DA
1787
IA1B83
THE INDICTMENT
OF
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
C. F. CLAY, MANAGER
LONDON : FETTER LANE, E.C. 4
NEW YORK : THE MACMILLAN CO.
BOMBAY •}
CALCUTTA V MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.
MADRAS J
TORONTO : THE MACMILLAN CO. OF
CANADA, LTD.
TOKYO rMARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
THE INDICTMENT
OF
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS
AS DERIVED FROM A MANUSCRIPT IN THE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY AT CAMBRIDGE,
HITHERTO UNPUBLISHED
WITH COMMENTS ON THE AUTHORSHIP
OF THE MANUSCRIPT AND ON ITS
CONNECTED DOCUMENTS
BY
MAJ.-GEN. R<; Hf MAHON, C.B., C.S.I.
\ v
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
PREFACE
HE MANUSCRIPT to which it is the principal purpose
j[L of this little volume to call attention is one of the treasures
of the Cambridge University Library1. It has not hitherto been
published. Yet it is of more than ordinary interest ; in the first
place because it goes far to set at rest the question of the origin
and authorship of that final form of the Indictment of the
Queen of Scots, which was produced at the Westminster
Commission in December 1 568, and known as the " Book of
Articles"; and secondly because it seems to be a genuine
example of the Vernacular Writings of George Buchanan.
It is not claimed that elucidation of this problem advances
in a material degree our knowledge of the truth in that famous
Cause, yet advantage arises in clearing up points on which
Historians have been diverse in their views.
The Manuscript has been reproduced in accordance with the
language of the original, except that the contraction marks
have been reduced to a single symbol and capitals have been
added to names of persons and places.
R. H. M.
February 1923.
1 Press mark Dd. 3. 66.
CONTENTS
PACK
THE ARGUMENT I
I. THE EMERGENCE OF THE LIBEL ... 2
II. THE EARL OF LENNOX' CONNECTION WITH
THE INDICTMENT 6
III. BUCHANAN'S INDICTMENT ... .12
IV. THE BOOK OF ARTICLES 17
V. THE DATE OF THE WRITINGS .... 21
VI. THE PUBLICATION OF THE LIBEL ... 23
BUCHANAN'S INDICTMENT 3I
NOTES ON THE TEXT OF THE MANUSCRIPT 50
THE ARGUMENT
THE series of manuscripts in the Cambridge University
Library, which have been referred to as the Lennox
Manuscripts, was examined by Father Stevenson, S.J. and later
by Father Pollen, S.J., neither has, unfortunately, published the
result of his labour. Except Andrew Lang, no writer has used
them. Lang had the advantage of seeing Father Pollen's notes,
now lost, but the particular paper reproduced in this volume
did not attract his interest and he passed it over with the slight
notice, "In the Lennox Papers is a collection of ' Probable and
Infallable Conjectouris,'an early form of Buchanan's Detection."
The document is much more than this and deserves more
careful attention.
The genesis and even the original language of the famous
libel, known as the Detection, have been disputed. Ruddiman
(1715) held that the Latin of the earliest known copy is
Buchanan's and in his purest style. Anderson (1727) believed
the Scottish translation, which he printed in his Collections, to
be Buchanan's rendering of his own Latin and he quotes a
former Bishop of Rochester as to the ' beauty and elegance '
of the performance. Unfortunately for this view, we know
now that the Scottish edition was not the first but merely a
reprint in correct vernacular of an English edition which had
nothing to do with Buchanan.
Camden in his Annals says that the Earl of Moray exhibited
a copy, which must have been in manuscript, to Elizabeth's
Commissioners at Westminster in December 1 568 : " He pro-
duced Conjectural Acts (the Book of Articles no doubt)... and
(my italics) Buchanan's Book entitled ' The Detection ' he de-
livered them to read, which found small credit etc... " Though
Camden was probably mistaken as to its exhibition at this
time, there is no reasonable doubt that the manuscript did
then exist and was known both to Elizabeth and Cecil.
Goodall (1754) says that he had seen a copy in manuscript
M. I
2 THE INDICTMENT OF
which he believed to be the original shown to Elizabeth, but
he does not say where he saw it1.
Laing (1805) asserted that the Book of Articles and the
Detection were one and the same, but Laing had not seen the
MS of the former that now we know of. Hosack ( 1 870) appears
to have held the opinion that the libel was originally written
in the Scottish dialect and others have followed him.
On one thing there is a consensus of presumption, amounting
to practical certainty, that whenever it appeared and in what-
ever language, George Buchanan was the author. John Love,
a critic of Ruddiman, strenuously upheld the character of his
hero against Ruddiman's ' vile aspersion ' that Buchanan had
repented on his deathbed of his share in traducing his Queen.
Love, in this particular, had the best of the argument. It had
been better for that " Lumen Boreale refulgens " if his defender
had been less successful !
It is by a study of these Cambridge Papers, and particularly
of that now published, that we can arrive at a reasonably
assured reconstruction of the course of events leading up to
the writing of the Book of Articles. To simplify a subject that
has been confused by such diversity of views as is expressed
above I propose to treat it in sections, taking the successive
stages from the emergence of the libel to its ultimate appearance
as a printed book.
I. THE EMERGENCE OF THE LIBEL
Let us briefly recall the circumstances that gave birth to the
libel. Mary had taken refuge in England after her disaster
at Langside, on the i6th May 1568. The news of her flight
1 This is an interesting problem. There is a manuscript in the British Museum
(Cot. Cal. D. i) which is probably a copy of the original paper. It refers to the
Regent Moray as still living, 'Qui nunc prorex est,' instead of, as in the published
versions, 'nunc et ipse occisus est.' But it cannot be the paper referred to by
Goodall for it has appended to it another manuscript (Wilson's Actio referred to
below) in the same hand, composed long after the Regent's assassination. Besides,
although the Cottonian copy is damaged by fire it could not have contained the
words on which Goodall lays stress, for the space is insufficient. (See Examination
of the Letters of Mary Queen of Scotts, I. 327.) In any case Goodall confuses
Wilson's paper as a part of Buchanan's, which it certainly is not
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS 3
caused serious perturbation in the rebel camp. On the one
hand Moray and his Party would feel confidence that once in
the power of Cecil, the Queen would be securely held; on the
other, Elizabeth's action was less easy to forecast. Her
Majesty had a conscience, though it was of a kind that sub-
mitted to control. Moray had already had experience of it,
and he knew well enough that it was necessary " to fortify his
cause with sic evidente reasons as hir Maiestie may with
conscience satisfie hirself "; the formula had been repeated more
than once. He knew too that the presence of the Scottish
Queen in England involved political problems of the gravest
kind, internal as well as external, and that these would be
weighed against the undoubted advantage of retaining her
person with the consequent effect of lessening the danger of
foreign influence in Scotland. Finally he knew that up to
that time Elizabeth, to her credit, had refused to be a party
to any scheme of a "speedy way to remedy the whole
matter."
The first step was to provide Elizabeth with documentary
matter sufficient, prima facie, to justify the retention of the
fugitive and to withhold, temporarily, the fulfilment of her pledge
of succour. She knew the story thoroughly already, she had
expressed her disbelief in it, or in some part of it, but that
was not the point at the moment ; her conscience must have
a tangible something, soothing and stimulating at once.
On May 2ist (1568), that is within five days after Mary left
Scotland, Mr John Wood was despatched to London. There
is no copy of his instructions and the haste of his departure
makes it unlikely that he carried with him any of the important
papers which concern us. His duties are however known :
'-' To resolve hir Majestic of ony thing sche standis doubtful
unto." From the date of his arrival in London there was
frequent communication with Edinburgh. On June 8th Eliza-
beth wrote requiring Moray to justify his proceedings; this
letter sent by Middlemore arrived on the I4th, and on the
22nd Moray replied:
i — 2
4 THE INDICTMENT OF
We have already sent unto our servand Mr Jhone Wode that (my
italics) quhilk we traist sail sufficientlie resolve hir Majestic. ..We wald be
Maist laith (loath) to enter in accusatioun of the Quene...sic leteris1 as we
haif... sufficientlie... preivis (proves) hir consenting to the murthure...Our
servand Mr Jhone Wode hes the copies of the samin leteris translatit in
our language...
The significance of these negotiations is too obvious to need
comment. I suggest that it was at this date that the famous
document, afterwards known as the Detection, first saw the
light, and that it was in the form of a Latin summary of the
case addressed to Elizabeth. To Buchanan, an indictment in
the forensic style of the Forum would appear the proper
preliminary to a demand for justice. The prosecution of a
'criminal' more highly placed and more guilty than Verres
would appeal to his classic sense, and indeed, when we come
to the Book of Articles and its five pleadings, there will be
noted something reminiscent of the method of Cicero. In any
case it seems obvious that some connected narrative would
accompany the Letters, for several of them were, to say the
least, obscure, and needed a gloss. The opening passage of
the document is suggestive of Moray's expressed, but probably
insincere, loathness to make accusation: "To us...quha ar
dreuin to yis Streicht of Necessitie, yet quhais Faultis we de-
syre to couer, thair Liues we ar enforcit to accuse." So runs
the Scottish edition2, and the concluding words are equally
suggestive: "Mony Thingis I haue omittit, and mony Thingis
for Haist I haue bot lichtlie tuichit." Haste was clearly in-
dicated, for not more than a fortnight elapsed between the
departure of Wood and, ex hypothesi, the completion of the
document ; in that time a vast amount of detail had to be
sifted and set out in a manner that would avoid inconvenience
to others who might conceivably be involved should the affair
not turn out as intended. To any other period to which the
1 The 'Letters' referred to are, of course, the famous 'Casket Letters.'
s Properly this quotation should be in the Latin of the original, as the Scottish
edition was not at this time made.
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS 5
writing of De Maria Scotorum Regina^ has been assigned it is
difficult to see why ' haste ' should have been necessary*.
It has already been said that Camden is responsible for a
statement that the first appearance of the Detection was at
Westminster, when on the 6th of December the Earl of Moray
exhibited various documents collected as evidence against the
Queen, and several writers have followed his lead. But in fact
there is very little doubt that Camden is not, in this, a reliable
authority; no mention is made in the Journal of the Sessions at
Westminster, nor in those of the Sessions at Hampton Court
on the I4th and I5th of December, of the exhibition of the
Detection. In fact in applying the title Detection to any docu-
ment produced at these Sessions, Camden was in error, for this
title did not come into existence until three years later. If by
Detection, Camden intended to refer to the paper De Maria etc.,
it is unlikely that both this and the Book of Articles would be
simultaneously exhibited, for, as will shortly be suggested, the
latter is but the final stage of what the former was the beginning.
That Buchanan was the author of the Latin indictment is
hardly disputable ; the date of the writing has been suggested
above, and this will be more completely indicated as we go on.
Whether he was also responsible for collecting the alleged
' facts ' is a question one might wish to avoid ; true or false, it
should have been beneath the dignity of the author of the
Paraphrasis Psalmorum to lend his pen to such degrading
matter. The issue in print, whether of the Latin paper or of
its translation, which occurred three years afterwards, was
probably made without Buchanan's sanction or even his know-
ledge, and it is probable that he had this in mind when he wrote :
The over-officiousness of my friends, to precipitate the publication of
what was yet unfit to see the light, and that excessive liberty which tran-
1 The document was thus entitled in its first or Latin ' state,' the title Detection
is of later date.
2 A significant, I think unnoticed, item occurs in the Treasurer's Accounts of
1568; on the syth May the Regent sent 'closed writings' to Buchanan, then at
St Andrews. There can be little doubt that preparation of the dossier for Wood
was the matter in hand and was complete before June i2nd.
6 THE INDICTMENT OF
scribers take to censure the works of other men, had altered many things
and corrupted others according to their several humours1.
Nevertheless the fact that he included a part of the Latin in-
dictment in his History, is sufficient to stain his reputation
with the same atramentum sutorium that, he tells us, 'cleansed'
Bothwell2, and at the same time to indicate him as the author
of the original.
It seems likely that it was by way of a perfunctory apology
to Buchanan, for the unauthorised publication of his paper,
that a 'letter' often quoted, and most probably inspired by
Cecil, was appended to the first printed issue of the Detection
in the vernacular. It contained : "The book was written by
him (Buchanan) not as of himself, nor in his name, but accord-
ing to the instructions given him... by the Lords of the Privy
Council in Scotland."
II. THE EARL OF LENNOX' CONNECTION WITH
THE INDICTMENT
John Wood, emissary of the Earl of Moray, arrived in
London towards the end of May 1 568 to commence negotia-
tions for the arraignment of Mary ; the Earl of Lennox, then
residing at Chiswick, would naturally be consulted and marked
out for a leading role in the drama ; as father to the murdered
man and as legal pursuer in the Cause, it would be his part to
lead the prosecution in what Moray and his party conceived
would be a full dress Trial ; the accused at the bar, the indict-
ment, the evidence and all the rest of it. Cecil had evidently
led Moray to this belief, for Moray's letter of June 22nd reflects
the trend of the ' conversations ' : " We persave the trial quhilk
the Quenis Majestic is myndit to have taken, is to be usit with
1 These words occur in the Preface of the Latin History, but the date at which
they were written is uncertain. It is at least known that the History had been in
hand some time before 1577.
2 It may be offered as some excuse for Buchanan, though not a good one, that
much of the History was perhaps put together by an amanuensis after his infirmities
had made him incapable of supervision. Thus only can the numerous contradictions
between the 'official' story of Darnley's murder, which he put forward himself to
the English Commissioners, and the version in the History, be accounted for.
