Volume II Part 7 (1/2)

It has been seen, first, by external evidence, that these papers are spurious, because the notorious ambition of Morton and Murray, and the perilous predicament in which it finally placed them, rendered their fabrication necessary to save themselves from ruin,--because Mary could not have written any love-letters or sonnets to Bothwell, for whoard, and as obliged to seize and carry off her person, in order to force her into an unwilling e,--because such letters, if they had been written, would not have been preserved by Bothwell, or, if preserved, would have been ether improbable, since Bothwell, for thefor theh on the 20th of June 1567,--because not a as said about the after they were discovered, but, on the contrary, ned for sequestrating Mary's person in Loch-Leven,--because, though Dalgleish was tried, condemned, and executed, not a question was put to hi these letters,--because the originals were only produced twice, and _that_ under suspicious and unsatisfactory circu but translations, and translations froinals, now exist, frouments can be drawn,--because Murray and his associates have been convicted of open forgery in several other instances, and are therefore the more liable to be doubted in this,--because Bothwell not only never accused Mary, but was unable to show Morton any writing of her's sanctioning the murder, and, by subsequent declarations, seems to have exculpated her from all share in it,--because Mary herself invariably denied that she had ever written such letters, undertaking to prove that they were fabrications, if the originals, or even copies, were shown to her,--because Lady Lennox, Darnley's mother, many of the most respectable of the Scottish nobility, Norfolk, and a nuland, and all her Continental friends, avowed their belief of her innocence,--because the confessions and depositions of Bothwell's acco, tended to acquit her of all blah the persons by whom the depositions were made had every inducement to accuse her, if it had been in their power,--and because the external evidence, advanced in support of the letters by Robertson and others, is entirely nugatory

It has been seen, second, by internal evidence, that the Letters are spurious,--because the translations differ from each other,--because the style and coes, are not such as could ever have coery by the nature of her handwriting, and by the access which the forgers had to genuine letters and papers, of which they could make a partial use,--because, at the tied to have been written, Mary was, in all probability, not at the places from which they are dated,--because the letters contradict each other, and are all contradicted by the sonnets,--and because the arguments in support of them, drawn from internal evidence by Robertson and others, are equally inconclusive with their external proofs

If Mary's innocence, froed, must still continue matter of doubt, it is not too much to declare all history uncertain, and virtue and vice h the kindness of Williaive the following authentic genealogical account of theportrait of Mary Queen of Scots, engraved for this Work, and particularly described in Vol I Chap IV, came into the possession of his fa Jaston, obtained a grant of the Crown lands of Orkney and Shetland from his sister Queen Mary in 1565 He was created Earl of Orkney by his uncle Jahter of Gilbert, fourth Earl of Cassils

”George Traill, son of the Laird of Blebo in Fife, married, first, Jean Kennedy of Carmunks, a relative of the Earl's Lady He accorant from the Earl of the lands of Quandale, in the Island of Ronsay, and, as stewart or factor, ed the affairs of the earldom By Jean Kennedy he had one son, the first Thoie of Gairsay, by whom he had James Traill of Quandale, who married Ann Baikie of Burness Lady Barbara Stewart, the Earl's youngest daughter, h Halcro of Halcro, a descendant of the Royal Fareat part of the Islands of Orkney For her patrimony, the Earl wadset to Halcro lands, in Widewall, Ronaldsvoe, and in South Ronaldshay, which lands were afterwards redeemed by Patrick Stewart, the Earl's eldest son, 1598

_Vide_ Bishop Law's Rentall 1614 Lady Barbara, being the youngest and the last of the Earl's family, succeeded to her father's furniture, plate, pictures, and other st the rest, the fah Halcro of that Ilk, the eldest son of this hter of William Stewart of Mains and Burray _Vid_ Charters 1615 and 1620 In 1644, this Hugh Halcro executed a settle, to Patrick his brother; who, to Edward of Hauton; whoh the Oye, hter of James Stewart of Gromsay _Vid_ Charter by him in her favour of lands in South Ronaldshay and the Island Cava, 12th June 1630 Their son, Hugh Halcro of that Ilk, hters, Jean and Sibella Halcro Jean married Alexander Mouat Swenze, and Sibella married James Baikie of Burness; and the estate of Halcro was divided between these families by decreet-arbitral, 21st and 22d December 1677,--Arthur Baikie of Tankerness, and John Kennaday of Carmunks, arbiters; which decreet is in the possession of the present William Traill of Woodwick, Esquire, as is the picture of Queen Mary, and other family relics”

