Volume II Part 6 (1/2)

_Second_, That Mary may have written love-letters to Francis II, and to Darnley, before and after she was married to them, is not unlikely; that she wrote sonnets and letters of affection to many of her friends, both male and female, is beyond a doubt; but that she would ever have written such letters and sonnets to the Earl of Bothwell, whom she never loved, whom she at one time threw into prison, and at another sent into banishe she had herself countenanced and encouraged, is against all probability If Bothwell had never become Mary's husband, history does not record one circumstance, which would at all lead to the belief, that she was attached to hie, when fairly and fully considered, only ard for Bothwell, else there would have been no forcible abduction on his part, or pretended reluctance on hers Even though she had consented to marry Bothwell, which the clearest evidence proves her not to have done, it would afford no presuainst her, that he was afterwards discovered to have been the ally acquitted, but all her chief nobility had recorounds of their recoh opinion they entertained of his worth and loyalty Robertson, Laing, and others, it is true, copying Buchanan, have laboured to show, that Mary discovered in various ways her extreuments have been already considered elsewhere; but it will be worth while attending for a moment to such of the circumstances collected by Robertson, and drawn up in formidable array, in the ”Critical Dissertation” subjoined to his History of Scotland, as have not yet been noticed The answers and explanations which iest themselves are so entirely satisfactory, that we can only wonder the historian did not himself perceive them

Robertson states, that on the 15th of February 1567, five days after the murder, Mary bestowed on Bothwell the reversion of the superiority of the town of Leith, and that this grant was of ave hidoh But this assignation, as is expressly stated in the charter, was made to Bothwell as a reward for his faithful services, both to Mary's mother and to herself, especially on the occasion of Rizzio's death, and must have been in contemplation for some tihts, at ato see any one, and was shut up by herself in a dark rooht to be recollected, besides, that she had not yet conferred on Bothwell any adequate recompense for his fidelity and exertions after her escape frorant of the superiority of the town of Leith, was only a very tardy acknowledgations She made presents of a similar description to others of her nobility about the same tie, these gifts ht have been raked up with equal plausibility, to prove that she was then in love with Morton, Huntly, Secretary Maitland, or any body else At the Parliament which asserants were passed toothers to the Earl of Mar, Morton, Crawford, Caithness, and Lord Robert Stuart[212] It will not be asserted, that Mary was attached to any of these persons; and is there any thing wonderful that she included in the list of those to whoh Admiral? The case, no doubt, would have been worse, had she known that Bothas the hout the whole of this discussion, it must be remembered, that if Mary was really innocent, she could not believe Bothwell guilty till he had been actually proved so

Robertson states further, that two days after the trial, Mary allowed Bothwell to carry the sceptre before her when she went to open the Parliaranted him a ratification of all the vast possessions and honours which she had conferred upon hier which would attend a arded his admonition, but discovered to Bothhat had passed But, as to the carrying of the sceptre, it was surely not to be expected, that after a full acquittal, without even the shadow of evidence being advanced against him, Mary could have ventured to refuse his accustomed honours to the most powerful noble in the realm As to the Parliamentary ratification of ”all the vast possessions and honours which she had conferred upon hi in the extreme; for she never conferred on Bothwell any vast possessions and honours, and the ratification alluded only to certain lands which were given hi the Castle of Dunbar[213] Bothwell no doubt enjoyed ”vast possessions and honours;” but they were mostly hereditary, or had been obtained by hidom And as to the ,--the facts were these:--Sir Jaland, fro him that it had been ru the bond which had been previously obtained from the nobility) that Bothas to behim, that if she consented to such an alliance, it would be ainst her own reputation and interest When Sir James showed this letter to Mary, she immediately sent, not for Bothwell, but for Secretary Maitland, to who her surprise at its contents, and her suspicion that it was only a device on the part of some of Bothwell's enemies, ished to ruin him in her estimation She afterwards took an opportunity to speak of it to Bothwell hied against Melville, that, had not Mary interfered, he would have forced hie is easily accounted for, considering the designs he then had in view, and the necessity for concealing them But had he known that Mary was disposed to favour them, he would of course have taken the whole matter much more coolly When Melville came upon the subject with Mary, she assured him that she did not contemplate any such alliance, and she had in like manner previously told Lord Herries, that ”there was no such thing in her mind”[214] If deductions like those of Robertson, so contrary to the premises on which they are founded, be allowed, it is impossible to say to what belief they may not be made to lead