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS 7
grit ceremonye and solemniteis..." The foreign Ambassadors
were to be present, the affair was to be public, it was to be
hastened, "So as some good ende ensue before the 1st August."
But this purpose was not maintained ; a Commission was
substituted, empowered to hear the statements on both sides
while pronouncing no judgement. It cannot be alleged that
this was due to reluctance on Mary's part to have her cause
investigated, for she always desired it, provided that the presence
of the Ambassadors was assured ; in some degree they con-
noted the presence of her Peers, but more important they
would ensure a faithful version of the result to their Masters
and to the world at large.
From the first Lennox betrayed a desire to take part in the
prosecution. Early in June Mary complained that Lady Lennox
was urging him to prosecute her ; and so we come to the
Cambridge Papers which give us the results of his endeavours.
There are four principal papers to be considered ; three of them
undoubtedly drawn up by Lennox, but the fourth, the most
important of them all, is not attributable to him, but to — in all
probability — Buchanan. It is this last that is printed at the
end of this volume and with which we are chiefly concerned.
Of the three papers referred to, the first1 is a narrative
by Lennox, which contains a great deal that is very interest-
ing, though a full consideration of it is not relevant to our
subject. The MS is evidently incomplete, the first page
and a part of the second are in Lennox' own handwriting,
the remaining 10 pages are in a clerk's hand. It contains
a weak, rambling story, overloaded with references to that
'Innocent Lamb' Darnley and his faithful devotion to his wife,
much of which seems to betray a feminine touch. I think
there is very little doubt that it is a rough draft of the ' Bill of
Supplication ' for an enquiry into the death of his son, or at
least an enclosure thereof, sent by Lennox to Elizabeth ; we
know of this from the letter addressed by him to Cecil on
August i8th (1568): "As I understand... the murder of the
1 Cambridge press mark Oo. 7. 47/8.
8 THE INDICTMENT OF
late King. ..shall be tried in the beginning of September next;
and as my wife and I exhibited a bill of supplication to her
Majesty, as you know, requiring justice for that horrible
deed...1." Whether the final copy was similar to the draft
is impossible to say, but the value of our paper is that it re-
presents Lennox' mind at a time when he was untutored by
contact with the busy brains at Edinburgh.
One matter of outstanding interest in the paper is the
quotation from a letter alleged to have been written by the
Queen to Bothwell, from Glasgow, in January 1567. Andrew
Lang in his Mystery of Mary Stuart2 refers to this as the
' mysterious ' or ' suppressed ' letter, certainly nothing like it
appears in the Casket Letters as finally revised. From a very
full consideration of this, Lang derives the conclusion that the
date of this Lennox paper must be subsequent to John Wood's
arrival in London and suggests that Wood's copies of the
Casket Letters contained the quotations referred to ; for this
and other reasons, Lang dates the Lennox paper as July. In
this I think Lang is mistaken : whatever may have been the
contents of Wood's copies of the letters, it seems certain that
Lennox wrote before he had met Wood. His whole story is
too much at variance with the official narrative put forward
by Buchanan, which it must be assumed was the current
Edinburgh version of the affair and known to Wood, to make
it possible that Lennox and he were in collaboration at the
time*. Thus the Lennox paper was probably written very
1 P.R.O., State Papers Scotland, vol. I.
2 Edition 1904, p. 175 et seq.
3 It was Andrew Lang's strong point that Lennox quoted extracts which were
practically similar to those quoted a year previously by the Spanish Ambassador
from a letter which the Earl of Moray had told him about. And from this Lang
deduces that Lennox must have seen the letter. I venture to think that two persons
quoting independently at a long interval from the same letter would be unlikely to
hit on the same excerpts, especially as the letter was a long one. Nevertheless the
Lennox paper adds to the conviction that a letter did at one time exist which was
afterwards suppressed, or alternatively that parts of the ' long ' Glasgow letter were
omitted. Malcolm Laing was ignorant of both series of quotations when he wrote,
and Froude was ignorant of the Cambridge series. Perhaps they would have altered
their views had they known of them !
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS 9
shortly after Mary's arrival in England, at the end of May or
early in June.
The remaining two papers can be taken together as the
second and third Lennox narratives ; a considerable part of the
wording is the same in both. One is headed1 : "A brief dis-
course of the usage of umqu the King of Scottis, sone to me the
Earle of Lennox, be the Quene his wyff" The other1 : " A Re-
membrance after what sorte the late Kynge of Scottis Sonne to
me tlte Earle of Lennoxe, was used by the Quene his wieffe" Both
are of importance in tracing the course of events. The former
is undoubtedly the earlier in date of composition, though
neither is dated. Its opening lines : " Seing zour g(race) and
Honours auctorized be the Q Maties Commission to hear and
try the mater and that the L(ord) Regent of Scotland and
utheris of the nobilitie and Counsalours thairof ar present...,"
show clearly enough that it was prepared for submission at
York, to the Commission presided over by the Duke of Nor-
folk. It was written then during September or at latest in
early October when the Commission assembled. Lennox was
present at York though he was not at that time called upon
to give evidence. Some of the phrases used indicate that the
Book of Articles was even then in the making, or alternatively
that the latter drew some of its matter from the Lennox paper.
This will be referred to again.
As is pointed out by Lang, the extracts from the ' suppressed '
letter, which were so noteworthy a part of the first narrative,
are in this case omitted. Lennox has by now come in contact
with up to date ideas ! Buchanan, Wood, Maitland and Mac-
gill were all present at York and they were the organising
committee. Apart from the abandonment of the extracts
referred to which implied a radical alteration of the original
conception, there is evidence that the inner caucus had not
even now completed the touching up of their measures. We
must remember that what Lennox says now may be expected
to square with what Buchanan and Co. had to say, for they
1 Cambridge Press mark Dd. 3. 66. 2 Cambridge Press mark Oo. 7. 47/11.
io THE INDICTMENT OF
were working together. Thus we find that Lennox omits
many of his first 'effects' which did not jump the right way
and instead we have that the Queen :
Maks mentioun in hir Ire sent to Boithuile from Glasgow. ..that he suld
invent a mair secrete way be medicine to cutt him (Darnley) of(f). As
alsua putts the said Boithuile in mynd of the hous in Edr devisit betwix
thame for the King hir husbands distructioun. Termand (terming) their
ungodly conspiracie their affaire.
Each of these three sentences finds an appropriate place, in
practically similar words, in the Book of Articles \ which we will
refer to below ; but, though the first does occur in the letter
from Glasgow, as we know it, it'is very debateable if the second
does, and it is certain that the third does not. For this and
other reasons one must conclude that the letters as privately
exhibited at York at the time this Lennox paper was written
were not precisely similar to those put forward officially at
Westminster two months later.
Regarding the third sentence, a curious point arises, which,
though perhaps not strictly relevant, is worth a digression.
The Bishop of Ross, Mary's representative at York, and of
course in close touch with the proceedings, had evidently heard
a good deal about the contents of the letters though it is
pretty certain that he never read them. In his book, Tfie
Defence of Queen Marys Honour, we find the following :
If ye (Mary's accusers) graunt us that ye were privie of the said letters...
tel us, and blush not, how you could so readily and directly hit the inter-
pretation of these words, our affairs...
In a later work (De Rebus Gestis etc.) he returns at length to
the same topic, but in this case says that the letter contained
a command that Bothwell should take charge of her (Mary's)
affairs. Evidently whether the reference was 'our' or 'my,'
it was a strong point much debated at the time, inasmuch as
it involved the Queen in the act of Bothwell. But no such
thing occurs in any of the letters as we know them !
We have, fortunately, the first few lines of the third letter,
which was not sent from Glasgow, in the original French
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS u
alleged to have been written by Mary1. It relates to, or is
said to refer to, another scheme for killing Darnley : " Que je
trouve la plus belle commodity pour excuser vostre affaire?
It is difficult to connect this with the reference to ' our affair '
said to be in a letter sent from Glasgow, but in a Latin trans-
lation of the third letter, which will come before us again, we
find ' nostra negotia,' and still more remarkable, the copy of
the same letter at Cambridge has clearly 'our/ every other
copy in Scottish or English or French has ' your ' or ' vdtre.'
What are we to make out of this mix-up ? The Glasgow
letter does not contain what it is said to contain, and another
letter is altered in the translation to exhibit something of the
kind ; it seems impossible to suggest a reasonable explanation,
but at least one's confidence in the genuineness of the docu-
ments receives an additional shake ! The opinion that at York
things were still in a state of flux, is confirmed.
The third and last of the undoubted Lennox papers omits
the reference to ' Zour Grace etc.,' it is apparently of later date
when the Duke of Norfolk was no longer President of the
Commission. It also omits the disputable matter mentioned
above. There is now, as the only connection with the Letters,
a suggestion that Lord Livingstone be:
Examined upon his othe of the wordes betwene the Quene his mistres
and him, at Glasgow, mentioned in her own letter.
This third paper of Lennox' is, without doubt, that alluded to
in the Journal of the Commission of the 2Qth November ( 1 568) :
The Erie of Lennox... cam to the said Commissioners and after lament-
able declaration made of his natural grefe...and not being able to expresse
his cause in convenient wordes, he put in wryting, brefely and rudely, some
parte of such matter as he conceaved to be true... which wryting being
conteined in three2 sheets of paper... hereafter follows, A discourse of the
usage etc.
The ' matter ' in this document which Lennox ' conceaved
to be true' does not concern us; he had collected a sheaf of
' fond ' tales about the Queen, ranging from preposterous un-
1 A complete copy, believed to be in the original French, is at Hatfield.
2 The Cambridge copy is also in three sheets.
12 THE INDICTMENT OF
truth to highly coloured verity. Among the latter is the story
of the quarrel between the Queen and Darnley at Stirling, on
account of the numerous guard of Lennox-men gathered by
Darnley ; this is likely enough to be true and to have more
bearing on subsequent events than is generally supposed. On
the whole this last effort of Lennox is more cautious than its
forerunners, he was apparently wearied of introducing state-
ments which were unsuitable to a scheme that puzzled him by
its intricacy. One gathers the impression that the English
Commissioners were not greatly impressed by the taradiddles
of Lennox, they wanted stronger stuff and they got it.
III. BUCHANAN'S INDICTMENT
Let us now take up the fourth1 and most important of the
Cambridge Papers under consideration, reproduced at the end
of this volume.
Its full preamble is:
" Ane informatioun of probable and infallable conjecteuris and pre-
sumptiounis quhairbie it apperis emdentlie y* ye Quene, moder to our
souerane Lord, no* onlie ves pre-vie of ye horrible and wnvorthe morthour
perpetrat inye persoun of ye King of guid memorie, his hienes fader, but als
wes ye verray instrument, cheiff organe and causer of y* Vnnaturall
crueltie?
Lang's comment on this, that it is an early form of the Detection,
is only indirectly true. It should be more truly described as
an early form of the Book of Articles, but it has this close con-
nection with the Detection that both are based, independently,
on Buchanan's Latin paper De Maria etc.
The Detection in the Scottish dialect, or what is practically
the same thing, its pseudo-Scots prototype, to be referred to
later, is a close, almost literal rendering of the Latin, made in
1571 and done by an Englishman. This paper, on the other
hand, is a free rendering of the same Latin, done by a Scotsman,
and of a date/rwr to the exhibition of the Book of Articles in
December 1 568. The authorship is a question of considerable
interest. It is perhaps too much to say that it is certainly by
1 Cambridge press mark Dd. 3. 66.
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS 13
Buchanan himself, but let us remember that from September
onwards he was in London, actively engaged in preparing the
matter required for the meetings of the Commission. The
conclusion is almost unavoidable that to him would fall the
task of interpreting his own Latin and setting it in a form
suitable for presentation as an Indictment. The liberty taken
with the Latin text, the occasional omission of superfluous
phrases and here and there the correction of an imperfect
original, all seem to point to the deduction- that in this manu-
script we have a genuine addition to the vernacular writings of
George Buchanan, which Mr Hume-Brown might have included
in his collection had he known of this Cambridge treasure.
In what follows I will distinguish this document as Buchanan's
Indictment and in the extracts appended below compare his
text with that of the Black Letter edition of the Detection of
which there are two examples in the British Museum the
language of which is the sham-Scots already mentioned. I
may add here that in referring to the Detection I do not include
the tract generally called the Oration, the two being always
found together are often mistaken as parts of the same work.
