Skip to main content

Full text of "The indictment of Mary Queen of Scots as derived from a manuscript in the University Library at Cambridge hitherto unpublished.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 R.H. Mahon"

See other formats

























MAJ.-GEN. R<; Hf MAHON, C.B., C.S.I. 

\ v 



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 Library 1 . 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. 













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 


which he believed to be the original shown to Elizabeth, but 
he does not say where he saw it 1 . 

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. 

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 


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 

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 


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 leteris 1 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 edition 2 , 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. 


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. 


scribers take to censure the works of other men, had altered many things 
and corrupted others according to their several humours 1 . 

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' 
Bothwell 2 , 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." 


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. 


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 first 1 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. 


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 Stuart 2 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 ! 


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 headed 1 : "A brief dis- 
course of the usage of umq u the King of Scottis, sone to me the 
Earle of Lennox, be the Quene his wyff" The other 1 : " 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 Ma ties 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. 


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 Ed r 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 


alleged to have been written by Mary 1 . 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 three 2 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. 


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. 

Let us now take up the fourth 1 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 

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. 


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: 


(from the ist black letter edition 1 ) 

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. 


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 passage 1 . 

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 


Such comparative extracts could be multiplied many times, 
but space limits us to one more which I give for a special 


(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 Edinbur 1 , 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. 
haveo r 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. 


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. 



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 

...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 


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." 


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. 


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. 


...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. 



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. 


...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. 





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. 


. . . 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. 


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- 


...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 


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. 


...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- 


...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. 



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. 


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. 


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 m 1 * 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 Memoranda 1 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 
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 September 2 ; 
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. 


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. 

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 


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 ago 1 ." 

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. 


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"nlon, 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 Germany 1 ; 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, Fnlon 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- 

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. 


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 


was about to take place ; other considerations indicate a later 

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. 



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) 


.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 


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. 



Figures, thus (i) in the text, indicate the page of the manu- 

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 


(i) Ane informatioun of probable and infallable cfiiecteuris 
and presumptiounis quhairbie it apperis evidentlie y* ye Quene, 
moder to our souerane Lord, no 1 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 y l 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 w l 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 no 1 now to be spokyn 
of sen nane y l 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 y l naythar ye multitude nor 
zeit thai y l ver familiar could compas or considder ye scope 
and end quhairvnto hir intentioun wes bent. 

Q w (how) in Aprill or yairby, 1 566, returning fra Dumbar* 
to ye towne and fra y l to ye castell of Edinbur 1 (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 y l being ryd ane vay or vther of ye King 
hir laufull huisband sche my 1 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 Edinbur 1 
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 y l consait as ilk ane haid soucht ye vrak 
(wreck) and lywes of vther omitting na thing y l 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 


intentit purpois. Quhat nobilma at y 1 tym presentit ye court 
hot ains wes put to ye strait to gansay as it wer y l qlk he haid 
spokyn, or yane offer hym self reddie to defend his caus be 
armes or leif ye court. In speciell it is no 1 to be past our (over) 
in silence 3 quhow ane ny l amangis vtheris ye King abyding w l 
hir qll (until) mydny 1 wes past the summe of hir talk to hym 
wes y l 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 man r of delay set apt to repair to hir pns (presence), 
quha according to hir comandmet past to hir chalmer sark alane 
onlie coverit w 1 his ny l gowne, at quhais cuing (coming) to hir 
presence ye substance and effect of hir haill harrang wes to hym, 
y l the King hir huisband no 1 onlie disdanit to sie hym in favo r 
bot of determinat mynd purposit to tak his lyif at ye first 
occasioun. This wes temptatioun aneuche, bot God vald no 1 
suffer vicketnes [sa payntit] to haif sa payntit a clok nor yame 
y l fearit hym to fall in sa dangerus a snar. 

(2) Alwayis being deliuerit of hir birth, immediatlie ye erll 
Bothuell eterit in sic familiaritie w l hir y l 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 y l vome (women) of basse degrie 
ar accustomet to remoif fra the hous after y r 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 
w l out ony ane honest ma to associat hir. Quhat hir wsage wes 
in Alloway neidis no 1 to be rehersit bot it may be veill sa said 
y l it exceidit measo r 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 


attendit on hir according to ye huisbandis dewetie to ye wyif, 
hot as (at?) his cuming yair quhat chear he ressauit yair thai 
y l 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 Edinbur 1 , luggeine first in maister Jhone Balfouris neir ye 
Abbay and then in ye Chekker (Exchequer) hous, quhat wes 
hir behaveo 1 " 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 y l 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 y l ye Ladie 
Reires gaif hym enteres quha becrasit 4 hir, and he being enterit 
revisit hir aganis hir will, bot litill apperit of hir miscontentemet 
quhen as w l in few ny ts yairefter seing he keipit no 1 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 belt 8 brak and ye Ladie fell but alwayis 
sche executit ye corhissioun 8 sa quikle y l sche causit hym arys 
frome his awne wyif. Nane y l 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 y l this haill arkele (article?) 
wes maist infallible and trew as his depositioun 7 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- 



tinuall slyting proceidit in tryfles and forget querrellis alwayis 
he returnit to Edinbur 1 and w l 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 

