposition of Morton, at least according to what Mary's adversaries claim to be Morton's deposition, the Casket containing the incriminating documents was taken from a servant of Bothwell's on June 20th--nearly two weeks after the Confederate lords had taken up arms. Again, the minutes of the Secret Counsel describe the letters as "written and subscrit with hir (Mary's) awen hand, and sent by hir to James Erll Boithwell." Yet the letters exhibited at Hampton Court nearly a year later, were neither signed by Mary, nor addressed to Bothwell.

Eighth. The Countess of Lennox, Darnley's mother, has indirectly furnished evidence against the genuineness of the Casket Letters that can scarcely be valued too highly. For some years she had ceased to be on friendly terms with the Queen. It was her husband, the Earl, who had demanded that Bothwell should be tried for the murder of their son; and by reason of the suspicions which fanatical clamour and cunning treachery had attached to Mary's conduct, the bereaved parents had naturally entertained bitter feelings for their royal daughter-in-law. But the villainy which had brought the unfortunate Queen to an English prison was at length revealed; close acquaintance with the Regent Morton, the quondam leading spirit of the rebel faction, afforded the Countess opportunities of discovering facts that neither she nor her husband had known during the strife of 1567; and, in November, 1575, she comforted the imprisoned exile by a letter in which, among other things, she said:--

"I beseech Your Majesty, fear not, but trust in God that all shall be well; the treachery of your traitors is known better than before. I shall always play my part to Your Majesty's content, willing God, so as may ten to both our comforts." "_The treachery of your traitors is known better than before._" Could the mother of the murdered King change front and write thus, if she believed that Mary had written the Casket Letter number two, in all its parts?