END OF VOLUME SECOND

PRINTED BY J HUTCHISON, FOR THE HEIRS OF D WILLISON

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Robertson, Appendix to vol i No XVII

[2] Keith, Appendix, p 139

[3] Keith, Preface, p vii

[4] Melville's Memoirs, p 170

[5] Goodall, vol ii p 316--Keith, p 355; Appendix, p 136--Anderson, vol ii p 270 vol iv p 183 and 188--”Martyre de Marie,” in Jebb, vol ii p 210 It would be difficult to explain why Robertson, who, in the Dissertation subjoined to his History, allows the authenticity of the documents which detail the particulars of this ihtest notice of it in his History There is surely soer, who is not always over-favourable to Mary, re a divorce;--”It is difficult to develope the motives of Mary's refusal Had she secretly loved Bothwell, she would probably have embraced the means of liberty; and had she already eue, she would not have resisted the persuasions of her paraht her husband's life, she must have been sensible that, when the nuptial tie was dissolved, he would be more easily assailable Why then did she recoil from the proposal, unless she feared to co Darnley's safety, or that soered in her heart? It has been supposed, that she dreaded the censures which ht be passed on her conduct in France; or that she feared to separate her interests from those of her husband, lest she should injure her title to the English crown All these objections are valid when addressed to reason, but passion would have challenged stronger arguments”--Memoirs, vol ii p 301--Blackwood, in his _Martyre de Marie_, mentions, that Mary upon this occasion told her nobility, that ”her husband was yet young, andleft it principally in consequence of the bad advice of those ere no less his enemies than her's”--”This answer,” adds Blackwood, ”was far fro to theement from her husband was more from the necessity of the times, than because she had ceased to love him”

[6] Chalmers, vol ii p 173--Keith, Preface, p vii

[7] The above transaction, in which there is so little ociation, secretly carried on by Mary, for subverting the Reformed Church” He cannot, it is true, very easily reconcile the ”negotiation” with the fact that, ”at the very time, she did not scruple publicly to e for the ministers of that Church athis year,” he tells us, ”she issued several proclamations and Acts of Council for that purpose, and readily approved of every scheme which was proposed for the ht have inquired a little more closely into the real nature of her correspondence with the Court of Ro Mary with ”falsehood and deceit,” and availing himself of the subject to point a moral

[8] Keith, p 359

[9] Anderson, vol ii p 271

[10] That Darnley was actually absent upon this occasion, we are not quite satisfied Robertson says he was, on the authority of Le Croc's letter in Keith, preface, p vii; and after him, most writers on the subject state the fact as beyond a doubt All, however, that Le Croc says is this:--”The King had still given out, that he would depart two days before the baptis at all, only he still kept close within his own apartment The very day of the baptis me either to coht cos”

This is no direct evidence that the King was absent fro

Neither does Buchanan furnish us with any; he merely says, with his usual accuracy and love of calumny, that ”her lawful husband was not allowed necessaries at the christening; nay, was forbid to coht of the ambassadors, ere advised not to enter into discourse with the King, though they were in the same part of the castle the most part of the day”--History, Book XVIII Nor does Knox say any thing definite upon the subject; but Keith, Crawford, and Spottswood, though not referred to by Robertson, seem to support his opinion Let the fact, however, be as it reat consequence The erroneousness of the popular belief, that Darnley, during the whole of this ti, ispointed out and corrected

[11] Knox, p 400--Keith, Preface, p vii

[12] Keith, p 369--Knox, p 400--The Historie of King James the sext, p 5

[13] Chalmers, vol ii p 176