The introductory passage of the Detection is absent in
Buchanan's Indictment '; this is natural, for it is merely apolo-
getic, and apology was now unnecessary. But from this point
onwards, item by item, the two translations are built of the
same material, in the same order of setting, and with not in-
frequent use of the same phrase. The Indictment is usually
the more concise, and in it a good deal that may be attributed
to the admittedly hasty composition of the Latin paper De
Maria etc. is rounded off or omitted. The following com-
parative passages taken at random will illustrate this:
BUCHANAN'S INDICTMENT1 DETECTION
(from the ist black letter edition1)
To enter in ye declaratioun of hir Begynnyng at the Quene's first
inconstancie towardis ye King hir inconstancie. For as in making of
huisband and how suddanele sche her mariage her lightnes was very
alterit hir affectioun after ye mariage hedlang& rash, so sodanely followed
1 Corresponding passages are italicised.
THE INDICTMENT OF
w' hym or how fremitlie he wes wsit
ye haill vinter seasoun yairefter
being sent in halking to Pebills,
slenderlie accumpaneit, restrainit fra
acces to ye counsele and fra knaw-
leg of ye counsele effayris, it neidis
no' now to be spokyn of sen nane
y* beheld ye proceydings in thai
dayis ar ignorant of ye same. That
wes indeid ye begynnyng ofevill bot
thingis wes thane sa co-vertlie hand-
allit y* naythar^ multitude nor zeit
thai y* ver familiar could compas
or considder ye scope and end
quhairvnto hir intentioun wes bent.
either inwart repentance, or at least
outwart tokens of change of her
affection without any causes ap-
pearing. For quhair before time the
king was not onely neglected but
also not honorably used, at length
began open hatred to breake out
against him, specially in that winter
quhen he went to Peble with small
traine euin too meane for the degree
of a private man, not being sent
thether a hawking but as com-
mandit away into a corner far from
counsel I and knawledge of pub like
affaires. Nouther is it necessarie to
put in writing those thinges, quhilk
as thay were than as a spectacle
noted of all mens eyes, sa now as a
fresh image thay remane imprinted
in all mens hartes. And though this
were the beginning of al the euills
that followed, yet at the first the
practices were secrit, sa as not onely
the commoun pepill, but alswa sic as
were right familiar and present at
the doing of many matters could not
• , understand throughly, what thing
the Quene than cheefly intended.
It would hardly be possible to select a passage which more
fully exemplifies the opinion expressed above. There is con-
ciseness in Buchanan's rendering, there is evidence of oneness
of source, and there is the absence of ambiguity in Buchanan's
translation of the sentence ' Non in aucupium,' etc. which a too
slavish rendering causes in the other. For greater facility of
reference and to enable the nakedness of the later translation
to be judged, I have appended to this page the Latin of the
original of this passage1.
1 The Latin text of the above passage from the copy in the British Museum
(Press mark 600. b. 24) is as follows:
A prima Reginae inconstantia exorsi, vt enim praeceps fuit in nuptiis faciendis
ejus levitas, repente ita sequuta (secuta) est vel poenitentia, vel (nullis extantibus
causis) alienatae voluntatis indicia. Nam cum antea non mod6 negligenter sed
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS 15
Such comparative extracts could be multiplied many times,
but space limits us to one more which I give for a special
purpose.
INDICTMENT DETECTION
(from the same edition)
It is superflew to rehers ye haill There went sche a Huntyng, ones
circumstances of hir fremyt and at the River of Magat, ane uther
vnnaturall dealing toward hym ye tyme atthe forest of Glenartue. There
tymes of ye hunting of Megetland how coylye, yea how loftily and dis-
and GKartnay, hot evin as sche daynfully she behaued her selfe to
returnit fra ye last to Edinbur1, lug- the Kyng, quhat nede it be re-
geine (lodging) first in maisterjhone hearsed, for the thing was openly
Balfouris neir ye Abbay and then in done in all mens sight, & continueth
ye Chekker hous, quhat wes hir be- emprintit in all mens memorie.
haveor it neidis now (sic, probably Quhen sche was returned to Eden-
'not') to be keipit secreit being in burgh sche tuke not her ladgyng in
ye mowthis of sa mony. her owne palace, but in a priuate
house next adioyning to Jhon Bal-
foures. Thense sche remoued into
an uther house quhair the yerely
courte quhilk they call the Ex-
chequer was then kept.
This extract, besides confirming what I have said of the
consecutive oneness of the matter, also serves to justify my
reference to the fast pub Us lied translation of Buchanan's Latin
as a 'pseudo-Scots' edition. There is something alien in the:
" Once at the river of Megat, another time at the forest of
Glenartue." The true Scottish translator puts it with a local
knowledge that the other did not possess. En passant it may
be noted that the mistake of 'Glenartue' for Glenartnay or
Glenartna seems originally to have been a printer's error. The
Latin manuscript in the British Museum (Calig. D. i), which
parum honorifice Rex est habitus, tandem apertius odium erumpere coepit: ilia
praesertim hyeme, cum Peblium, non modo tenui, sed infra priuati hominis digni-
tate(m), comitatu, non in aucupium missus esi, sedproculb consilio, et negotioru(m)
publicorum conscientia, ablegatus. Neq(ue) literis cominittere necesse est, eas res,
quae vt turn omnibus erant spectaculo, ita nunc, velut recens imago, in omniu(m)
haere(n)t pectoribus. Et quanquam hoc initium erat omnium, quae sequuta sunt,
malorum, ab initio tamen occulta erant consilia: vt non modo vulgus, sed ne
familiares quidem, et qui plurimis rebus gerendis intererant, satis intelligere, possent,
quid potissimum turn Regina spectaret.
16 THE INDICTMENT OF
seems to be a copy of a document existing prior to the printed
book, has the 'n' correctly, but all subsequent reprints and
translations perpetuate the error which does not seem to have
been noticed. It is interesting to note that, in this MS, while
the Latin of the Detection has not been altered, there are cases
in which the Latin of the accompanyingy4^z'0 has been amended,
perhaps by Wilson himself.
Let us for a moment recall the circumstances attending the
issue of the sham-Scottish edition. In November 1571 Dr
Thomas Wilson wrote to Cecil enclosing certain papers which
he said he had, even then, translated into ' handsome Scotch.'
From other evidence there is no reasonable doubt but that
Wilson had been engaged in rendering the Latin paper De
Maria etc. into what he was pleased. to think was the Scottish
dialect, and to this he had added a ' Scottish ' translation of
his own paper, Actio Contra Mariam, since known as the
Oration. There was urgency in the matter, for Elizabeth had
already authorised the issue of the printed Latin libel, it had
been sent to the King of France and she was anxious to im-
pute a Scottish origin to the whole affair.
From such considerations we are justified in concluding that
the early black letter translation is the work of an Englishman,
most probably Dr Wilson. A complete comparison of Wilson's
translation with Buchanan's Indictment shows consecutive simi-
larity of the incidents described, very much as in the case of
the extracts chosen for examples above, proving, I think, that
both papers, the one written in the autumn of 1 568 and the
other towards the end of 1571, are based on the same source
and that the Latin De Maria etc. of Buchanan.
Further consideration of Buchanan's Indictment becomes so
intimately connected with the document known as the Book
of A rticles that we will proceed to it at once.
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS 17
IV. THE BOOK OF ARTICLES
Of this, the OflScial Record of the Session held at West-
minster on the 6th December 1568 tells us:
For more satisfaction of the Quene's Majestic.. .they (Moray and his
party) would shew unto her Majestie's Commissioners a collection made
in writing, of the presumptions and circumstances, by which it should
evidentlie appear, that as the Erie Bothwel was the chief murtherer of the
King, so was the Quene a deviser and Maynteyner thereof; the which
writing followeth thus : ' Articles contayning certaine conjectures etc?
Again on the I5th December the Record further describes the
book:
...yesterday mention and report was made of a Book of Articles, being:
divided into five parts...
In 1870 Mr Hosack published for the first time a Book of
Articles, divided into five parts, of which he had found a copy
in the collection of MSS then belonging to the Earl of Hope-
toun. This is now No. 33531 of the Addl. MSS in the British
Museum. Hosack entertained no doubt that this is a genuine
copy of the Paper presented by Moray to the Commission. In
his preface he gives as his principal reason for this belief, the
identity of the Articles " in various passages with the Detection
of Buchanan, which was published some time after the West-
minster Conference." And he adds:
It is clear, from a comparison of these passages, that both are not
original ; and as the Articles were in existence before the publication of
the Detection the obvious inference is, that Buchanan inserted portions of
them in his famous libel.
Had Hosack been aware of the Cambridge MSS he would
have altered his views, though in any case it is remarkable
that so able a critic should have formed the opinion that
Buchanan composed the Detection by the simple means of
extracting from the Book of Articles.
With the advantage of knowledge of the Cambridge Paper,
which I have called Buchanan's Indictment, it is evident that
Hosack was wrong. From what follows I hope to make it
M. 2
i8 THE INDICTMENT OF
clear that the Hopetoun Paper, unearthed by him, is simply
a rearrangement, with sundry additions and improved phrase-
ology, of Buchanan's Indictment, the latter being related to the
Detection only in that both are translations of the same Latin
document done by different hands at different times.
Cecil had a passion for methodical analysis of the cases he
dealt with; it appears in a hundred instances in the State
Papers, He had drawn up with his own hand (29th June) a
series of memoranda, Contra Reginam Scotorum, reminiscent of
though not the same as the series now to be mentioned. The
construction of the Book of A rticles is suggestive of this habit
of dividing the 'brief into compartments; the eight pieces
de conviction forming the documentary evidence of the Casket
Letters had been arranged under headings, each being anno-
tated with a brief indication of its part; thus: one to prove
hatred and disdain, one to show the idea and practice of the
murder, three to prove passion for Both well and three to prove
connivance in the abduction and marriage. These four sections
agree substantially with the first four chapters of the Hopetoun
MS, the fifth chapter being devoted to subsequent events not
referred to in the Letters.
It may be said with reasonable certainty that Buchanan was
closely connected with the production of the Hopetoun Paper.
The identicalness of the phrasing of many of its paragraphs
with Buchanan's Indictment is too overwhelming to make any
other explanation possible than that the Indictment was the
basis on which the Hopetoun Paper was constructed.
Before giving some parallel extracts to exemplify this conclu-
sion let us consider the title or preamble of the Hopetoun MS :
"Articles contenying certane coniectouris,presumptionis, likliehoodis and
circumstances, be the quhilkis it sail euidentlie appeare That as James
sumtyme erle boithuile wes the cheif executour of the horrible and vntvorthy
tnurther perpelrat in the persoun of vmquhile king henry of gude memory,
father to our said souerane lord, and the qucnis lauchfull husband Sa wes
she of the foirknaivlege counsell devise persuader and commander of the
said murther to be done and mantenar fortefear of the executoures thereof;
diuidit in five paries."
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS 19
The essential difference between this preamble and that
quoted on page 12, of the Buchanan Indictment, is, that the
latter involved the Queen only, this involves both the Queen
and Bothwell. When Moray and his friends arrived in England
their purpose was the prosecution of the Queen alone ; Both-
well was a secondary consideration. The underlying idea of
the 'suppressed' Glasgow Letter was that the Queen com-
manded and Bothwell obeyed, in the revised letter the reverse
is the case ; hence no doubt the English jurists found it necessary
to include Bothwell as a party this being more in accordance
with the evidence.
Now let us compare the matter in the two Papers; for greater
convenience I have adopted modern English orthography.
BUCHANAN'S INDICTMENT
I
The King her husband hearing of
her departing quickly followed by
Stirlingand came to Alloway, mean-
ing to have attended on her according
to the husbands duty to the wife.
But at his coming there what cheer
he received there, they that were
present can tell. He had scarce
(time) to repose himself, his servants
and horses with meat, when it be-
hoved him to depart.
II
...She spake in plain words to my
Lord now Regent, the Earl of
Huntly and the Secretary, and sore
greeting and tormenting herself
miserably, as if she would have fallen
in the same sickness that she was in
of before, said that without she were
quit of the King, one mean or other,
she would never have a good day in
her life, and rather ere she failed
therein would not set by to be the
instrument of her own death.
THE HOPETOUN MS
I
Always the King her husband
hearing of her sudden departing
quickly followed, and by Stirling
come to Alloway of purpose to at-
tend upon her according to his duty.
Butat his cominghe neither received
good countenance nor hearty enter-
tainment of her. And scarcely had
reposed him and his servants and
horses with meat when it behoved
him to depart.
II
...She bursted forth in direct
words to my Lord now Regent, the
Earl of Huntly and the Secretary,
sore greeting and tormenting herself
miserably, as she would have fallen
in her sickness and said, without she
were quit of the King by one means
or other she could never have a good
day in her life, and rather ere she
failed therein to be the instrument
of her own death.
2—2
2O
THE INDICTMENT OF
III
This unnatural dealing received
of her in the sight and audience of
divers foreign Prince's Ambassa-
dors, so far directed him in courage
that desperately he departed forth
of Stirling towards Glasgow where
his father was.
IV
. . . Upon the Saturday at afternoon
she confronted them together, and
never left to provoke the one against
the other, till in her own presence
she caused them from words offer
straikes to other, and in her part it
stood not but they had made an end
of it there, for she was not careful
who should be victor.
V
From the which returning to Craig-
millar beside Edinburgh where she
rested a while in the latter end of
November, she renewed the same
purpose, which she spoke of before
at Kelso, in the audience of my Lord
now regent, the Earls of Huntly,
Argyll and the Secretary, proponing
that the way to be quit of the king
in appearance was best to move an
action of divorce against him which
might easily be brought to pass by
reason of the consanguinity between
them, the dispensation being ab-
stracted.
VI
...It was a ruin unsuitable to have
lodged a prince in, standing in a
solitary place, at the outmost part
of the town, separated from all com-
pany, a waste ruinous house wherein
no man had dwelt seven years of
before.
Ill
This her unnatural dealing in the
sight and audience of foreign
Prince's Ambassadors, so far di-
rected him in courage that desper-
ately he departed forth of Stirling
to Glasgow where his father then
made residence.
IV
...The same day at afternoon, and
there confronting them never left to
provoke them one against the other
till in her own presence, from words
she caused them offer straikes. And
in her it stood not but they had made
end of the matter even there, nothing
caring who should be victor.