Robertson states, lastly, that even after Mary had been separated from Bothwell, and confined in Loch-Leven, her affection for him did not abate; and that the fair conclusion from all these circumstances is, that had Mary really been accessory to the murder of her husband, ”she could scarcely have taken any other steps than those she took, nor could her conduct have been nant to all the maxims of prudence or of decency” But that Mary's affection for a man she had never loved, continued after she had left hione publicly over in the face of the whole world to his bitterest enemies, (on whose authority alone Robertson's assertion is h expressly contradicted by their own previous declarations, as well as by Mary's stateained her liberty), is not to be believed; and had she been really innocent, ”she could scarcely have taken any other steps than those she took,” nor could her conduct have been more accordant with all theMary to have actually written the letters to Bothwell, it may very fairly be asked,--Why he was so iht?--why he put them all into the same box?--and why he should ever have intrusted that box to the custody of Sir James Balfour? It is extremely difficult to answer satisfactorily any of these questions The only explanation which the first admits of, is, that Bothas afraid lest Mary should afterwards quarrel with him, and resolved therefore not to destroy the evidence of her participation in the murder But if he acted upon this principle, why did he liht letters? If Mary ever corresponded with him at all, he must have had in his possession many more of her epistles; for the first of the series which has been preserved, is evidently not the letter of one co a correspondence, but of one rites as a matter of course, to a person whom she has often written to before It may be said, perhaps, that none of her previous letters bore upon the subject of Darnley's murder; but they must at all events have contained expressions of affection, which would have served as an indirect proof of her guilt If, by preserving these docu into the hands of his enee, Bothwell thought he was choosing the least of two dangers, he would certainly have been anxious to make his evidence of Mary's connexion with hily, soe, were said to have been put into the sa the whole course of his ahts, she had liht epistolary testi li chosen to put the iron box locked and pad-locked, of which he alone kept the key, but into a ”sed to hiift to Mary from her first husband Francis,--as he so very absurd as send theh, at the very ti in the nation, and that he was beginning to suspect Balfour's fidelity? They were sent, we are infor of June 1567 Was this the s he had so carefully treasured? If he was afraid that his eneh, why did he not take the ”s it to the very place where it was sure to becoed, it was necessary for the forgers to concoct as plausible a story concerning them as possible They kneas not likely that Bothould send them to the Castle tied up as an open packet; and the idea of a box would therefore occur to them But as they had not in their possession any box which belonged to Bothwell, they were forced toat Holyrood, when they rifled the palace of most of the Queen's valuables, the coffer in question, they would readily avail themselves of it It would further occur to them, that Bothwell could not be supposed to have left the letters at Holyrood, which was not a place of any strength; and as they had not followed hiive out that he had -place But if the letters had not been forgeries, and if they had been really preserved by Bothwell, they would have been more numerous,--they would not have been kept in one of Mary's trinket-boxes,--and they would never have found their way out of his own hands into the custody of Sir James Balfour

