² It is not possible to draw conclusions from Mary's negative attitude to Darnley before the murder and her marriage with Bothwell afterwards.

³ Chauviré, R., ‘Etat présent de la controverse sur les lettres de la cassette’, Revue historique, nos. 174–5, passim. Cf. 175, pp. 7–7Google Scholar; Black, J. B., Andrew Lang andthe casket letter controversy (Edinburgh, 1951), p. 40Google Scholar; Fraser, A., Mary Queen of Scots (London, 1965), pp. 394–9Google Scholar; Donaldson, G., The first trial of Mary Queen of Scots (London, 1969), pp. 67–73Google Scholar.

⁴ Morton's deposition printed, inter alia, in Davison, M. H. Armstrong, The casket letters. A solution to the mystery of Mary Queen of Scots and the murder of Lord Darnley (London, 1965), pp. 70–1Google Scholar.

⁵ De Silva to Philip II, 2 August 1567; Lang, A., The mystery of Mary Stuart (London, 1902), pp. 211–12Google Scholar. See also Calendar of state papers Spanish, Elizabeth, 1, 567 and Calendar of state papers, Foreign, Elizabeth, VIII, 298.

⁶ For further information on this point see Chauvire, , ‘Etat présent’, Revue historique, no. 174, P. 431Google Scholar.

⁷ The letter is printed, inter alia, in Lang, , The mystery, pp. 394–414Google Scholar.

⁸ That the versions were made from a French text separately is evident from the gallicisms which appear in both translations though not in corresponding places.

⁹ In 1571 the Casket Letters were returned to Morton, and a few years after his execution in 1581 they disappeared for good.

¹⁰ The long Glasgow letter: Lang, , The mystery, pp. 399, 401, 403–4Google Scholar.

¹¹ Ibid. p. 406.

¹² Ibid. pp. 413–14.

¹³ Ibid. p. 404.

¹⁴ Ibid. p. 396.

¹⁵ Ibid. p. 399. William Hiegait, a man in the service of Archbishop Beaton, had spread a rumour that Darnley was preparing a coup d'état.

¹⁶ Whilst some scholars have argued that the two passages make it extremely improbable that the queen wrote her letter during her first and second night in Glasgow, others have dismissed the chronological difficulties, which both of them offer, by saying that the first expression is missing in the English version, and that for the second, the English version gives an incomprehensible text. However, the difficulties cannot be circumvented simply by pointing out the divergent readings of the English text. They must be explained in some other way. Cf. inter alia Hosack, J., Mary Queen of Scots and her accusers, I (Edinburgh, 1870), 209–10Google Scholar; Bresslau, H., ‘Die Kassettenbriefe der Königin Maria Stuart’, Historisches Taschenbuch, vVI 1, pp. 50–1Google Scholar; Henderson, T. F., The casket litters and Mary Queen of Scots (Edinburgh, 1889), p. 88Google Scholar.

¹⁷ A similar opinion has been stated by Sepp, B., Der Originaltext der Cassettenbriefe der Königin Maria Stuart (München, 1888), p. 26Google Scholar. Neither Henderson, nor Lang, or Chauviré seems to have known Sepp's work.

¹⁸ Drury to Cecil, 23 January 1567, State papers, Borders, 59/12, P.R.O.

¹⁹ According to the so-called Moray's journal, the queen arrived on 23 January. This has led some scholars to the conclusion that the external chronology is impossible. However, the journal is not a contemporary source. Its dating cannot be accepted when in conflict with Drury's contemporary evidence. See note 64 below.

²⁰ Paris' deposition: Anderson, J., Collections relating to Mary Queen of Scots, II (Edinburgh, 1725), 199–3Google Scholar.

²¹ The long Glasgow letter: Lang, , The mystery, pp. 404, 409Google Scholar.

²² The short Glasgow letter: ibid. p. 391.

²³ Ibid. p. 392.

²⁴ Paris' deposition: Anderson, Collections, 11, 192. One possibility cannot be excluded. The deposition could have been framed so that it would fit in with the contents of the letters and accord with such generally known facts as Darnley's removal to Kirk o'Field.

²⁵ The short Glasgow letter: Lang, , The mystery, pp. 391–3Google Scholar.

²⁶ The long Glasgow letter: ibid. p. 412. The English version is corrupt.

²⁷ The short Glasgow letter: ibid. p. 393.

²⁸ The rough draft of the deposition in Camb. Univ. Libr. Dd. 3. 64, printed in Henderson, , Mary Queen of Scots: her environment and tragedy, II (London, 1905), 664–8Google Scholar. Henderson did not notice that the sheets on which the draft was written are bound in the wrong order. Through this oversight, Henderson incorrectly put Crawford's conversation with the queen after her conversation with Darnley. Davison makes the same mistake: The casket letters, pp. 166–7.

²⁹ Anderson, , Collections, IV, 168Google Scholar.

³⁰ The thesis that the two documents are independent of each other has been advanced by both Henderson, and Henderson, Lang., The casket Utters, p. 84Google Scholar; Mary Qpeen of Scots, 11, 651Google Scholar; ‘Mr Lang and the casket letters', Scottish Historical Review, v, 168–9Google Scholar; Lang, , The mystery, pp. 302–5Google Scholar; ‘The casket letters’, Scottish Historical Review, v, 11.