In the same month at her coming
to Craigmillar where she reposed
a while before passing to Stirling for
the baptism, she renewed the same
purpose which she spoke of before
at Kelso, in the audience of the said
Earl of Murray, now regent, the
Earls of Huntly, Argyll and the
Secretary, proponing that the best
way to be quit of the King her hus
band was by divorce which might
easily be brought to pass through
the consanguinity standing between
them, the dispensation being ab-
stracted.
VI
...Which was unmeet in all re-
spects for any honest man to lodge
in, situated in a solitary place at the
outmost part of the town, ruinous
waste, and not inhabited by any of
a long time.
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS 21
VII VII
This also is to be noted how her Also she disponed her late bus-
hatred to the King and his friends band's horses, clothing, armour and
so continued after his death that she whatever was his to Bothwell his
disponed his horses, armour and chief murderer and others his known
whatever else pertained him, to the unfriends, in manifest proof of her
very authors of his murder and continued hatred against his dead
others his greatest unfriends. body.
I submit that the seven comparative extracts printed above
prove conclusively that the document which I have called
Buchanan's Indictment was before the writer of the Hopetoun
MS. In the latter are quite a number of additional 'facts'
not found in the Indictment, but of these the greater number
are apparently derived from the information collected by
Lennox, and I believe they are not to be found elsewhere.
Thus, so far as the matter is concerned, there is I think no
reasonable doubt that Buchanan and Lennox are the joint
authors of the Hopetoun Book of Articles. Nevertheless I
think it is very evident that some English mind supervised
the putting together of the matter, and dictated much of the
phrasing. It is clearer and more direct than the work of either
taken separately, and much of the ponderous declamation of
Buchanan is transmuted into the legal language of the day,
though at the same time an evident endeavour has been made
to maintain the Scottish character of the whole.
V. THE DATE OF THE WRITINGS
Turning now to the interesting question of the dates of the
several writings, and whether the Hopetoun MS is likely to
be, as Hosack believed, the final form of the famous Indictment
presented as the Book of Articles to the English Commissioners
on the 6th December 1 568 : if the reader will refer to the re-
marks made about the second of the three statements drawn
up by Lennox, it will be seen that its opening words synchro-
nise its birth approximately with the York Session of the
Commission which commenced on the 4th October 1 568.
22 THE INDICTMENT OF
The chief interest of fixing this date is the connection be-
tween this second Lennox paper and the Hopetoun MS.
Items not to be found elsewhere are in both. The story of
the use of a ' printing iron ' to replace Darnley's signature on
official documents, and the "word fat in the place of his sub-
scription," for example. The story that Darnley's body
wes laid in ane pure (poor) hous...and yair efter lay twa dayis yair as
said is yat al ye warld m1* se him and thairefter caryit. . .to ye abbay w{ VI 1 1
or IX suddarts (soldiers)... borne vponn ane furme (form) and the feit
vpwart and schot in ane hoill (hole)
occurs in the Memoranda1 and is repeated in the Hopetoun thus:
The Irascall people transportit him to a vile hous...quhair he remanit
XLVIII houris as a gasing stole. ..she causit the same be brocht...be
certane soldiours... vponn ane auld blok of forme or tre...(and) cast in the
erth on the nycht...
Again both the Lennox and the Hopetoun relate in practically
the same words that in her letters the Queen reminded Both-
well about the house in Edinburgh, also of the more secret way
" be medicine to cutt him of (off)," and both have the reference
to " our affairs " already mentioned.
Cecil's Journal, printed in Murdin's Collections, says that
Moray and his party arrived in York on the I2th September2;
Buchanan was certainly one of his company. It is hardly to
be doubted that he would set to work at once to prepare his
Indictment in the vernacular, based on his Latin summary.
Lennox was at the same time writing his second paper ; the
pair must have been in communication.
It seems almost beyond doubt that the Hopetoun MS which
drew so much of its matter from both was prepared at this
time and was intended for submission to the Duke of Norfolk's
Commission at York. Yet in fact neither the Book of Articles
nor the Lennox paper was then submitted. Both were with-
held until the following December when the Commission sat
at Westminster. What was the reason ?
1 Cambridge press mark Oo. 7. 47/5.
2 There is however an error in Cecil's Journal, Moray did not arrive at York
until the 2nd October. Possibly Buchanan preceded him, Wood came down from
Edinburgh and passed through York about that date, Lennox set out for York on
the 24th and would arrive about the 26th.
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS 23
A censor, whether Nicholas Bacon or another, was from the
first supervising the legal aspects of the case and passing the
various exhibits in review. Much that seemed promising
evidence to Buchanan and Lennox was left out; the reference
to Dalgleish and his evidence for instance; the Hiegate- Walker
affair, which was probably a two-edged sword, and other things.
Yet some details remained which did not tally with the evidence
of the Casket Letters as we have them, nor with the general
statements of witnesses whose depositions were to be produced ;
as, for example, that Darnley's body lay for 48 hours as a
'gasing stok ' for the 'Irascall people.' The impression is given,
almost the conviction, that in September-October the evidence
was still fluid and in process of evolution. We have too that
curious hint sent to Lennox by an unknown correspondent in
Scotland : " But it is good that this matter be not ended until
your honor may have the copy of the letter which I shall have at
(shall send to)your Honor so soon as I mayhave a trusty bearer."
This is undated, but likely enough it was the cause of Lennox
dropping the extracts quoted in his first epistle, as we have seen.
For all these reasons it appears more than probable that the
Hopetoun MS is not a true copy of the final Book of Articles,
but that the latter was an emended edition of the former,
bringing it into accord with the latest form of the evidence.
This would account for the postponement of the appearance
both of the Book of Articles and the third Lennox statement
until the following December, when as we have seen the latter
was purged of the doubtful references.
VI. THE PUBLICATION OF THE LIBEL
A word in conclusion as to the emergence in public of the
Detection. During 1569 and far into 1570, negotiations were
pending for the restoration of Mary's liberty. Perhaps on
Elizabeth's part they were genuine, on Cecil's part they were
certainly insincere. The barometer of foreign politics marked
the rise and fall of Mary's hopes : in the summer and autumn
of 1570 the glass was at ^set fair,' thereafter it fell and rose
24 THE INDICTMENT OF
but little again. All the evidence, and there is a great deal of
it, goes to show that up to this time the Indictment and the
Letters had been kept secret
Her correspondence was rigorously scrutinised, much that
passed apparently unopened was read, deciphered, and added
to Cecil's secret record. Before Bailey was arrested, or Ridolfi
appeared on the scene, or Norfolk was examined, a great deal
was known of her plans, and likely enough much was added
to them about which she knew nothing. In March (1571)
it was hinted that "her offences must be published." Yet
Elizabeth still plumed herself on her forbearance in with-
holding the ' evidence ' of her cousin's guilt from the world ;
and what is more to her credit, she resisted the importunities
both of the ' King's Party ' in Scotland and the Protestant
Party in England to end all the trouble in a very summary
way: "Never Prince hath had more warnings, nor better advice
than she hath had to prevent all this long ago1."
By September 1571 the French King was becoming insistent
on the fulfilment of the undertaking to set the Queen of Scots
at liberty. To relieve this pressure every artifice was used to
colour the examination of Norfolk with the maximum of matter
damnatory to the captive ; to add criminal to political guilt
and so to move France to forego her championship, without
jeopardising the treaty then pending, the publication of
Buchanan's first (Latin) summary of the case was decided on.
It issued, almost without doubt, from the press of John Day,
a leading printer of London, and without any doubt it was
published ' cum privilegio,' though there was no indication of
date, authorship or printer on the title page. The intention
was to impute to it a Scottish origin. I express the opinion
that this edition of " Buchanan's Little Book " contained the
Latin paper De Maria Scotorum Regina only, without any
supplements, either of the Actio, Letters or Sonnets. No
example of the pamphlet in this form is known to exist.
On November ist (1571) Cecil sent a copy to Walsingham
1 Leicester to Burghley, 4 Nov. 1572. Murdin.
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS 25
in Paris, but the inference from his letter is that the Letters
did not form a part of the book ; he promised soon to send an
edition in English with "Addition of many other supplements."
In the same month a copy was handed to Mary herself by one
Bateman ; she described it as "Ung livre diffamatoire par ung
athe"e Buccanan." She does not so much as hint at the Letters
being included ; it is surely inconceivable, had they been, that
she would have been silent
On November I5th the French King, through Fe"n£lon, ex-
pressed his "Regret that she (Elizabeth) should have permitted
such a villainous writing to be published." The Queen at once
denied responsibility ; the books, she said, had been printed in
Scotland and Germany1; this was on December loth or there-
abouts. In the meantime, and before December 5th, the book
appeared in the vernacular under the title Ane Detectioun of
the duinges of Marie Queue of Scottes, with the additional
information that it was printed from the Latin of ' G.B.,' that
is George Buchanan. To this work, F£n£lon tells us some
" Rhymes in French had been added which are worse than all
the rest." It is impossible to suppose that this edition contained
the Letters ; nothing could be worse than the ' long Glasgow '
letter, besides in all the examples which exist the Sonnets
(that is the 'rhymes') come first, and Fe"nelon could hardly
have omitted mention of the Letters had they also been in-
cluded.
On December loth, Fe"ne"lon, writing to his master, referred
to the approaching departure of Sir Thomas Smith for France,
" To conclude by alliance or by league a closer friendship with
France." In this letter it was mentioned that he (Smith) would
satisfy you (Charles IX) further in that affair (the remonstrance
about the libel). At the same time secret instructions were
given to Fe'n&on's secretary, who accompanied Smith, to relate
that the idea of the league was not seriously meant, but rather
that it was sought to obtain recognition by France of the young
1 Germany was perhaps introduced to confuse the issue; some of the books in
defence of the Queen were said to have emanated from there.
26 THE INDICTMENT OF
King of Scotland and to an agreement to the perpetual re-
tention in England of his mother.
Smith left England at the end of December. I have little
doubt that it was then that the Letters (three of them only)
were for the first time put into print (translated into Latin),
and added, with Wilson's tract, "Actio contra Mariam," to
"Buchanan's Little Book" already mentioned. The three
letters were the 'clou' intended to persuade the French King
to concur in the desired policy. Apparently only a few copies
were printed. A letter to Cecil, dated Jan. loth, describes the
distribution of three copies to assured persons. As the book
was in Latin it would be of small service for general use and
the publication of a French edition was arranged. This was
published in February and Catherine de Me"dicis at once
ordered its destruction. It is improbable that the Letters were
published in England until after their effect on the French
King had been tested, then they were grafted on to the existing
copies of the issued libel in the sham-Scottish vernacular.
Fe'ne'lon enjoyed the reputation of being a warm supporter
of Mary, at all events, poor soul, she trusted him as she had
done so many others. But in this particular matter of the Libel
it seems that he was more concerned with the successful ac-
complishment of the tripartite treaty that was to guard against
the ambition of Spain, than in any question of a libel which
his good sense would enable him to appraise at its true value.
It is not likely that he was deceived by the 'Scottish origin,'
but quite likely that he was prepared to accept it as such, and
recommend it to his Most Christian Majesty as a means to
satisfy his most unchristian conscience.
The date on which the final issue of the Detection with all
its supplements, including of course the eight Casket Letters,
took place is difficult to determine. We have the letter written
by Alexander Hay to John Knox dated 14 December 1571
in which he states that the book had appeared in London.
Hay does not say that he had seen it and he may have been
making an intelligent anticipation of an event which he knew
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS 27
was about to take place ; other considerations indicate a later
date.
The remarkable thing is the ignorance of the persons who
wrote in defence of the Queen, of the contents of the published
volume. Whether it be the Bishop of Ross in his Defence or
in his later De Vita et Rebus etc., or Belforest in his Inno-
cence etc.1, or Adam Black wood or any other, one feels in-
clined to suppose that they could never have seen the Letters
as printed ; what they allude to in their books are trifles com-
pared to what they could apparently have objected. In some
respects their ignorance is positive, as when they say that no
one of the Letters is dated or has the name of place from which
sent or the name of the bearer; the 'short' Glasgow letter has
all these. Perhaps the explanation is that very few copies were
circulated ; Catherine de Me*dicis gave orders for the destruction
of the French edition, and in England it is likely that only
persons of known views had access to them. Yet even so it is
surprising that those interested did not know more. Drury, the
Marshal of Berwick, who was in the thick of the affair, had
never seen the book even so late as June 1572*. Very likely
he was not a solitary instance. It seems certain that from first
to last Mary herself never saw the Letters.
In thus attempting to follow the course of these interesting
papers I have refrained from expressing an opinion on the guilt
or innocence of the Queen of Scots. The trial of her Cause was
a travesty of justice; so much is certain, and the deductions
made in the foregoing indicate to how great an extent Cecil
manipulated the evidence. But even if we suppose all the
evidence to have been false or garbled, we cannot therefrom
claim to prove innocence. The true story of the 'Gunpowder-
Plot' at Kirk o' Field has yet to be written; and when written,
I believe it will be found to have little relation to the contents
of Buchanan's famous Indictment or its connected documents.
1 This work is said to have been compiled in England and sent to France to be
turned into French and published.
* See State Papers Scotland, vol. n. under date 14 and 16 June 1572.
28
THE INDICTMENT OF
Summarised in a diagram the conclusions arrived at as to
date of publication of the documents are as follows :
Buchanan's Latin Summary,
early June 1 568
Lennox' first Paper,
May/June 1568
Buchanan's Trans = Lennox' second Paper,
Sept./Oct. 1568.