_Fourth_, The next improbability connected with this story, is, that Bothwell sent to reclaied On the 15th of Septeland, to attend the conference at York, gave the Earl of Morton a receipt for the ”silver box, overgilt with gold, with all e, sonnets or love ballads, and all other letters contained therein, sent and passed betwixt the Queen and James, sometime Earl Bothwell; which box, and whole pieces within the saleish, servant to the said Earl Bothwell, upon the 20th day of June, in the year of God 1567”[215] This, then, was exactly five days after Bothwell had fled froh was in the possession of the opposite faction, holeish, it appears, ell known to be a servant of Bothwell, was able not only to effect an entrance into Edinburgh, though the city was strictly guarded, but was received into the Castle, and had the box actually delivered to him by Balfour How he happened to be afterwards discovered, and his property taken from him, is not made out If Balfour privately intimated to Morton what he had done, then he at once acted knavishly towards Bothwell, and most inconsiderately towards those whoht have either baffled pursuit, or he ht have secreted the box, or destroyed its contents before he was taken Thus we have a tissue of i the whole of this part of the narrative

Bothwell could never send to Edinburgh Castle for writings he would never have deposited there: and itive, and that fortress, along with the adjacent town, in the hands of his enemies Nor would Balfour have surrendered a box so precious; nor, if he did, would Dalgleish have allowed it again to become the prey of those from whom it was most wished to conceal it

_Fifth_, What was done with the letters iot possession of them? Bothwell had been already accused of the murder of Darnley; his former acquittal had been declared unjust; he had been separated from the Queen; and she herself had been sequestrated in Loch-Leven, until the whole affair should be duly investigated Surely, then, the discovery of these letters would be regarded with signal satisfaction, and the associated Lords would lose not atheir existence to the nation, as the best justification of their own proceedings They had sent Mary, it is true, to Loch-Leven, somewhat precipitately, five days before they were aware of her enoruilt; but if their own ambition had prompted that step, they would now be able to free themselves from blame, and would silence at once the boldest of the Queen's defenders As it appears by the records, that aof Privy Council was held on the 21st of June, the very day after Dalgleish was seized, we shall surely find that all the papers were produced, and their contents i of the kind took place; and though Morton was present at the ain, on the 26th of June, an act was passed for sanctioning the imprisonment of the Queen in Loch-Leven, and a proclah the latter was accused of having ”treasonably ravished” the person of her Highness the Queen, and also of being the ”principal author of the late cruel iven of the evidence which had been recently discovered against him, and which, indeed, had it been in their possession, would have directly contradicted the assertion, that Bothwell had been guilty Of ”treasonable ravish the Queen in ”thraldoe;” for it would have appeared, that he had obtained her previous consent for every thing he had done[217] Between this date and the 11th of July, several other s of Council were held, and acts published, but not a whisper was heard concerning these important letters When Sir Nicolas Throckmorton was sent by Elizabeth, as her ambassador into Scotland, the Lords presented him, on the 11th of July, with a for and laboured paper, the letters were never once alluded to On the contrary, in direct opposition to the occur n, was led captive, and, by fear, force, and (as by many conjectures may be well suspected) other extraordinary and more unlawful means, compelled to become bed-fellow to another wife's husband, and to him who, not three months before, had in his bed most cruelly reat dishonour of her Majesty, us all, and this whole nation”--”It behoved us, assuredly, to have recommended the soul of our Prince, and of the most part of ourselves, to God's hands; and as we n the Queen, who should not have lived with him half a year to an end, as ether, and theof his other wife at home in his house”--”The respects aforesaid, with many others, and very necessity, moved us to enterprise the quarrel we have in hand, which was only intended against the Earl of Bothwell's person, to dissolve the dishonourable and unlawful conjunction under the nae”[218] These are positive declarations, which not only bear no reference to the box of love-letters, but which deliberately and conclusively give the lie to their contents When was it, then, that these momentous letters were introduced to the world? The Lords, not satisfied with ”sequestrating the person” of the Queen, forced from her an abdication of her throne on the 25th of July Surely, before venturing on so audacious a proceeding, these cris would be made known to the country But no; we in vain expect to hear any thing of them;--”shadows, clouds, and darkness” still rest upon theth, a fresh actor returned to that scene, in which he had forenius brought the ust, the Earl of Murray rejoined his old associates; and on the 22d of that ent It was necessary for him, shortly afterwards, to hold a Parlia as his own, it was still more necessary for him to fall upon some means to justify his usurpation, as well as those severe proceedings against Mary to which he had given his sanction Accordingly, after he had been in Scotland four months, and had cautiously prepared his body of written evidence, we find it mentioned, _for the first time_, in an act of Council, passed on the 4th of Dece of Parliament, and evidently in anticipation of that event In this act it is expressly declared, ”that the cause and occasion of the private conventions of the Lords, Barons and others, and consequently their taking of ar to the field, and the cause and occasion of the taking of the Queen's person, upon the 15th day of June last, and holding and detaining of the same within the house and place of Loch Leven, continually since, presently, and in all tis invented, spoken, or written by them since the 10th day of February last, (upon which day u Henry was shamefully and horriblythe Queen's person, cause, and all things depending thereon, was in the said Queen's own default, in as far as, by diverse her privy letters, written and subscribed with her own hand, and sent by her to James Earl of Bothwell, chief executor of the said horriblethereof as after, and by her unGodly and dishonourable proceeding in a private e with him, suddenly and unprovisedly thereafter, it is most certain that she was privy, art and part, and of the actual device and deed of the fore Parliament passed an act, which, after a preamble expressed in nearly the saency;[220] and nothing more whatever is known or heard of these ”privy letters,” till nearly the end of the following year, 1568