Sone heirefter conclusioun being takyn to pas to Jedbur 1 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 y l to 
Jedbur 1 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 amang 8 , passand to ye A rmetage( Hermitage) 
in Lyddisdaill and returnand to Jedbur 1 one ane schort wynter 
day quhair sche preparit all thingis meit for his transporting, 
and schortlie, being broucht y r it wer vthervyis vsit be hyr nor 
it becumyt hir to offer or hym to ressaue, yis faschius and ex- 
traordinare trawaill vnd 9 ny l 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 no 1 bot w l all speid come to 
Jedburghe to veseit and confort hir. How he wes ressauit, thai 
y l 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 y l ane of yame suld ains 
luik to hym or schaw hym favour, and fering y l my Lord now 
Regent suld schaw hym y l benevolence to gif hym his chalm 1 " 
for a ny 1 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 no 1 swyt (suit = beg for) ye ludgene 


or in cais he soucht ye same y l hir seikncs my 1 be ane sufficient 
excuse fra remaining yair onlie a ny l , maist fremytlie inter- 
teneit he returnit agane to his purgatorie na thing conforted 
of his jornay 10 ; hot quhen all yis difficult ic wes maid to gar 
(deny) hym ludgeine, meit and drink for a ny l , 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 no 1 to vesite, sche 
wes seik in deid and he hurt bot befoir thai remowit furth of y* 
ludgeine itt wes planlie aneuche spokyn and no 1 w l out caus y l 
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 y l sche wes in of 
befoir said y l wy l out 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 no 1 set by to be ye instrumet of hir 
awne death 11 . 

At the same tyme in hir progres throwche ye Mers ye ny l 
sche restet at Coldinghame it is certane y l ye Ladie Reires wes 
tane gangand throuche ye watche and quha wes in cumpany 
w l hir or quhat wes ye purpois or occasioun of yair walking y l 
tyme of ny l ye Quene hir self can tell. 

Fra the qlk returning to Craigmillar besyd Edinbur 1 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 y l the way to be quyte of ye King, in 
apperance wes best, to mowe ane actioun of diuorce aganis 
hym qlk my 1 aeselie be broucht to pas be reasoun of ye 
cosanguinitie betuix yame ye dispensatioun being abstractit", 
quhairvnto it wes ansuerit how y l culd no 1 gudlie be done 
w l out hazard y l be ye doing yairof ye King, now our souerane, 


hir sonne suld be declarit bastard sene nathar he nor sche 
cotractit y l mariage being ignorant of ye degreis of consan- 
guinitie quhairin thai stuid; qlk ans r quhan sche haid pansit 13 
vpoun sche left y 1 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 

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 w l hir to bed howbeit in all 
yis tyme it wes suspectit no 1 w l out caus y l 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 y l all 
thingis meit for ye decoratioun y r of 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 y l qlk my 1 haif tendit for his hono 1 or avanceiht at sic a 
tyme and no 1 onlie ver ye embassato rs inhibit to spek wy l hym 
or he pt (sic) pmitted to resort to y r presence being all w*in 
Streveling Castell bot ye haill nobilme and sum officiaris y l be 
hir awne appoyntment wer derectit of befoir to haif attend it 
to (5) his seruice wer commandit no 1 to accumpanye hym nor 
samekill as anis to schaw hym gude countenance or do hym 

This vnnaturall dealing ressauit of hir in ye sy l and audience 
of diuers foren princes embassadouris sa far derectit hym in 
curage y l 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 y l wes ye occasioun of his 
strange an vncouth seiknes y l suddanlie he fell in or quhether 


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 my 1 wele be 
vnderstand quhat favo 1 sche buir vnto hym, or rathar quhow 
bent sche wes to do hym disples r 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 y r of. 