(Reproduced in
this volume)
The Hopetoun MS,
Sept./Oct. 1568
The Book of Articles,
December 1568
Sept./Oct. 1568
Lennox' third Paper,
December 1568
Buchanan's Little Book,
published in England
end Oct. 1571. A copy
of the Summary
Wilson's and edition of
the same, with addition
of the Actio and three
letters in Latin,
Dec./Jan. 1571/2
Wilson's Translation of the
Summary, known as the
Detection, with the Sonnets
in French, early Dec. 1571
Wilson's 2nd edition, with
addition of the Oration and
perhaps all the Letters,
Dec./Jan. 1571/2
Lekprevik's St Andrews
edition of the same in
correct Scottish, Feb. 1572
(not referred to in the text)
17.
.The French "Rochelle edition," Feb./March 1572
A word as to the provenance of the Cambridge MSS. Mr
Jenkinson has kindly told me what is known: that they are
possibly a part of a gift to the University by George I in 1715,
and had been in the collection of John Moore, Bishop of Ely.
The Bishop added to his collection by purchase at the sale of
the library of John, Duke of Lauderdale, who died in 1682, but
I can find no mention of these papers in the Catalogues of the
auction, unless they come under the heading: c A Collection of
somethings relating to the Kingdom of Scotland, MSS on Paper.
Fol.' Although the papers may have come to Ely through
Leslie, Bishop of Ross, who was confined there for a consider-
able time during 1571 to 1574, the more probable source is the
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS 29
Lauderdale library. The Duke was grandson of John Mait-
land, brother of Mary's Secretary, the well-known William
Maitland of Lethington, We have no record of what became
of the Lethington papers, which must have been of great interest.
It seems more than probable that they would come into the
hands of his brother and so have passed to his descendant, and
thence to their present home.
Lethington's claim to be the defender of the Queen while
ostensibly acting against her is well known, and he would
naturally have possessed himself of copies of as many of the
documents passing at York and Westminster as possible. The
Cambridge University Paper, now printed, is obviously a copy
and done by an English scribe — perhaps surreptitiously for
Lethington. It shows evidence of having been hastily tran-
scribed, for there are many mistakes, and not a few instances
where the copyist has overrun his lines and entered words out
of their proper sequence. The errors have been preserved in
the copy hereto attached.
BUCHANAN'S INDICTMENT
FROM THE COPY PRESERVED IN THE
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
Figures, thus (i) in the text, indicate the page of the manu-
script.
The notes, which are numbered consecutively, are placed
together at the end.
Capitals have been given to names of persons and places,
and in some cases punctuation has been inserted to make
the meaning more intelligible. Words which were deleted in
the manuscript are placed in square brackets.
The general reader should have little difficulty in following
the manuscript, remembering that v's, u's, and w's are used
indifferently. Such words as wsit = used, vyif=wife, vn-
vorthe = unworthy, neuer= never, look strange at first! The
series, qlk = which, qll = until, quhen=when, etc. are more
regular. In most other cases the spelling is more or less
phonetic.
BUCHANAN'S INDICTMENT1
(i) Ane informatioun of probable and infallable cfiiecteuris
and presumptiounis quhairbie it apperis evidentlie y* ye Quene,
moder to our souerane Lord, no1 onlie ves previe of ye horrible
and wnvorthe morthour ppetrat in ye psoun of ye King of guid
memorie his hienes fader, but als wes ye verray instrumet,
cheiff organe and causer of yl Vnnaturall crueltie.
To enter in ye declaratioun of hir inconstancie towardis ye
King hir huisband and how suddanele sche alterit hir affectioun
after ye mariage wl hym or how fremitlie he wes wsit ye haill
vinter seasoun yairefter being sent in halking to Pebills, slen-
derlie accumpaneit, restrainit fra acces to ye counsele and fra
knawleg of ye counsele effayris, it neidis no1 now to be spokyn
of sen nane yl beheld ye proceydings in thai dayis ar ignorant
of ye same. That wes indeid ye begynnyng of evill bot thingis
wes thane sa covertlie handallit yl naythar ye multitude nor
zeit thai yl ver familiar could compas or considder ye scope
and end quhairvnto hir intentioun wes bent.
Qw (how) in Aprill or yairby, 1 566, returning fra Dumbar*
to ye towne and fra yl to ye castell of Edinbur1 (quhair sche
cotenewit till sche wes deliuerit of hir byrth) sche enterit (as
veill apperis be ye successe) to compas and dewys ye wickyt
and vnnaturall purpos yl being ryd ane vay or vther of ye King
hir laufull huisband sche my1 haif libertie to marie ye erll
Bothuell, to bring ye mater to end and sche to be compted
saikles of it sche begouth first craftelie in ye castell of Edinbur1
to mak ane dedlie hetrand (hatred) betuix ye King and ye
Lordis qlk for ye tym attendit vpoun hir. Interteneingye ane
and ye vtheris in yl consait as ilk ane haid soucht ye vrak
(wreck) and lywes of vther omitting na thing yl possibillie culd
be practise! to caus yame yame (sic) enter in bluid, na thing
thouchtfull quha suld prevail bot quhasaeuer lost thinkeng to
gayn and ye mair suddanelie to atteine to ye pfectioun of hir
M. 3
34 THE INDICTMENT OF
intentit purpois. Quhat nobilma at y1 tym presentit ye court
hot ains wes put to ye strait to gansay as it wer yl qlk he haid
spokyn, or yane offer hym self reddie to defend his caus be
armes or leif ye court. In speciell it is no1 to be past our (over)
in silence3 quhow ane nyl amangis vtheris ye King abyding wl
hir qll (until) mydny1 wes past the summe of hir talk to hym
wes yl ye Lordis hes compassit his death and destructioun and
immediatlie vpoun his depting sche send to my Lord now
Regent, valknyt (awaking) hym out of his slepe and desyrit
hym, all manr of delay set apt to repair to hir pns (presence),
quha according to hir comandmet past to hir chalmer sark alane
onlie coverit w1 his nyl gowne, at quhais cuing (coming) to hir
presence ye substance and effect of hir haill harrang wes to hym,
yl the King hir huisband no1 onlie disdanit to sie hym in favor
bot of determinat mynd purposit to tak his lyif at ye first
occasioun. This wes temptatioun aneuche, bot God vald no1
suffer vicketnes [sa payntit] to haif sa payntit a clok nor yame
yl fearit hym to fall in sa dangerus a snar.
(2) Alwayis being deliuerit of hir birth, immediatlie ye erll
Bothuell eterit in sic familiaritie wl hir yl nane bot he had aythar
credyt or moyen to do ony thing at hir handis and first of all
disdanand to haif other sycht or societie of the King hir huis-
band. Befoir ye [tym] dew tym yl vome (women) of basse degrie
ar accustomet to remoif fra the hous after yr byrths, sche past
secretlie ane day in ye morning to ye New Havin and befoir
ony knew, sche enterit in ane boit, coductet be Ville Blacatter,
Edmond Blacatter, Leonard Robertsoun, Thome Diksoun and
thre fellows notorius pyratis awowit me and dependaris of ye
said erll Bothuell in quhais cumpany sche past to Alloway to
ye greit admiratioun of all honest psounis, that sche suld (have?)
hazardit hir psoun amangis a sort of sic ruiffianis, to tak ye sea
wlout ony ane honest ma to associat hir. Quhat hir wsage wes
in Alloway neidis no1 to be rehersit bot it may be veill sa said
yl it exceidit measor and all womanlie behaveour; the King hir
huisband heiring of hir suddand depting quyklie followit be
Streveling (Stirling) and come to Alloway, myndit to haif
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS 35
attendit on hir according to ye huisbandis dewetie to ye wyif,
hot as (at?) his cuming yair quhat chear he ressauit yair thai
yl wer pnt can tell, he haid scars (time?) to repois hym, his
servandis and hors wythe meit quhane it behuiffit hym (to)
dept or do war, and sche cotenewit yair four or fywe dayis
yairefter na better occupeit nor of befoir.
It is supflew to rehers ye haill circumstances of hir fremyt
and vnnaturall dealing toward hym ye tymes of ye hunting of
Megetland and Gleartnay, bot evin as sche returnit fra ye last
to Edinbur1, luggeine first in maister Jhone Balfouris neir ye
Abbay and then in ye Chekker (Exchequer) hous, quhat wes
hir behaveo1" it neidis now (not?) to be keipit secreit being in
ye mowthis of sa mony, ye erll Bothuell abusit hyr bodie at
his plesr, having passage in at ye bak dur fra maister Dauid
Chalmeris hous yl he wes ludget in, qlk wes nyxt wnto ye hous
quhair sche remanit then. This hir self hes ofter yane anis
confessit and in speciell to my Lord Regent and ye auld Ladie
Louchlevin, wsand (using) onlie yis nakyt excuse yl ye Ladie
Reires gaif hym enteres quha becrasit4 hir, and he being enterit
revisit hir aganis hir will, bot litill apperit of hir miscontentemet
quhen as wlin few nyts yairefter seing he keipit no1 his ap-
poynted tyme sche send ye said Ladie Reres furth of ye said
bak dur to bring hym, qlk Ladie fyndand ye dyk of ye zard
difficill to pas our and sche being corpolent and vnhabell to
clyme wes lattin downe in ane belt be ye Quene self and
Margaret Carwod, qlk belt8 brak and ye Ladie fell but alwayis
sche executit ye corhissioun8 sa quikle yl sche causit hym arys
frome his awne wyif. Nane yl wer pnt is hable to deny this and
ye maist pt hes alreddie confessit ye haill circumstance of ye
same, lyk as wmqll (umquhile = the late) George Dalgleis ye
said erlis cubiculair being in ye chalmer for ye tyme, confessit
befoir his executioun to ye death yl this haill arkele (article?)
wes maist infallible and trew as his depositioun7 can testifie.
(3) At this tyme ye King remanit at Stirveling, in a maner
exilit fra hir pns seing quhan he wes pnt he nowther culd fynd
favour nor Intertenement to hym and his servandis bot con-
3-2
36 THE INDICTMENT OF
tinuall slyting proceidit in tryfles and forget querrellis alwayis
he returnit to Edinbur1 and wl all humilitie requyrit hir favour
and to be admitted to hir bed as hir huisband, qlk altogether
wes denyet, and sa in dispair wes constranit to pas agane to
ye vest cuntrie to drywe (drive) over his cairfull and miserable
tyme.
Sone heirefter conclusioun being takyn to pas to Jedbur1 for
halding of ane Justice Air in ye begynnyng of October 1 566,
ye said erll maid ane reid (raid) in Lyddisdaill quhair, as is
veill knawin, he chancit of a theif to be hurt and woundit, sche,
ressauing ye aduertism et of it at Borthuik [ane] as ane rathar en-
ragit then in hir ryt wyt, poistet fordwart to Melros and fra yl to
Jedbur1 quhair na aduertismet of his being on lyf culd satisfye
hir bot vtterang hir Inordinat affectioun, sche hazard hir self
in ane sessoun of ye zeir maist vnganand (unsuitable) be a
passaige vncouth, strait and difficill and in ye cumpanye of
sic a cowoy (convoy) as na prewat ma of honest reputatioun
wald haif enterit amang8, passand to ye A rmetage( Hermitage)
in Lyddisdaill and returnand to Jedbur1 one ane schort wynter
day quhair sche preparit all thingis meit for his transporting,
and schortlie, being broucht yr it wer vthervyis vsit be hyr nor
it becumyt hir to offer or hym to ressaue, yis faschius and ex-
traordinare trawaill vnd9 nyl bot rathar in Goddis Jugement
put hir in sic extreme infirmitie as few luikyt for hir lyif, ye
knawlege quhairof cuing to ye eares of ye King hir huisband,
resident at Stirling he deleyit no1 bot wl all speid come to
Jedburghe to veseit and confort hir. How he wes ressauit, thai
yl wer pnt can best tell gif other he ressauit guid wordis or
guid countenance, gif other meit, drink or ludgeine wes preparit
or appoyntet for hyro, bot ye haill Lordis and officieris of court
yair attending expreslie comandit yl ane of yame suld ains
luik to hym or schaw hym favour, and fering yl my Lord now
Regent suld schaw hym yl benevolence to gif hym his chalm1"
for a ny1 my Lordis vyif wes spedelie sent to ye hous and
comandit to pas to hir bed and contrafeict hir self to be seik,
to ye end ye King suld no1 swyt (suit = beg for) ye ludgene
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS 37
or in cais he soucht ye same yl hir seikncs my1 be ane sufficient
excuse fra remaining yair onlie a nyl, maist fremytlie inter-
teneit he returnit agane to his purgatorie na thing conforted
of his jornay10; hot quhen all yis difficult ic wes maid to gar
(deny) hym ludgeine, meit and drink for a nyl, the erll Bothuell
wes transported of befoir fra his cofnoune ludgeine and placit
in ye Quenis hous in ye chalmer derect vnder hir awne quhome
in hir gretest extremitie sche [sparest] sparit no1 to vesite, sche
wes seik in deid and he hurt bot befoir thai remowit furth of y*
ludgeine itt wes planlie aneuche spokyn and no1 wlout caus yl
he abusit hir bodie as of befoir.