With regard to these acts of Council and Parliament, it is to be remarked, in the first place, that they refer to the Letters as the grounds upon which the nobles took up arms, separated the Queen from Bothwell at Carberry Hill, and i to a subsequent confession, the Letters were not discovered till after she had been in captivity for five days, and although, in all the proclamations and acts of the tie in which she had been kept by Bothwell as openly proclaimed It is to be reiven, either of the contents of these Letters, of the time of their discovery, or of the evidence by which their authenticity was ascertained Dalgleish was at the very moment in custody, and a few days afterwards was tried and executed for his share in Darnley's death, of which he ht forward and exa the Letters; and why is there not a word about theleish neverany connection with the Letters at all till after he was dead? And if it was originally intended to refer to the Letters as the authorities on which the Lords sent Mary to Loch-Leven,been taken froht, when it became necessary to account for the manner in which they had fallen into their hands? Was it, besides, enough to satisfy the nation to allude, in vague and general terht? If they were thus obscurely locked up in Murray's custody,--if nothing further was said about them but that they existed,--if all the nobility of Scotland were not requested to come and examine theht see them, and feel convinced that the Lords had acted justly, can it be cause of wonder, that, not only all Mary's friends, but even Elizabeth herself, intimated doubts of their authenticity?

_Sixth_, If it is strange that these i kept froe, that, when they were at length produced, a degree of caution and hesitation was observed regarding theent had been satisfied of their authenticity, he would fearlessly have exhibited the that he had a fair excuse for concealing thee for the them forward, the ht be convinced they were genuine If he acted honestly, and, on the authority of these writings, believed his sister unworthy of continuing on the Scottish throne, he must have been anxious that the whole country should acknowledge the propriety of his conduct; or if he had hi to have had the forgery pointed out to hiovern frank, open, and candid, in Murray's proceedings