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 y l euer thai wer deptet to Sanctandrs 
and ye King to Glescow, sche w l ye erll Bothuele past to 
Drymen 14 ; in quhat ordo r sche and he wes chalmerit y r anew 
(enough) saw, y l lykit litill ye man r , baithe the houses sa 
covenit y l he resorted and lay w l hir at his ples r and lykwys 
at Tullibardin, in qlk tua houss sche abaid ye spece of aucht 
dayis vsand y l fylthines almoist w l out cloik or respect of schame 
or honestie. 

Returning agane to Stirveling at ye begynnyng of Januar 
sche begouth to fynd fault w l 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 no 1 the scope or force, he behuiffyt to be careit in ye 
cauld vynter to Edinbur 1 , quhair schortlie sche tuik purpois to 
execut y l 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 y l almaist be ye 
space of ane monith haid qotenewit yair in seiknes vncowth and 


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 no 1 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 favo r . In the mentyme ye erll Bothuell according to ye (6) 
devys appoynted betuix yame preparit for ye King y l lugeine 
quhair he endit his lyif 15 . In quhat place it stuid, anew knawis 
and anew thoucht evin then y l 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, y l men of meanest jugemet 
m* haif jugit he wes no 1 led y r 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 y l possible wer apperant to fyle (deceive) ye warld, 
said sche y, 1 it wes no 1 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 w l ane clois and varme chalmer as ony air in 
ye feildis. Lay sche no 1 in ye hous vnder hym in ye Thurisday 
and Fryday befoir he wes murthurit to gar ye pepill vnder- 
stand y l sche wes begonne to Intertenye hym, and glaid sche 
wald haif bene y l he my 1 haif bene cuttit affe be ye pticuleir 
querrell of sum vther, rathar nor be that meane of ye pulder 
y l wes devysit 15 .; 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 


offer straikis to vther, and in hir pt it stuid no 1 hot y thai 
haid maid end of it yair, for sche wes no 1 cairfull quha suld 
be victor. Sche cryet on my Lord now Regent at ye same 
tyme and wald faine he suld haif bene ptiner w l yat bargane" 
and abuif all studeit to haif hym pnt in ye towne quhane y l 
vnvorthie crueltie suld be comitted and purpoislie sent for hym 
to y l effect, at ye cuing de Moss r du duik of Savoyis 
embassadour, quhair my Lord Regent remanit, qll vpoun 
Sunday ye ix day of Februar y l passing to ye sermoune he 
ressauit ane Ire purporting his vyif to be pted w l cheild and 
in extreme parrell of hir lyif, quhairwy 1 being mowit he passit 
to ye Quene desyrand licence to dept and veset hir, to quhome 
sche ansuerit y l gif his wyif wes in sic perrell he neidit no 1 to 
pas for (7) his trawaill wald help hir nathing. Alwayis quhane 
he wrget to haif leif sche desyrit hym onlie to tarie y l ane ny l 
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 y l ny l he haid taistet of y l same coupe w l the King, 
or thene suld haif bene subiect to ye sclander of ye varld as 
art and pt of y l murthour. Qlk noWstanding his absence thai 
burdeynit hym w l be placardes affixit be ye erll of Huntlie 
and Bothuell. And vther vnleifull meanis for yair awne purga- 
tioun bot ye trewthe can no 1 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 purpois 17 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 y l sche culd wse passand ye tym mair famili- 
arlie nor y l ony vther tyme ye haill half zeir effoir, qll Pareis 
franchema come in, quhome sa sonne as sche saw sche knew y l 
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 y l 
hous, and ye Kingis servandis haid ye haill remanent keyis 
of ye ludgene 18 ; and sua rysand dissimulatlie sche said, I haif 


faillit to Bastiane y l hes no 1 geven hym ye mask yis ny* of his 
mariage, for qlk purpois I will pas to ye Abbay, and sua 
deptet w l the erlis of Huntlie, Argyll and Cassillis. Y l ny* sche 
spak w 1 ye erll Bothuell qll after xii houris and ye Lard of 
Tracquair being ye last man y l wes w l in 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 y 1 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 y r of neuer mowit 
(for sche neidit no 1 , vnderstanding ye purpois as sche did) qll 
ye erll Bothuell aros out of his bed and, accumpaneit w l 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, w l qlk newis hir 
passiounis wes no 1 sa gret nor hir cheare sa (8) havie as one 
in hir stait audit to haif beine howbeit he haid no 1 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 w l ye men of weir y 1 wer in ye 
wacht. After qlk sche tuik rest w l 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 wy l schort space. For all me in y r 
hartis gruidgit to sie God sa mokkit be his creato rs , 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 
y l haid spokyne rakleslie as thai thoucht bot no 1 w'out purpois. 
Quhairw 1 being prickit thai desistit fra ony preceding in y* 
examinatioun, fering ye furder thai diptet in it to fynd ye 