(4) About ye fyft day of November removing frorne Jed-
burghe to Kelso yair come ane man of ye Kingis to ye Quene
wyth letteres, after ye reiding thairof sche spak in plane wordis
to my Lord now Regent, ye erll of Huntlie and ye Secretar
and sair gretand (weeping) and tormentand hir self miserabillie
as gif sche wald haif fallin in ye same seiknes yl sche wes in of
befoir said yl wylout sche wer quyt of ye King be ane meane
or wther sche culd never haif ane guid day in hir lyif and rathar
or sche faillit yairin wald no1 set by to be ye instrumet of hir
awne death11.
At the same tyme in hir progres throwche ye Mers ye nyl
sche restet at Coldinghame it is certane yl ye Ladie Reires wes
tane gangand throuche ye watche and quha wes in cumpany
wl hir or quhat wes ye purpois or occasioun of yair walking yl
tyme of nyl ye Quene hir self can tell.
Fra the qlk returning to Craigmillar besyd Edinbur1 quhair
sche restit ane quhill in ye end of Nouvber sche renewit ye
same purpois qlk sche spak of befoir at Kelso, in ye audience
of my Lord now Regent, ye erll of Huntlie, Argyll and ye
Secretar proponyng yl the way to be quyte of ye King, in
apperance wes best, to mowe ane actioun of diuorce aganis
hym qlk my1 aeselie be broucht to pas be reasoun of ye
cosanguinitie betuix yame ye dispensatioun being abstractit",
quhairvnto it wes ansuerit how yl culd no1 gudlie be done
wlout hazard yl be ye doing yairof ye King, now our souerane,
38 THE INDICTMENT OF
hir sonne suld be declarit bastard sene nathar he nor sche
cotractit yl mariage being ignorant of ye degreis of consan-
guinitie quhairin thai stuid; qlk ansr quhan sche haid pansit13
vpoun sche left y1 consait and opinioun of ye deiuorce (divorce)
and euer frome y* day furth imaginit and devisit how to cut
hym away as be ye sequele of yis discourse mair planlie sail
appeir.
The King coing agane frome Stirveling to Craigmillar to
wesit hir thinkand hir passioun and coleir sumquhat mitigat,
he profeitit nathing nowther getting guid countenance, guid
traitmet nor permissioun to pas wl hir to bed howbeit in all
yis tyme it wes suspectit no1 wlout caus yl the erll Bothuell
abusit hir bodie as of befoir.
At the begynning of December sche addressit to Stirling
becaus of ye embassatouris arrywit for ye baptisme of ye
King now our souerane, agane qlk sche preparit and gaif to
ye said erll Bothuell out of hir awne couferis, or cost be hir
money, diuers riche abulzeametis at ye making quhairof hir
self wes maister of vark and tuik na les attendence yl all
thingis meit for ye decoratioun yrof wer had, nor gif sche
haid bene his servand. Howbeit on ye vther pt ye King hir
laufull huisband wes left desolat, na kynd of preparatioun maid
for yl qlk my1 haif tendit for his hono1 or avanceiht at sic a
tyme and no1 onlie ver ye embassators inhibit to spek wyl hym
or he pt (sic) pmitted to resort to yr presence being all w*in
Streveling Castell bot ye haill nobilme and sum officiaris yl be
hir awne appoyntment wer derectit of befoir to haif attend it
to (5) his seruice wer commandit no1 to accumpanye hym nor
samekill as anis to schaw hym gude countenance or do hym
courtesie.
This vnnaturall dealing ressauit of hir in ye syl and audience
of diuers foren princes embassadouris sa far derectit hym in
curage yl disparetlie he deptit furth of Stirveling towardis
Glescow quhair his father wes, at ye end of December. Gif he
ressauit ony thing befoir his depting yl wes ye occasioun of his
strange an vncouth seiknes yl suddanlie he fell in or quhether
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS 39
his seiknes wes artificiell or naturall, God knawis, hot trew it
is yt befoir he rod a myi out of Stirveling he felt ye begynnyng
of y' plaig qlk yefter sa inquietit hym; and it my1 wele be
vnderstand quhat favo1 sche buir vnto hym, or rathar quhow
bent sche wes to do hym displesr and dishonor quhan at his
depting frome Stirling sche causit all ye plat and siluer wes-
chell appoynted for hym and qlk he haid wset continuallie of
befoir fra his mariage to be takin fra hym and tyn weschell
(tin vessels) to be gevin in place yrof.
Efter ye baptisme sche causit my Lord now Regent desyr
ye erll Bothuell to ryd to Sanctandrs (St Andrews) quhen my
Lord of Bedfurd ye Quenis maiesteis of Englandis embassa-
dour for ye tyme past to ther, quha promisit sa to do, howbeit
nathing wes les in his mynd or in ye mynd of hir y* sua
devisit, that, howsonne yl euer thai wer deptet to Sanctandrs
and ye King to Glescow, sche wl ye erll Bothuele past to
Drymen14; in quhat ordor sche and he wes chalmerit yr anew
(enough) saw, yl lykit litill ye manr, baithe the houses sa
covenit yl he resorted and lay wl hir at his plesr and lykwys
at Tullibardin, in qlk tua houss sche abaid ye spece of aucht
dayis vsand yl fylthines almoist wlout cloik or respect of schame
or honestie.
Returning agane to Stirveling at ye begynnyng of Januar
sche begouth to fynd fault wl the house quhair ye King hir
sonne wes nurisset (nursed) as that it wes evill ayrit and wald
be ye occasioun of rewmes (rheum) and cattaris althoucht na
sic thing apperit or haid ony schaw of probabilitie, it being in
the myddis of vynter and in cais it haid bene symmer, that
hous is alswell situat and als covenient to dwell in for respect
of ye air and vthervayis, as ony vther hous in Scotland ; bot
that wes no1 the scope or force, he behuiffyt to be careit in ye
cauld vynter to Edinbur1, quhair schortlie sche tuik purpois to
execut yl malice qlk sche haid lang borne in hir hart; and sua
preparit hir self fra Edindughe (sic) to ryd to Glescow in ye
end of Januar to veseit the King hir huisband yl almaist be ye
space of ane monith haid qotenewit yair in seiknes vncowth and
40 THE INDICTMENT OF
mervelous to behauld, of mynd as veill apperis be hir Letteris,
to bring hym to [his] Edinbur* to his fatal! end and finall
destructioun, qlk sche vald neuer attempt no1 having hir sonne
in hir awne handis, quhome sche left at Halyrudhous, accu-
paneit w* the Hamiltounis and sic vtheris as buir hir huisband
na favor. In the mentyme ye erll Bothuell according to ye (6)
devys appoynted betuix yame preparit for ye King yl lugeine
quhair he endit his lyif 15. In quhat place it stuid, anew knawis
and anew thoucht evin then yl it ves ane rowine (ruin) vn-
ganand to haif lugit ane prince in to, standing in a solitar
place at the out moist pt of ye towne, separat frome all
cumpanie, ane vaist rwynous hous quhairin na man haid dwelt
sevin zeiris of befoir and finalie in all coditiounis vnproper to
haif placit ony honest ma vnto, yl men of meanest jugemet
m* haif jugit he wes no1 led yr for ony vther purpois but as
ane Lambe to ye slauchter as it succedit in deid. For it come
navthervayis nor me thoucht, seing ye circumstacis of hir
strange and vnnaturall vsage of hym of befoir, hir, then to
begyne to tak ane cair of his health y* befoir (as we haif
vreittin) sair handillit hyme. Howbeit na thingis ver left
vndone yl possible wer apperant to fyle (deceive) ye warld,
said sche y,1 it wes no1 for guid ayr (sic, probably should read —
said she not, etc.) y* he wes Luggit at ye Kirk of Feild how-
beit in Scotland at ye begynnyng of Februar ane seik ma will
content alsweill wl ane clois and varme chalmer as ony air in
ye feildis. Lay sche no1 in ye hous vnder hym in ye Thurisday
and Fryday befoir he wes murthurit to gar ye pepill vnder-
stand yl sche wes begonne to Intertenye hym, and glaid sche
wald haif bene yl he my1 haif bene cuttit affe be ye pticuleir
querrell of sum vther, rathar nor be that meane of ye pulder
yl wes devysit15.; for one ye Fryday sche tuik ye King, schaw-
and hym of sum thingis qlk suld haif bene spokyn betuix
hym and my Lord of Halyrudhous hir bruther qlk quhen he
denyt, vpoun ye Setterday at afternowne, sche confronted
yame togidder and never left to provock ye ane agains ye
vther qll in hir awne presence sche causet yame fra vordis
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS 41
offer straikis to vther, and in hir pt it stuid no1 hot y« thai
haid maid end of it yair, for sche wes no1 cairfull quha suld
be victor. Sche cryet on my Lord now Regent at ye same
tyme and wald faine he suld haif bene ptiner wl yat bargane"
and abuif all studeit to haif hym pnt in ye towne quhane yl
vnvorthie crueltie suld be comitted and purpoislie sent for hym
to yl effect, at ye cuing de Mossr du Moret.ye duik of Savoyis
embassadour, quhair my Lord Regent remanit, qll vpoun
Sunday ye ix day of Februar yl passing to ye sermoune he
ressauit ane Ire purporting his vyif to be pted wl cheild and
in extreme parrell of hir lyif, quhairwy1 being mowit he passit
to ye Quene desyrand licence to dept and veset hir, to quhome
sche ansuerit yl gif his wyif wes in sic perrell he neidit no1 to
pas for (7) his trawaill wald help hir nathing. Alwayis quhane
he wrget to haif leif sche desyrit hym onlie to tarie yl ane nyl
and he suld dept in ye morne, bot of his away passing at y*
tyme God wes the authour and conducted hym, for haid he
remanit yl nyl he haid taistet of yl same coupe wl the King,
or thene suld haif bene subiect to ye sclander of ye varld as
art and pt of yl murthour. Qlk noWstanding his absence thai
burdeynit hym wl be placardes affixit be ye erll of Huntlie
and Bothuell. And vther vnleifull meanis for yair awne purga-
tioun bot ye trewthe can no1 be smorit (smothered) nor horrible
murthour concellit
The tyme approching of ye executioun ot yis wnnaturall
crueltie, quhen na vther practize culd tak place, fering delay
of tyme to oppin the cospyrit purpois17 ye Quene past vpoun
ye Sunday after nowne, and after supper tyme, to ye hous
quhair ye King wes luidgit and left na guid intertenemet
wnschawin hym yl sche culd wse passand ye tym mair famili-
arlie nor yl ony vther tyme ye haill half zeir effoir, qll Pareis
franchema come in, quhome sa sonne as sche saw sche knew yl
the pulder wes put in the laiche hous vvnder ye Kingis bed,
for Pareis haid ye keyis baith of ye foir and bak dureis of yl
hous, and ye Kingis servandis haid ye haill remanent keyis
of ye ludgene18; and sua rysand dissimulatlie sche said, — I haif
42 THE INDICTMENT OF
faillit to Bastiane yl hes no1 geven hym ye mask yis ny* of his
mariage, for qlk purpois I will pas to ye Abbay, — and sua
deptet wl the erlis of Huntlie, Argyll and Cassillis. Yl ny* sche
spak w1 ye erll Bothuell qll after xii houris and ye Lard of
Tracquair being ye last man yl wes wlin ye house, saiffing he,
left yame togidder, fra quhome quhene ye erll Bothuell deptit,
he past to his chalmer and yair changit his hois and dowblat
and tuik his syde clok about hym and past vpe to ye accu-
plishment of y1 maist horrible murthour.
Ye forme and marter is veill aneuch declarit be yame y* for
ye same caus sufferit ye death. Sche, after ye erlis depting fra
hir, never sleiptit qll ye crak, nor at ye noyis yrof neuer mowit
(for sche neidit no1, vnderstanding ye purpois as sche did) qll
ye erll Bothuell aros out of his bed and, accumpaneit wl ye
erlis Huntlie, Argyll, Atholl, ye countes of Atholl, Mar and
ye Secretar, cuing to hir declarit how ye Kingis luggeine wes
rasit and blawin in ye air and hym self ded, wl qlk newis hir
passiounis wes no1 sa gret nor hir cheare sa (8) havie as one
in hir stait audit to haif beine howbeit he haid no1 beine hir
huisband bot ane comoun ma, for ye vnvorthines and strange
exeple (example) of ye deid. Sche derectet ye maist pt of
yame to cosidder ye maner wl ye men of weir y1 wer in ye
wacht. After qlk sche tuik rest wl na sorifoull countenance
for ony thing occurrit, qll neir at tuelfe howris at nowne one
ye Muunday ; the hous in deid wes clois and ye ceremonye of
ye dule obserwit howbeit wyl schort space. For all me in yr
hartis gruidgit to sie God sa mokkit be his creators, and aeselie
coiecturit trewlie in ye trewthe. Naythar sche nor na vther
meint to tak as samekill as ane forme of tryell and inquisitioun
of sa odius a cryme then recentlie done, bot one ye Muunday
afternown ye cheif murtherar and vtheris covenit in ye erll of
Argyllis luidgene begouth to spek of ye accident fallin, and as
thai haid bene ignorat yairof begouth to examinat sum wyiffis
yl haid spokyne rakleslie as thai thoucht bot no1 w'out purpois.
Quhairw1 being prickit thai desistit fra ony preceding in y*
examinatioun, fering ye furder thai diptet in it to fynd ye
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS 43
gretar prell thai left of and never wald spend ane houris tra-
waill in yl behaulf19, hot promulgat a wane (vain) proclama-
tioun ofierand to ony y« wald reweill ye Kingis murthere riche
reward. But quha durst say y« the Quene causit hir laufull
huisband to be murthurit or quha durst oppinlie affirme yl ye
erll Bothuele y< rewlit all wes ye author and executed of sic
ane vnvorthe beaslie (beastly?) crueltie. Zeit thai restit no*
lang vntheuchit (?) bot sic as outwartlie my1 no1 awoy (avow)
the threuth desistit not in syndrie vayis to lat ye varld vnder-
stand quhat a cloke mask wis wsit to cover sa vicket a cryme.