When the conference began at York, there was not a word said of the letters, till it was found that, without their aid, no plausible answer could be given to the complaints made by Mary Even then they were not boldly produced, and openly laid before the Coill, Wood, and Buchanan, were sent to hold a ”private and secret conference” with Norfolk and his colleagues, in which they produced the letters and other papers, and asked their opinion concerning them[222] As soon as Elizabeth was informed of their contents, she removed the conference to Westnorant of the alleged existence of any such writings It was not till the 8th of December 1568 that the letters made their appearance in an officialfroed their production, and as she had evidently entered into Murray's views regarding them, there was now surely no further trepidation or concealment But what is the fact? On only _two_ occasions were the originals of these writings ever shown; and on neither occasion does their authenticity appear to have been at all determined On the 8th of Deces, written in French, and avowed by the copied, were read in French, and a due collationand inspection, and inals, which the said Earl of Murray required to be re-delivered, and did thereupon deliver the copies, being collationed”[223] Here, therefore, nothing was done except coinals, to see that they agreed These copies were left in the hands of the Coinals, by whoever they ritten, were imain made their appearance, for the second and last ti read, were duly conferred and coraphy, with sundry other letters, long since heretofore written, and sent by the said Queen of Scots to the Queen's Majesty”[224] Was this all the proof that was offered? Yes; the whole Elizabeth, as no less anxious than Murray himself to blacken the character of the Queen of Scots, was allowed to supply the letters hich the other writings were to be co that is known to the contrary, these ”other letters, long since heretofore written,” were only a few eries from the same hand, prepared for the very use to which they were applied And be this as it may, is it likely that, by a hasty collation of this kind, any accurate decision could be forle forenoon, a number of different individuals could come to a conclusion on so very nice a point as a coreat a number of documents to decide upon? It is a enus probandi sit per comparationem litterarum_;” and surely the fallaciousness of such a proof was not dilish nobles, probably unacquainted previously with the writing of the Queen of Scots

But could Mary herself, it will be asked, refuse to acknowledge her own hand? Her Coinal letters; if not the whole, at least soht trans either unable to deny the the of all this was done Mary's Cos at which the originals were produced; and when they afterwards applied for a sight of them, or for copies, they were put off from time to time till the conference was dissolved, and Murray sent back to Scotland ”Suppose a ainst ; if I knew this bond to be a false writing, ould be my defence? Show ery If he withdrew the bond, and refused to let me see it, ould be the presued, and that the user was hier The case is precisely similar to the point in hand The Queen, we have seen, repeatedly des theed Elizabeth herself says the demand is most reasonable What follows? Is this reasonable de or having inspection of the originals, even copies of them are refused to her and her Commissioners”[225] Under these circus were seen only twice by a few of the English nobility, and then locked up again in Murray's box, that they once existed ranted, but that they hat they pretended to be, cannot be believed to have been ever proved

_Seventh_, Having effected the purpose they were ht have been expected that these letters would be carefully preserved in the public archives of the Scottish nation;--that, as they had been theabout a revolution in the country, they would be regarded not as private, but as public property;--and that Murray would be anxious to lodge theht be referred to, both by his cotemporaries and posterity, as documents hich his own reputation, no less than that of his sister, was indissolubly connected Here again, however, the ient appears to have kept these writings close in his own possession till his death, and they then fell into the hands of his successor, the Earl of Lennox

Towards the end of January 1571, Lennox delivered them to Morton; and after Morton's execution, the box and its contents beca that he would be less anxious toinfluenced by any of the motives which had actuated Murray, Lennox, and Morton, and fearing lest the whole trick should be discovered, Elizabeth became now very anxious to obtain them

She ordered her ambassador in Scotland, in 1582, to promise Gowrie, that if he would surrender them, he should ”be requited to his coratuity” But Goas neither to be bribed nor persuaded; he knew the value of the papers too well, and the pohich their possession gave hi as they befriended him, he would be silent; but should he ever be cast off by them, he would proclaim their fabrication, and remove the stains they had cast upon Mary's honour Elizabeth's earnest endeavours to get them into her own possession can be accounted for, only on the supposition that she knew theeries; for it was in that case alone, that any dangerous use could have been made of them Subsequent to the correspondence with Gowrie, in 1582, nothing further is known of these writings In 1584, Goas executed as a traitor, on account of the conspiracy in which he had engaged, and many of his effects fell into the hands of Ja theinals are concerned, this celebrated body of evidence is little else than aafter it had been discovered,--it was not produced till long after it had been first spoken of,--it appeared only for a few hours before persons predisposed to give it all credit,--it then returned to its former obscurity, and not even _copies_ but merely _translations_, are all that were ever presented to the world, on which to fore that any importance should have ever been attached to papers, which were never fairly exposed to the light, and which the jaws of darkness so soon devoured[226]