gretar prell thai left of and never wald spend ane houris tra- 
waill in y l behaulf 19 , 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 y l ye 
erll Bothuele y< rewlit all wes ye autho r and executed of sic 
ane vnvorthe beaslie (beastly?) crueltie. Zeit thai restit no* 
lang vntheuchit (?) bot sic as outwartlie my 1 no 1 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 y r wes na paynis left nor hors flesche sparit. Yair 
wes na paynto r to be found bot behuvit to gif his jugemet one 
y l qlk wes affixit vpoun ye Tolbwith duir of Edinburghe, and 
almaist ane innocent ma haid sufferit gif God haid no 1 mowit 
ye virker (worker?) of ye thing to manifest hym self for releif 
of ye vther. Schortlie on ye suddane ye tryell y l aucht to 
haif beine tane for ye murther of ye King wes transfarrit 
agains yame y l prevelie accusit ye erll Bothuele as his mur- 
therar, and y r culd be na rest qll he wer clengit. Nor ye Quene 
culd no 1 w l honestie proceid in ye purpois of mariage w l 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 y l sche disponit his hors, armo r and quhatsumeuer ellis 
ptenit hym, to ye verie autho rs of his murtho r 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 w l out respect 
of y r oft (?) hairschippis (heirships?) of befoir, or to ye murtho r 
of hir fl (faithful?) huisband y r superio r or to hir sonne now our 
soverane Lordis ry l 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 y r huisbandis and 
freindis, to keipe ane clois hous fourtie dayis w'out day ly l . 


Sche begouth the forme hot having ane vther thing in hir heid, 
ordour alterit and the circumstances of tyme wes no 1 regardit, 
for four ny tis wes no 1 past quhen sche wereit of y l 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 ly l w l out 
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 no 1 suddane nor vndiscreit in his 
cuing, as he passit in ye hous ye vyndois wer oppin ye 
candillis scantlie ly c tit and all thingis y l suld haif beine in 
ordour befoir his cuing, disorderit 20 . He my 1 sie and psaue 
how hard it is to wse ypocrasie quhair God will haif it dis- 
closit. Of ye xl dayis dule sche culd no 1 tarie at Halyrudhous 
abuif x or xii dayis and y l w l 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 y l place appoyntet as 
sche thoucht guid to hir towrne (turn) sum but no 1 mony wer 
w l hir, the erle Bothuell in speciell and howbeit hir credyt y r 
in court, yea his awne place and rowme crawit hym to haif 
bene luidgit nixt hir self w l 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 y l tyme neir ane in 
ye estait of ane nobilma wes in y l 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 y r , 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 y r 
intentioun and vngodlie vsage. Mons r du Crokis cuing frome 
France causit yame schortlie cum agane to Edinbur 1 , but ye 
place of Seytoun wes sa feit for y l thing quhair in thai delytit 


that thai culd no 1 tarie out of it hot schortlie returnit to it 

The counsele wes y r 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 y r of. The pliamet approchit at ye 
xiiii day of Aprile and befoir y l he behuiflfyt to haif ane assis. 
The erle of Levenox and vtheris ye Kingis servandis wer su- 
mondit to psew, bot tyme vald no 1 spair xv dayis varning as 
ye proces of y l 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 y l wes his awne flesche. 

It it (sic, is?) trew y l God at y l 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 no 1 varnit to psew his 
faderis murthour nor zeit his tuto re or administrate" naythar 
zeit ye Quene ye Kingis vyif nor ye Quenis aduocatis. The 
cryme wes tressoun and y l , as he y l 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 y l is suspectit to 
be ane tratour and comittar of trassoun will swit his awne 
purgatioun, or gif ye prince in his favo 1 " 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 y l ye 
freindis of yame aganis quhome ye trassoun is comittit suld 
haif ye lyik favo r and previlege of ye Law, and ye lyk space 
of xl dayis to psew ye trato r seking his awne purgatio [or gif 
ye prince in his favc^] as he suld haif haid in caice he haid 
beine callit at y r instance and noWstanding all y r 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 y l assis quhan a maist nakyt and symple protes- 


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?) erro r becaus thai clengit in respect y l 
nane comperit to sweir ye dittay as als thai clengit as ye same 
wes libellit y l 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 y l noWstanding 
he wes acquyte zeit in forthir declaratioun of his innocencie 
he wald feicht w* ony erle, lord barroun or gentilma vndefamit 
y l wald allege hym authour of the Kingis murthour and thai 
vantit no 1 xxiiii houris ans r althoucht no 1 awowit then, bot w l in 
litill mair nor a moneth he vanted no 1 ans r in derect termes as 
is veilaneuch knawin to all men 22 . 