For tryell of ye placardeis prevelie set wp in accusatioun of ye
erlle Bothuell yr wes na paynis left nor hors flesche sparit. Yair
wes na payntor to be found bot behuvit to gif his jugemet one
yl qlk wes affixit vpoun ye Tolbwith duir of Edinburghe, and
almaist ane innocent ma haid sufferit gif God haid no1 mowit
ye virker (worker?) of ye thing to manifest hym self for releif
of ye vther. Schortlie on ye suddane ye tryell yl aucht to
haif beine tane for ye murther of ye King wes transfarrit
agains yame yl prevelie accusit ye erll Bothuele as his mur-
therar, and yr culd be na rest qll he wer clengit. Nor ye Quene
culd no1 wl honestie proceid in ye purpois of mariage wl hym
qll he wer first aquyte. This alsua is to be noted how hir
hatrait to ye King and his freindis sa cotenewit (9) after his
death yl sche disponit his hors, armor and quhatsumeuer ellis
ptenit hym, to ye verie authors of his murthor and vtheris his
gretest vnfreindis as gif all haid fallin in escheit and gait ye
oppressit wassellis (vassals) and frie tennentis of ye erledome
of Levenox componne for ye wardis of yair landis wlout respect
of yr oft (?) hairschippis (heirships?) of befoir, or to ye murthor
of hir fl (faithful?) huisband yr superior or to hir sonne now our
soverane Lordis ryl and enteres (interest).
Now it is meit to returne agane and a litle discours vpoun
hir dissemblit and craiftie wsage after ye murthour. Howbeit
na craft seruit to ye peplis satisfactioun for negleckiting ye
ceremonye vsit be princes after ye deceis of yr huisbandis and
freindis, to keipe ane clois hous fourtie dayis w'out day lyl.
44 THE INDICTMENT OF
Sche begouth the forme hot having ane vther thing in hir heid,
ordour alterit and the circumstances of tyme wes no1 regardit,
for four nytis wes no1 past quhen sche wereit of yl counterfetit
dule. Ye dure being closit sche culd fynd weile aneuche in hir
hart, for all hir sorow, to luik to ye sonne and sie day lyl wlout
hartbrek, and in speciell ane day maister Harie Killigrewe
derectit in yis cuntrie be ye Quenis maiestie of England being
sent for to cum to ye Quenis presence in ye palace of Haly-
rudhous, howbeit he wes no1 suddane nor vndiscreit in his
cuing, as he passit in ye hous ye vyndois wer oppin ye
candillis scantlie lyctit and all thingis yl suld haif beine in
ordour befoir his cuing, disorderit20. He my1 sie and psaue
how hard it is to wse ypocrasie quhair God will haif it dis-
closit. Of ye xl dayis dule sche culd no1 tarie at Halyrudhous
abuif x or xii dayis and yl wl greit difficultie being in maist
gret haard cais how to cotrafeict dur (sic, dule?) and na thing
les in hir mynd. Bot standing one na triflis sche come to ye
lycht schortlie and past to Setoun having yl place appoyntet as
sche thoucht guid to hir towrne (turn) sum but no1 mony wer
wl hir, the erle Bothuell in speciell and howbeit hir credyt yr
in court, yea his awne place and rowme crawit hym to haif
bene luidgit nixt hir self wl the best, zeit his ludgeine wes
wthervayis preparit. For evin beneth hir chalmer he wes placit
in a hous joynit to ye kiching, it haid indeid a secreit turnepyk
to hir chalmer, devysit to cwoy meit prevelie frome ye kiching
to ye chalmer gif neid requyrit, bot befoir yl tyme neir ane in
ye estait of ane nobilma wes in yl hous placit in sic a rowme,
being a chalmer (howbeit proper aneuche) zeit mair meit for
ye maister cuik in respect of ye situatioun nor for ony nobilma,
yair being sa mony cofnodius places besydis to haif luidgit in
qlk wer not occupeit be ony yr, and gif thai wer, it wes be (10)
sic as at ye moving of ye erll Bothuellis ee (eye) at that tyme
wald haif gevin hym place. Bot ye turnepyk serwyt for yr
intentioun and vngodlie vsage. Monsr du Crokis cuing frome
France causit yame schortlie cum agane to Edinbur1, but ye
place of Seytoun wes sa feit for yl thing quhair in thai delytit
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS 45
that thai culd no1 tarie out of it hot schortlie returnit to it
agane*.
The counsele wes yr covenit in deid hot quhat wes yair con-
sultatioun or quhairvpoun concludit thai that a day suld be
set to clenge ye erll of Bothuell of ye Kingis murthour, becaus
in ye placardis affixit and als be my Lord of Levenox lettres
he wes delaitit as author yrof. The pliamet approchit at ye
xiiii day of Aprile and befoir yl he behuiflfyt to haif ane assis.
The erle of Levenox and vtheris ye Kingis servandis wer su-
mondit to psew, bot tyme vald no1 spair xv dayis varning as
ye proces of yl corrupt and inordinat court beris and quha
sumondit our souverane Lord, ye murthurit Kingis sonne, to
psew his fatheris murthour, or quhat swte maid ye Quene for
tryell of his death yl wes his awne flesche.
It it (sic, is?) trew yl God at yl tyme pmittit hym to obteyne
ane countrafactet clengeine but to quhat purpois acquite of a
murthour done on ye ix day qlk in deid wes comittit vpoun
ye x day. Ye erll of Levenox haid bot xiiii dayis varning, the
King our soverane, thene prince, wes no1 varnit to psew his
faderis murthour nor zeit his tutore or administrate" naythar
zeit ye Quene ye Kingis vyif nor ye Quenis aduocatis. The
cryme wes tressoun and yl, as he yl is callit on a tressonable
cryme, aucht to be sumondit on xl dayis varning according to
ye lawes and practit of Scotland. For gif he yl is suspectit to
be ane tratour and comittar of trassoun will swit his awne
purgatioun, or gif ye prince in his favo1" will appoynt ye princes
adwocatis to psew ye noiat (nominate?) tratour to ye effect he
may be clengit, Godis law, manis law and ressoun wald yl ye
freindis of yame aganis quhome ye trassoun is comittit suld
haif ye lyik favor and previlege of ye Law, and ye lyk space
of xl dayis to psew ye trator seking his awne purgatio [or gif
ye prince in his favc^] as he suld haif haid in caice he haid
beine callit at yr instance and noWstanding all yr suddane
preceding at ye corrupt clengeine. And howbeit nane comperit
derectlie to psew zeit it may appeir got pat (sic, God put?) in
ye hartis of yl assis quhan a maist nakyt and symple protes-
46 THE INDICTMENT OF
tatioun maid be a getilman, servand of ye erll of Levenox (i i)
causit ye maist pt of ye psounis of inqueist protest that thai
suld incur ma {sic, na?) error becaus thai clengit in respect yl
nane comperit to sweir ye dittay as als thai clengit as ye same
wes libellit yl wes ane murthour comitted on ye ix day howbeit
ye same wes murthurit vpoun ye x day. After this a cartell
wes red and put one ye Mercat Croce of Edinbur* as a supabun-
dance aboue ye decreit of ye Law, offerand yl noWstanding
he wes acquyte zeit in forthir declaratioun of his innocencie
he wald feicht w* ony erle, lord barroun or gentilma vndefamit
yl wald allege hym authour of the Kingis murthour and thai
vantit no1 xxiiii houris ansr althoucht no1 awowit then, bot wlin
litill mair nor a moneth he vanted no1 ansr in derect termes as
is veilaneuch knawin to all men22.
Quhen ye clengeine wes done yr wes thoucht na forther to
hauld bak ye intentit conclusioun onlie vii or viii dayis wer
spent in ye pliamet for ye erll of Huntlieis restitutioun, howbeit
vther thingis wer in heid. To pacific stormes and eschew gretar
evill wl litill difficultie, actis wer past in favor of ye trew re-
ligioun and all penall Lawes maid in ye contrare in tyme of
papistrie abolishit. Bot zeit it culd no1 be w^ut sclandr y* the
Quene suld gang oppinlie to bed w* the erll Bothuele yl haid
a mareit vyif of his awne. Howbeit of befoir and then, thai
sparit na tyme to fulfill yr vngodlie appetit, zeit sum quhat to
covere hir honestie sche behuwit to be reuest, qlk wes broucht
to pas schortlie yrefter as sche returnit frome Stirveling to
Edinbur1 and quhether yl proceidit of hir self or no1 hir letter
vreittin to ye erll Bothuell out of Lynlytquo can declair. Being
cowoyit be hym to Dumbar in continent thai causet a diuorcie
be mowyt in dowble forme agains his laufull vyif, befoir ye
ordinar comissaris establischit be ye Kingis authoritie and als
befoir sum jugeis delegate, constitute be ye beshope of Sanct-
adrs, as gif ye Papis vsurpit auto (authority) zeit haid place
in yis realme. The first, psewit be a procuratorie of his laufull
vyif ye erll of Huntleis sister (qlk sche wes compellit to mak)
for adulterie comittit on his pt befoir, ye vtheris, for causes of
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS 47
consanguinitie, abstractand ye dispensatioun, hot yr wes no*
delay in nather of ye jugemets, aucht or x ten (sic) dayis endit
baith ye process. Sche cotenewing to ye eyis of ye warld and
as hir self wald seame captiwe all this tyme in Dumbar, bot
howsoune nevvis come of thir sciences of diuorce pronocit, his
freindis in ye Mers and all the boundis of Eist Lowthiane being
send for wer covenit to cowoye ye Quene to Edinbur1 in veir
lyk maner, qlk in yr passagis enterit in questioun yl sum day
it my1 be said ye Quene wes captiue and covoyit (12) as pre-
sonar in veirlykmaner and that thai my1 be accusit yairefter
of ye same, yairfor in ye mydway thai laid yair speris fra thame
and sua cowoyit hir to Edinbur1 Castell, quhair sche remanit
certane dayis wnto ye proclamatioun of hir bannis and then
sche past to the Tolbuith and in presence of ye Lordis of Coun-
sell declarit sche wes at libertie, and sua wlin aucht dayis passit
to the cosumatioun of that vngodlie mariage yl all ye warld
comptes nawchtie and a mokking of God. The tyme wes no1
long betuix ye same pretendit mariage qlk wes maid one ye
xv day of Maii 1 567 and the xv day of Junii yairefter, yl after
ye said erlis fleing, sche come to ye Lordis0 assemblit for re-
venge of ye murtheur, and zeit in yl monithis space quhat con-
fusioun and corruptioun wes yair to behauld it wes mervelous.
All nobilmen for ye maist pt wl drew yame, and sic as tareit
how affectionat yl euer that euer (sic) thai schew yame selfis
to Hr m (Her Majesty?) zeit wer thai in na better grace nor
ye vtheris yl vtterlie gaif our (over) ye court, as ye Q(uenis)
billis frome Glescow to ye erlle Bothuele and at mony vther
tymes declaris*.
( The matter here following is additional to that of the Latin
" Detection" but the style is so similar that it is further evidence
that the document under consideration is by Buchanan?)
It is no1 heir to be neglectit or past over wyl silence1 quhat
danger ye Innocent psoun of ye King, now our soverane, stud
yair in, quhen befoir ye murtheur of his fader he wes careit in
ye cauld vynter as we haif befoir said fra Stirveling to Haly-
rudhous, nor how after ye murtheur, after he wes ains devisat
48 THE INDICTMENT OF
to be send agane to Stirveling the purpois stayit and ye pro-
ponaris wer estemit na guid freindis to ye Quene, qll Edinbur1
Castell wes to be rainderit furth of ye erle of Maris handis to
fordir qlk purpois he wes transported in deid to Stirveling, qlk
wes no1 sa sone done bot assone it wes repentit yl euer he suld
haif past out of yr handis. And no doubt ye Ouene (sic) maist
principall erand of ane wes to bring hym away quhene sche
past to Stirveling after ye pliamet and befoir hir revesing, and
zeit gold (sic, God?) wald no1 pmit it. Yair wes ane army or-
danit to be covenit agane ye said xv day of Junii as to haif
past one the thewis (thieves), bot sic as wer prewye knew weill
aneuche and ye coinoun pepill sparit no1 at y1 same tyme to
spek yl it wes to bring ye King furth of Stirling agane, qll ye
Quene, to satisfye ye pepill set out a proclamatioun declaring
na sic thing to be in hir heid. For sche cosiderit the gruydge
remaning in ye hartis of hir subiectis qlk cotinuallie murmurit
yl the innocent orphaine wald be send after his father gif euer
he come in ye handis of yame yl murthurit hym, sua feir to
offend ye pepill at yl tym be Godis mcifull providence stayit
ye purpois of ye princis transporting vnto sic sic (bis) tyme as
God mowit vther materis for yame to think of25.