_Eighth_, Though it would be perhaps as difficult to prove a negative, as to des which do not exist, and which were hardly ever seen, the presuainst them is increased a hundred-fold, if it can be clearly established, that the sauilty of deliberate forgery This could be done in h toThe first is the letter which Morton exhibited before Mary was taken to Loch-Leven, and which was never afterwards referred to or produced, even at the tiainst her It was a letter which would not only have gone a great way to corroborate the others, but, as it did not implicate the Queen in Darnley's y that ished for keeping her ”sequestrated” at Loch-Leven, and forcing froh all the other epistles had been kept back, this rossed in the ain and again by the King's Lords, as the great justification of their conduct If by any chance a reason could be found, why it was first produced, and again concealed, it would still be impossible to discover why it alone ithdrahen all the rest were laid before Elizabeth There is but one solution of the enigma, which is, that it was too hasty a fabrication to bear h it e, Morton and Murray were themselves ashamed of it

A second and even ery is to be found in one of the papers which Murray showed to the English Coht it prudent to withdrahen the writings were more publicly produced at Westiven to the Lords who subscribed the bond for the proe”[227] In the ”private and secret Conference,” which Lethington, MacGill, Wood, and Buchanan, had with the Commissioners at York; ”they showed unto us,” say the latter, ”a copy of a band, bearing date the 19th of April 1567, to the which the most part of the Lords and Counsellors of Scotland have put to their hands; and, as they say,they had of the same Which band contained two special points,--the one a declaration of Bothwell's purgation of the eneral consent to his e with the Queen, so far forth as the law and her own liking should allow And yet, in proof that they did it not willingly, they procured a warrant which was noed unto us, bearing date the 19th of April, signed with the Queen's hand, whereby she gave the, that before they had such a warrant, there was none of the only the Earl of Huntly”[228] Thiswarrant; and it is so, that it had never been heard of before It was a very strong link in the chain; and spoke volumes of Mary's love for Bothwell, which carried her so far that she not only secretly wished, but openly requested her nobles to recoenuine, it must have been seen by all the Lords ere present at ”Ainsly's supper;” and they must have been consequently well aware that there was no such thing as a forcible abduction of the Queen's person So far froe,” or forced her into a ”pretended reater anxiety to possess him than he had to secure her Their only wonder would be, that after so far overco the natural modesty of her sex, as to point out to them one of her own subjects, whom she asked them to advise her to marry, she should so palpably have contradicted herself, as to give out afterwards that it was not till she had been carried off, and till every arguest, that she reluctantly agreed to become his wife If she openly and formally licensed her nobles to recommend him, as the use of all her subsequent affected reluctance? But it was not Murray's business to explain this problem The warrant spoke for itself, and it ith it only that he had to do What, then, were the comments which he ainst Mary which he drew from it? _The ”Warrant” was not produced at Westle allusion was made to it_[229] This fact alone is sufficient to mark the credit it deserves It could do no harm to show it privately to Norfolk, Sussex, and Sadler; but it would not have answered so well to have advanced it publicly, as all the nobility of Scotland would at once have known it to be a fabrication The probability is, that this ”Warrant,” or ”Consent,” was neither arbled copy of the pardon which Bothwell obtained froht her out of the Castle of Edinburgh on the 14th of May, the day previous to her e; and she would never have been asked for this pardon if she had before recommended the bond[230] If Murray and his party are thus detected in fabrications so gross, that they themselves, however anxious to bolster up their cause, were afraid to make use of them, what dependence is to be placed upon the authenticity of any writings they chose to produce?