Quhen ye clengeine wes done y r 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 w l litill difficultie, actis wer past in favo r of ye trew re- 
ligioun and all penall Lawes maid in ye contrare in tyme of 
papistrie abolishit. Bot zeit it culd no 1 be w^ut scland r y* the 
Quene suld gang oppinlie to bed w* the erll Bothuele y l haid 
a mareit vyif of his awne. Howbeit of befoir and then, thai 
sparit na tyme to fulfill y r vngodlie appetit, zeit sum quhat to 
covere hir honestie sche behuwit to be reuest, qlk wes broucht 
to pas schortlie y r efter as sche returnit frome Stirveling to 
Edinbur 1 and quhether y l proceidit of hir self or no 1 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 


consanguinitie, abstractand ye dispensatioun, hot y r 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 Edinbur 1 in veir 
lyk maner, qlk in y r passagis enterit in questioun y l sum day 
it my 1 be said ye Quene wes captiue and covoyit (12) as pre- 
sonar in veirlykmaner and that thai my 1 be accusit yairefter 
of ye same, yairfor in ye mydway thai laid yair speris fra thame 
and sua cowoyit hir to Edinbur 1 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 w l in aucht dayis passit 
to the cosumatioun of that vngodlie mariage y l all ye warld 
comptes nawchtie and a mokking of God. The tyme wes no 1 
long betuix ye same pretendit mariage qlk wes maid one ye 
xv day of Maii 1 567 and the xv day of Junii yairefter, y l after 
ye said erlis fleing, sche come to ye Lordis assemblit for re- 
venge of ye murtheur, and zeit in y l monithis space quhat con- 
fusioun and corruptioun wes yair to behauld it wes mervelous. 
All nobilmen for ye maist pt w l drew yame, and sic as tareit 
how affectionat y l euer that euer (sic) thai schew yame selfis 
to H r m (Her Majesty?) zeit wer thai in na better grace nor 
ye vtheris y l 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 no 1 heir to be neglectit or past over wy l silence 1 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 


to be send agane to Stirveling the purpois stayit and ye pro- 
ponaris wer estemit na guid freindis to ye Quene, qll Edinbur 1 
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 no 1 sa sone done bot assone it wes repentit y l euer he suld 
haif past out of y r 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 no 1 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 no 1 at y 1 same tyme to 
spek y l 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 
y l the innocent orphaine wald be send after his father gif euer 
he come in ye handis of yame y l murthurit hym, sua feir to 
offend ye pepill at y l 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 of 25 . 

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 


he wer habill to resolue mony thingis in yis 

vther in ye varld besydis yame y l vsit 

sequele following prewis all y l precedit ye 

for lamentatioun sche maid nane. Inquisitioun and tryall of 

ye murth 

was neglectit. Hir blind raige and inordinat affect ioun vald 
no 1 suffer hir to contrafete dule. Gret pane sche tuik in deid 
to haif knawlege of yame y l 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 y l vnlaufull and pretendit 
mariage. Quairby, as alsua be hir awne handvreit in mony and 
syndrie letteris send betuix yame during ye cours of y l vickyt 
tyme, it is maist patent, trew and euident y l sche wes no 1 onlie 
previe of ye same horrible and vnnaturall murtheur but als ye 
verray instrumet, cheif organe and principall causer of y l vn- 
naturall crueltie, ppetrat in ye psoun of hym y l wes hir laufull 
huisband and be Godis law ane flesche w l hir self, befoir ye 
comitting quhairof (as planlie apperis) sche no 1 onlie be vords 
bot be vreiting promist to tak ye erle Bothuele to [vyif] 
huisband, quhairin, albeit for a color scn e 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 y 1 it hes 
bene vreittin and subscriuit befoir ye murther for on ye v day 
of Aprill y r efter noWstanding ye mariage standing betuix hym 
and his vyif, sche enterit in a plane and a new cotract w l hym 
as ye samyn vreittin be ye erll of Huntlie and subscriuit w l 
baith y r handis proportis, sua y l y r laikis na pruife and testifie 
a multitude of infallible presumptiounis. 



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 


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. 



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 



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, "S r 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. 



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 


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. 


Buchanan , Ge orge 

787 The indictment of Mary 

A1B83 Queen of Scots