Now lat hir cotenewit hetrent and disdane agains ye King hir
laufull huisband be considerit quhow sche sterit vpe and inter-
teneit hatrent and dissentioun betuix hym and ye nobilitie and
causit his servandis quhome sche appoyntet to await vpoun hym
of befoir to leif hym. How his plat and weschell wer takyne
fra hym and he miserabilie (13) left lyand in Glescow destitute
of all guid confort and intertenemet. And one ye vther pt,
let, first ye familiaritie betuix ye Quene and ye erll Bothuell
be considerit, and fra y* how neglectand God and honestie
thai cotenewit in fylthie adulterie as cleirlie apperis
send to hym, qll betuix yame thai haid compass
put in executioun ye death and destructioun of.
franschema quhome befoir ony vther thai vs
tyme can veill declair, he is pntlie in Denmark
wer ye Quenis Maiestie of Englandis guid p
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS 49
he wer habill to resolue mony thingis in yis
vther in ye varld besydis yame yl vsit
sequele following prewis all yl precedit ye
for lamentatioun sche maid nane. Inquisitioun and tryall of
ye murth
was neglectit. Hir blind raige and inordinat affect ioun vald
no1 suffer hir to contrafete dule. Gret pane sche tuik in deid
to haif knawlege of yame yl bruitet and accusit ye said erle
as authour of ye murtheur, sche neuer restit qll sche haid
hym clengit as is befoir said, hir self for a fassioun revist,
diuorce betuix hym and his laufull vyif led, and in coclusioun
ye Quene and he cupplit togidder in yl vnlaufull and pretendit
mariage. Quairby, as alsua be hir awne handvreit in mony and
syndrie letteris send betuix yame during ye cours of yl vickyt
tyme, it is maist patent, trew and euident yl sche wes no1 onlie
previe of ye same horrible and vnnaturall murtheur but als ye
verray instrumet, cheif organe and principall causer of yl vn-
naturall crueltie, ppetrat in ye psoun of hym yl wes hir laufull
huisband and be Godis law ane flesche wl hir self, befoir ye
comitting quhairof (as planlie apperis) sche no1 onlie be vords
bot be vreiting promist to tak ye erle Bothuele to [vyif]
huisband, quhairin, albeit for a color scne disdanfullie termes
ye King, vmqll Henrie Stewart of Darlie hir lait huisband, zeit
it apperis veill becaus ye Ire (letter) is w'out a deit y1 it hes
bene vreittin and subscriuit befoir ye murther for on ye v day
of Aprill yrefter noWstanding ye mariage standing betuix hym
and his vyif, sche enterit in a plane and a new cotract wl hym
as ye samyn vreittin be ye erll of Huntlie and subscriuit wl
baith yr handis proportis, sua yl yr laikis na pruife and testifie
a multitude of infallible presumptiounis.
M.
NOTES ON THE TEXT OF THE MANUSCRIPT
PAGE I There are a number of erasures, repetitions and cases of overrunning
by the copyist, as also cases wherein the English orthography has been
used, presumably in error. The document is certainly a copy, probably
hastily written by an English clerk from a Scottish original.
33 2 The return from Dunbar was after the murder of Rizzio, but this
subject is avoided in all the documents dealing with the Queen's concern
in the death of her husband.
34, 47 3 The expression, ' It is not to be passed over in silence,' is used twice
in the manuscript before us. It also occurs in the Admonition to the
Trew Lordis, an undoubted Buchanan writing. It may have been a
common phrase, but I have not found it elsewhere in the documents con-
nected with the case, and it seems to be some additional proof that
Buchanan was the author.
35 4 The use of the word 'becrasit' may be intentional, but it may be an
error for 'betrayed,' the word used in the Detection.
35 5 The Latin word is 'zona' which Wilson translates as 'string,' Buchanan
puts it more correctly as 'belt.' The Hopetoun MS omits this part of the
story.
35 6 The use of the word, 'commission,' has a certain interest ; here it
means the mandate given by the Queen. In the old French the word was
usually applied to the command of a prince, and this has a bearing on the
interpretation of the words in the 'short' Glasgow Letter: "According to
my Commission etc.," which is always held to mean, 'according to the
instructions received from you (Both well) I will do so and so,' whereas it
means, 'according to the orders or arrangements I (Mary) have given or
made I will do so and so.'
35 7 There is a special interest attaching to this clause. It is well known
that Dalgleish's Deposition contains no such reference. Malcolm Laing,
whose zeal to accumulate matter against the Queen outran his discretion,
was troubled by the omission. It was an evidence that the Deposition had
been doctored ! He therefore explained that the words in the original Latin :
"Quae ejus confessio in actis continetur," are an interpolation made by
Wilson when translating the paper in 1571. (See Laing, Hist, of Scotland,
II. p. 4, et seq.\ In actis, says Laing, refers to the Journal of the Com-
mission at Westminster, Confessio refers to the Confession and not to the
judicial deposition recorded in the Books of the Scottish Privy Council.
In our paper, however, we have enough to demolish Laing's argument.
In what we believe to be Buchanan's own words, written long before the
Westminster Commission, the existence of the clause in the original Latin
is confirmed and Confessio is rendered Deposition.
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS 51
PAGE
36 8 The Earl of Moray, himself, was one of the company, hence we find this
statement is toned down in the Hopetoun Book of Articles to the danger
from thieves on the road. It is a small evidence of the priority of our paper.
36 9 The original was probably, 'day and night'
37 10 This long story of Darnley's assiduity to visit his sick wife does not
accord with contemporary opinion.
37 1 1 The contents of this letter are not on record. Probably it was con-
nected with the delicate negotiations then proceeding for a Papal subsidy.
John Beton had brought the first instalment in the previous September,
but further supply was only to be made on conditions inimical to the
protestant notabilities which Mary refused to agree to. A 'gentleman' of
the Cardinal of Lorraine had been despatched with very secret letters to
persuade her, who would have arrivedat (probably) Leith earlyin November,
while the Queen was still at Jedburgh ; it seems likely that Darnley had
obtained knowledge of the affair. He had already taken some steps to
cross the Queen's purpose (Stmancas, i. 507) and this letter of his was
doubtless a continuance of his action. Buchanan refers to the Cardinal's
letter in his History and declares that Mary communicated it to Moray.
The incident is interesting but cannot be fully dealt with here ; much in-
formation is obtainable from the correspondence in Father Pollen's
Papal Negotiations.
37 12 It is here suggested that the idea of divorce originated from the
Queen, but this is contrary to other and more reliable statements.
38 13 Pansit = thought over, is a gallicism reminiscent of Buchanan. There
are several others in the document.
39 14 The festivities of the baptism ended on the 23rd December. The
Earl of Morton's pardon must have been granted about this date. Probably
Darnley fled from Stirling as soon as this was decided. It had evidently
been the intention for Both well to accompany the Earl of Bedford, the
Queen was anxious to do him (Bedford) as much honour as possible.
I think the retention of Bothwell and no doubt also the Secretary, Leth-
ington, was on account of the complication brought about by Darnley's
escapade. The houses of Drymen (Drummond Castle) and Tullibardine
lay about 16 and 12 miles respectively north of Stirling. It is worth noting,
though perhaps there is little in it, that the register of Privy Seal Deeds
indicates that the Queen returned to Stirling on 3oth December after the
visit to Drymen, also that she was at Tullibardine on the 3ist. It is strange
that she should pass the latter place and return to it again. The Lennox-
Cecil journal says that she returned to Stirling on the 3ist, but this is
doubtful. Apparently Bothwell left Stirling before the 2nd January for he
was not at the Privy Council held at Stirling on that date, I think it likely
that he had been sent to D unbar to open negotiations with Morton as to
the terms of his pardon. There remains the possibility that Drymen does
52 THE INDICTMENT OF
PAGE
not in fact mean 'The Lord Drummondis Hous' (as stated in the Hopetoun
Paper and the Lennox Journal, both suspect documents), but the town
of that name. If Darnley were making for the Clyde when he left Stirling,
it is not unlikely that he would go by Drymen and Dumbarton. Did Mary
follow him and return as soon as she learnt of his having gone to Glasgow
and of his illness? Let us recall the words in the alleged letter from
Glasgow, to Bothwell, "Sr James Hamiltoun met me quha schew yat ye
vyer tyme quhen he (Lennox) hard (heard) of my cuming, he departit
away etc." When was 'The other time'?
40 15 These two references to the previous preparation of the house in
Edinburgh are out of accord with the 'evidence' of the Casket Letters; it
seems unlikely that the final edition of the Book of Articles (of which
there is no copy) contained them in this form.
41 1 6 This reference to Moray's knowledge of the case is suppressed in
the Hopetoun MS.
41 17 The first Lennox narrative gives what is probably the true reason
why the Sunday night was chosen for the explosion, viz. that Darnley
was to have returned to Holyrood the following day.
41 1 8 The statements as to possession of the Keys vary in all the narratives .
43 19 Whatever was done or left undone to discover the plot that ended
Darnley's life, it can hardly be said that the Queen was responsible. There
can be little doubt that she was reduced to a state not far from collapse.
Innocent or guilty she was not the kind of woman who could undergo such
an experience unmoved. Her medical life history is a guarantee of this and
does not need the corroboration that the Council and doctors insisted on
removing her from the scene and put an end to the somewhat barbarous
'period of dule.' In any case the Earl of Moray was recalled and was in
Edinburgh early in March. It does not appear that he had any better
success than the others.
44 20 This part of the story seems curiously disordered. Killigrew arrived
in Edinburgh on the igth or 2oth February but did not see the Queen
until 8th March. He was the bearer of important letters, one an autograph
from Elizabeth, connected with the successful negotiations carried out by
Bedford at the time of the baptism. Mary had high hopes from this and
undoubtedly would not have deferred audience for some 16 days if she had
been able to avoid it. The whole story is misleading, for Mary had been
taken to Seton before Killigrew arrived, on the i6th or 1 7th of February, and
remained there until at least the 3rd March ; probably on her return she
was still too ill to see Killigrew until the 8th. At the end of March, Drury
wrote to Cecil that she was still ill and she apparently returned to Seton
about the 28th or 29th and remained to, perhaps, the loth April as stated
in the Lennox-Cecil Journal.
MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS 53
PAGE
45 21 Again the story is misleading. De Croc could not have reached Edin-
burgh before the 3rd of April. His presence had obviously no connection
with the Queen's movements, see preceding note. The careless inaccuracy
of these statements which could most easily have been checked at the time
shows pretty clearly that Moray's Party at Westminster relied on the
partial character of the enquiry.
46 22 This somewhat confused paragraph departs considerably from the
Latin and is much shortened and simplified in the Hopetoun MS, yet the
general similarity of the idea can be followed in both. Buchanan in his
history follows the Latin very closely.
47 23 The free rendering of the Latin paper, De Maria ttc., ends at this
point, all that follows is matter which must be considered as afterthoughts
of Buchanan tending to add to the effect of the first hasty compilation.
It is interesting to compare this with the later works of the Hopetoun MS
and the History. The dates given in the Latin are now corrected.
47 24 It can hardly be said that either of the Glasgow Letters indicates this.
48 25 This paragraph bears several indications of the authorship of
Buchanan. The opening line has been referred to at note (3) above. The
story of removing the Earl of Mar from the command of Edinburgh castle
in exchange for the custody of the Prince, is told in somewhat similar
fashion in the History, which was completed from Buchanan's notes, though
probably not by himself. I do not know of its appearing elsewhere.
Similarly the idea of the Queen's desire to recover the person of the Prince
is mentioned in both as the reason for her visit to Stirling in April. There
is also indistinct allusion to the operations at Borthwick as being con-
nected, on the part of the Lords, with the defence of the ' Innocent Person'
of the prince. No reference is made in the History or in the Hopetoun MS
to the Proclamation referred to. It was issued on June ist at Edinburgh
and a copy is printed by Keith (vol. II. p. 6 1 2). Mar had been appointed as
custodian of the child in the previous October when the Queen went to
Jedburgh, he was in fact, in a sense, the hereditary guardian. His father
had acted in the same capacity to Mary herself and to her father. Writing
to Mar in December 1568, from her prison at Bolton, she said, "I gave
you both the one and the other (that is her son and charge of Stirling
Castle) because of the faith I had in you and yours," she added, "Remem-
ber that when I gave in your charge my son as my most precious treasure,
you promised to guard him and not to deliver him without my consent."
It is in the plots which centre round the possession of the baby prince that
the true explanation of the tragedy of Mary Stuart will probably be found.
The last paragraph is a peroration which Buchanan would not be likely
to omit. The Record has been damaged and unfortunately the part lost
contains a reference to the Frenchman 'Paris' which might be interesting.
It appears to suggest that if it were the Queen of England's good pleasure
to procure the person of 'Paris,' at that time in Denmark, much evidence
54 MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS
would result. Now in fact, 'Paris' was handed over to one Clark, a captain
in the Danish service, in the latter end of October. This enables us to
confirm the date of our Paper as prior to this event. However, 'Paris' was
not apparently wanted by those who controlled the affair and he was not
brought to Scotland until the following year. ' Paris,' when examined — in
the presence of Buchanan — was, "hable to resolue mony thingis," but what
he had to say was carefully and very suspiciously suppressed, and nobody
could read his story without a doubt that it was freely embroidered by the
inquisitors. If Buchanan believed in it, it is remarkable that he neither
used it nor mentioned it in his History.
These notes deal only with points relevant to a consideration of the
Cambridge Manuscript. Many other statements in it and in the parallel
Detection are disputable and are dealt with by other writers.
CAMBRIDGE : PRINTED BY THE SYNDICS OF THE PRESS AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Buchanan , Ge orge
787 The indictment of Mary
A1B83 Queen of Scots
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11