_Ninth_, It was Bothho murdered Darnley; it was Bothho seized the person of the Queen; it was Bothasath he set his foot upon a throne But his triumph was of short duration The Queen left him, and went over to his enemies; and he himself was forced into a miserable exile It was this reverse of fortune which he had all along dreaded; and it was to be prepared for the evil day, that he had preserved the eight letters and love-sonnets so carefully in the sht happen, he should never lose his hold over Mary, but that, as she had participated in his guilt, she should be made to share his subsequent fortunes He cannot have been well pleased with her conduct at Carberry Hill; and it was perhaps to revenge hileish for the casket, part of the contents of which he leish and the casket were seized, but the secret of Mary's criminality was still in Bothwell's possession; and there was surely no occasion that he should become odious in the eyes of all men, whilst his paramour and accohout the whole course of his life, utter a word, or issue a declaration, or ree i presumption in her favour if he never did

Before Darnley was ham, to consult him on the subject Morton told him, that unless he could produce proof, under the Queen's hand, of her consent to have her husband re to Whittingham, Bothwell ed to have written to hi to corroborate his assertion, that the Queen would not be offended at the proposed murder_ He promised, however, that he would do all he could to procure the warrant which Morton desired So at St Andrews,” says Morton in his confession, ”to visit the Earl of Angus a little before the las came to me there, both rite and credit of the Earl Bothwell, to show unto 's murder was to be done, and near a point; and to request my concurrence and assistance thereunto My answer to hi I had not got the Queen's warrant in write, which was pro the Earl Bothwell never reported any warrant of the Queen to me, I never meddled further with it”[231] As all that Morton wished, before giving Bothwell his active support, was ”the Queen's hand-write of the matter for a warrant,” ould have been more natural or easy for Bothwell than to have produced any of the letters he had got from Mary, which would exactly have answered the purpose, and satisfied all Morton's scruples? As Bothwell told hin, he could not have any objection to ood that assertion, by any written evidence in his possession He need not even have shown the whole of any one letter, but only such detached parts of it as bore directly on the subject in question It is strange, that Bothwell should have gone so far, and should have been so anxious to secure the co-operation of Morton; yet, that he did not obviate the only objection which Morton started, by putting into his hands a letter, or letters, which, if they ever existed, he must have then had[232]

Various occasions occurred afterwards, which held out every inducement to Bothwell to produce the letters and accuse the Queen Passing over his silence at Carberry Hill, notwithstanding her desertion of hi all the rest of the time that he remained in Scotland, it may be mentioned, that Murray, shortly after he had been appointed Regent, wrote to the King of Denmark, to request that Bothwell should be delivered up to hi others, that Bothwell doally tried and acquitted,--that he had been lawfully married to the Queen,--and that _no blame whatever attached to her_[233] Not at all satisfied with this answer, Mr Thomas Buchanan was afterwards sent out to Denmark, to procure, if possible, Bothwell's surrender Buchanan, of course,and doing, since he fled from Scotland; and in January 1571, he sent home a full account of his discoveries to his constituents The letter was addressed to the Earl of Lennox, as then Regent; but it fell first into the Earl of Morton's hands, as at the ti that it contained matter by no ht produce soame with her he had formerly been so successful in with Mary, and passed off upon her a garbled copy as a genuine transcript of the original ”We had no will,” the Earl of Morton wrote to Lennox, ”that the contents of the letter should be known, fearing that so dispersed here as neould rather have hindered than furthered our cause And, therefore, being desired at Court to show the letter, we gave to understand that we had sent the principal away, and delivered a copy, oht not meet to be shown, as your Grace may perceive by the like copy, which also we have sent you herewith; which you may communicate to such as your Grace thinks it not expedient to communicate the whole contents of the principal letter unto”[234] Both the original despatch and the spurious copy have unfortunately been lost, or were more probably destroyed by Lennox himself; so that their contents can only be conjectured; but it is evident, that so far fro to hurt Mary's reputation, they must rather have served to exculpate her

In the year 1576, Mary wrote to the Archbishop of Glasgow, that she had received intelligence of Bothwell's death, and that, before his decease, he had declared himself the murderer of Darnley, and expressly freed her fro her innocence in the most solemn manner