The Mystery of Mary Stuart

355

Nelson, according to Miss Strickland (Mary Stuart, ii. 178, 1873), left Edinburgh for England, and was detained by Drury for some months at Berwick. For this Miss Strickland cites Drury to Cecil, Berwick, February 15, 1567, a letter which I am unable to find in the MSS. But the lady is more or less correct, since, on February 15, Mary wrote to Robert Melville, in England, charging him, in very kind terms, to do his best for Anthony Standen, Darnley’s friend, who was also going to England (Frazer, The Lennox, ii. 7). A reference to Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 193, No. 1029, shows that a letter of Mary to Drury, asking free passage for Standen and four other Englishmen, is really of March 15, not of February 15. Again, a letter of March 8, 1567, from Killigrew, at Edinburgh, to Cecil, proves that ‘Standen, Welson, and Guyn, that served the late king, intend to return home when they can get passport’ (Bain, ii. 347, No. 479). Now ‘Welson’ is obviously Nelson. On June 16, Drury allowed Standen to go south (Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 252, No. 1305). Nelson, doubtless, also returned to Lennox. It is odd that Lennox, having these two witnesses, should vary so much, in his first indictment, from the accepted accounts of events at Kirk o’ Field. This Anthony Standen is the younger of the two brothers of the same name. The elder was acting for Darnley in France at the time of the murder. He lived to a great age, recounting romances about his adventures.

356

Mr. Hay Fleming suggests that ‘Jhone a Forret’ may be Forret of that ilk – of Forret near Cairnie. Of him I have no other knowledge.

357

Hatfield MSS. Calendar, i. 376, 377.

358

Melville, Memoirs, 173, 174. Hosack’s Mary, i. 536 (The Book of Articles). Anderson, ii. 18, 19 (Detection). Cecil’s Journal, under date Saturday, February 8, has ‘She confronted the King and my lord of Halyrodhouse conforme to hir letter wryttin the nycht before:’ that is, this Letter III.

359

Mr. Hosack makes an error in averring that no letter as to this intrigue was produced at Westminster or later; that the letter was only shown at York in October, 1568. There and then Moray’s party ‘inferred, upon a letter of her own hand, that there was another meane of a more cleanly conveyance devised to kill the King’ (Goodall, ii. 142; Hosack, i. 409, 410). The letter was that which we are now considering.

360

The Scots has ‘handling.’ The Cambridge MS. of the Scots translation reads ‘composing of thame,’ from ‘le bien composer de ceux’ in the original French.

361

Dr. Bresslau notes several such coincidences, but stress cannot be laid on phrases either usual, or such as a forger might know to be favourites of Mary’s.

362

Laing, ii. 286.

363

Mary Queen of Scots, vol. ii. No. 63.

364

‘Je m’en deferay au hazard de la faire entreprandre:’ the translators, not observing the gender referring to the maid, have blundered.

365

It appears that they did not officially put in this compromising Ainslie paper. Cecil’s copy had only such a list of signers ‘as John Read might remember.’ His copy says that Mary approved the band on May 14, whereas the Lords allege that she approved before they would sign. Bain, ii. 321, 322. A warrant of approval was shown at York. Bain, ii. 526. Cf. supra, p. 254, note 3.

366

Labanoff, ii. 32-44.

367

Maitland of Lethington, ii. 224.

368

Lethington to Beaton, October 24, 1566; cf. Keith, ii. 542.

369

‘The safety,’ ‘la seurete.’ Mr. Henderson’s text has ‘la seincte.’ The texts in his volume are strangely misleading and incorrect, both in the English of Letter II. and in the copies of the original French.

370

This means a ring in black enamel, with representations of tears and bones, doubtless in white: a fantastic mourning ring. Mary left a diamond in black enamel to Bothwell, in June, 1566.

371

This coincidence was pointed out to me by Mr. Saintsbury.