³¹ Bresslau, , ‘Die Kassettenbriefe’, pp. 65–6Google Scholar; Lang, , The mystery, p. 313Google Scholar; Chauviré, , Le secret de Marie Stuart (Paris, 1937), pp. 194–5Google Scholar.For the opinion that the letter is the source of the testimony see inter alia Riess, L., ‘Die Lösung des Maria Stuart-Problem’, Historische Zeitschrift, CX, 255–6Google Scholar; Mahon, R. H., Mary Queen of Scots. A study of the Lennox narrative (Cambridge, 1924), p. 136 note 2Google Scholar; Davison, , The casket letters, pp. 166–7Google Scholar.

³² Crawford's deposition (final draft), Lang, , The mystery, p. 428Google Scholar.

³³ The long Glasgow letter, ibid. pp. 397–8.

³⁴ Some of the alterations in the rough draft were noted by Henderson, (Maty Queen of Scots, n, 651)Google Scholar, but they may have been made after the draft was completed. Henderson failed to notice the corrections relevant to the question of the relationship between the letter and the deposition, i. e the corrections made during the actual time of composition. Cf. Davison, , The casket letters, p. 166Google Scholar.

³⁵ Crawford's deposition (rough draft), Camb. Univ. Libr. Dd. 3. 66.

³⁶ The long Glasgow letter: Lang, , The mystery, p. 394Google Scholar.

³⁷ Ibid. pp. 407–8.

³⁸ Crawford's deposition (rough draft), Camb. Univ. Libr. Dd. 3. 66.

³⁹ The long Glasgow letter: Lang, , The mystery, p. 394Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Crawford's deposition (final draft): ibid. p. 427.

⁴¹ The long Glasgow letter: ibid. pp. 400–1.

⁴² Crawford's deposition (final draft): ibid. p. 429.

⁴³ Ibid. p. 430.

⁴⁴ Ibid. p. 431.

⁴⁵ Davison is an exception. He states that ‘not one iota of reliance can be placed upon this fabricated evidence’ (The casket letters, p. 167). Davison's opinion is that the long Glasgow letter is not genuine, and his principal aim is to show that the deposition does not confirm the authenticity of the letter. He fails to draw any of the important conclusions which can be drawn from an analysis of the deposition.

⁴⁶ Lang does not pay much heed to this, affirming instead that ‘we know nothing else against the man’ (The mystery, pp. 280, 309–10). But this fact alone would suffice to throw suspicion on Crawford as a witness.

⁴⁷ De Silva to Philip II, 2 August 1567; Lang, , The mystery, pp. 211–12Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Hosack, , Mary Queen of Scots, 1, 216–18Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Camb. Univ. Libr. Oo. 7. 47/8, printed in Henderson, , Mary Queen of Scots, n, 653–8Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Lennox' indictment: ibid. pp. 657—8.

⁵¹ Lang, , The mystery, pp. 214–15, 231–2Google Scholar.

⁵² Cf. Henderson, , Mary Queen of Scots, 11, 646–7Google Scholar.

⁵³ Ibid. pp. 641–2.

⁵⁴ Lennox' indictment: ibid. p. 657.

⁵⁵ De Silva to Philip II, 2 August 1567; Lang, , The mystery, p. 212Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ The same argument can be used against Donaldson, who thinks it ‘likely that the document described by Moray and Lennox was a preliminary essay at a complete forgery which it was decided to supersede by a more subtle concoction which was partly genuine’. The first trial, p. 71.

⁵⁷ Lennox' indictment: Henderson, , Mary Queen of Scots, II, 654Google Scholar. Lennox also uses the expression ‘innocent lamb’ about Darnley. Ibid. p. 662.

⁵⁸ Lennox' indictment: ibid. p. 657.

⁵⁹ The bias is of the same kind as we meet in Crawford's deposition, but with this difference: that it is not concentrated in some isolated expressions and phrases, but can be detected everywhere and is present in almost every line.

⁶⁰ Camb. Univ. Libr. Dd. 3. 66; Oo. 7. 47/11.

⁶¹ Moray's journal: Anderson, , Collections, II, 269Google Scholar.

⁶² Ibid. p. 273.

⁶³ See p. 530 above.

⁶⁴ It should be noted that the journal in its present form was written after the Casket Letters were found: ‘The Quene remaynit at Glasgow…and hayd the conference with the King whereof she wryttis and this tyme wrayt hir bylle and uther letteris to Bothwell…’

⁶⁵ The long Glasgow letter: Lang, , The mystery, pp. 398–400Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ Ibid. p. 404.

⁶⁷ Ibid. pp. 403, 413.

⁶⁸ Ibid. p. 406. The Scottish version has: ‘I had rather be deid or I did it’.

⁶⁹ Ibid. pp. 409–10.

⁷⁰ One can thus dismiss as impossible a theory put forward by Davison that the long Glasgow letter is composed from two different letters written to different persons ‘with a few rather small additions on the part of a forger’ (The casket letters, pp. 227, 251). Davison's theory, which was accepted by Donaldsonc, (The fist trial, p. 73)Google Scholar, is built on a chain of conjectures.

⁷¹ The long Glasgow letter: Lang, , The mystery, p. 409Google Scholar.

⁷² Lennox' second indictment (rough draft), Camb. Univ. Libr. Dd. 3. 66; The Book of Articles: Hosack, , Mary Queen of Scots, I, 534Google Scholar.

⁷³ Black, , Andrew Lang, p. 40Google Scholar.