372

By the way, she says to Norfolk, in the same Letter, ‘I am resolvid that weale nor wo shall never remove me from yow, If yow cast me not away.’ Compare the end of this Letter VIII.: ‘Till death nor weal nor woe shall estrange me’ (jusques à la mort ne changera, car mal ni bien oncque ne m’estrangera). Now the forger could not copy a letter not yet written (Labanoff, iii. 5). This conclusion of her epistle is not on the same level as the customary conclusion – the prayer that God will give the recipient long life, and to her – something else. That formula was usual: ‘Je supplie Dieu et de vous donner bonne vie, et longue, et a moy l’eur de votre bonne grasse.’ This formula, found in Mary’s Letters and in the Casket Letters, also occurs in a note from Marguerite de France to the Duchesse de Montmorency (De Maulde, Women of the Renaissance, p. 309). A forger would know, and would insert the stereotyped phrase, if he chose.

373

On the point of wearing a concealed jewel in her bosom, the curious may consult the anecdote, ‘Queen Mary’s Jewels,’ in the author’s Book of Dreams and Ghosts.

374

In Laing, ii. 234.

375

Cecil’s Journal.

376

Cecil’s Journal.

377

Laing, ii. 285.

378

Laing, ii. 289.

379

Laing, ii. 325, 326. Laing holds that between April 21 and April 23 Mary wrote Letters V. VI. VII. VIII. and Eleven Sonnets to Bothwell: strange literary activity!

380

Froude, iii. 75, note 1.

381

Teulet, ii. 169, 170.

382

Labanoff, iii. 5.

383

Labanoff, iii. 64.

384

Spanish Calendar, i. 659.

385

Bain, ii. 329, 330.

386

Privy Council Register.

387

Bain, ii. 336. Sir John Skelton did not observe the coincidence between the opening of the Casket and the ‘sudden dispatch’ of Robert Melville to London. The letter in full is in Maitland of Lethington, ii. 226, 227.

388

Bain, ii. 339.

389

Goodall, ii. 342, 343.

390

Goodall, ii. 388, 389.

391

Camden, Annals, 143-5. Laing, i. 226.

392

Laing, ii. 224-240.

393

Bain, ii. 322.

394

As to Randolph’s dark hint, Chalmers says, ‘he means their participation in Darnley’s murder’ (ii. 487). But that, from Randolph’s point of view, was no offence against Mary, and Kirkcaldy was not one of Darnley’s murderers.

395

Cal. For. Eliz. ix. 390.

396

See Hosack, ii. 217, 218. Bowes to Walsingham, March 25, 1581. Bowes Papers, 174. Ogilvie to Archibald Beaton. Hosack, ii. 550, 551.

397

Bain, ii. 569.

398

Robertson Inventories, 124.

399

Bowes Correspondence, 236.

400

Bowes, 265.

401

Goodall, i. 35, 36.

402

Vol. lxxx. 131, et seq.

403

Before the Reformation it belonged to the Bishops of Roskilde, and was confiscated from them, Henry VIII.’s fashion.

404

Bain, ii. 250.

405

Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 413, 414.

406

This picture seems to be lost.

407

Diurnal, p. 134.

408

Birrel’s Diary, p. 17.

409

Cot. Lib. Calig. B. ix. fol. 272. Apud Chalmers, i. 441, 442.

410

Bain, ii. 516.

411

Diurnal, p. 146.

412

Bain, ii. 665.

413

Nau, p. 80.

414

Chalmers’s date, as to Stewart’s expedition to Denmark, differs from that of Drury.

415

Such coffers were carefully covered. One had a cover of crimson velvet, with the letter ‘F’ in silver and gold work (Maitland Club, Illustrations of Reigns of Mary and James). Another coffer, with a cover of purple velvet, is described in a tract by M. Luzarche (Tours, 1868).

416

Nau, p. 48.

417

Tytler, iv. 324, 1864.

418

Diurnal, p. 127.

419

Laing, ii. 293, 294.

420

Bain, ii. 322.

421

Laing, ii. 314-318.

422

Tytler, iv. 323, 1864.

423

Labanoff, ii. 213.

424

Bain, ii. 576.

425

Laing’s efforts to detect French idioms lead him to take ‘all contrary’ – as in

‘Mary, Mary,

All contrary,

How does your garden grow?’ —

and ‘all goeth ill’ for French too literally translated.

426

Casket Letters, pp. 82, 83.

427

Cambridge MS. ‘l’acointance.’

428

Cambridge MS, ‘je’ omitted.

429

Cambridge MS. ‘Dont de grief doil me vint ceste dolleur.’

430

Cambridge MS. ‘Per.’

431

Cambridge MS. ‘honneur.’