There were, besides, two circumstances which afforded them peculiar facilities, and of which they were no doubt glad to avail themselves. The first was, that Mary’s hand-writing was not very difficult of imitation. “It was formed,” says Goodall, “after what is commonly called Italic print, which it much resembled both in beauty and regularity.”259 All the letters being shaped according to certain definite rules, there would be fewer singularities in the writing, and less danger of the forger committing mistakes. Mary herself alluded to the facility with which her hand could be imitated, in her instructions to her Commissioners on the opening of the conferences, and mentioned also another important fact. “In case they allege,” she says, “that they have any writings of mine, which may infer presumption against me, you shall desire the principals to be produced, and that I myself may have inspection thereof, and make answer thereto. For you shall affirm, in my name, I never wrote any thing concerning that matter to any creature; and if any such writings be, they are false and feigned, forged and invented by themselves, only to my dishonour and slander. And there are divers in Scotland, both men and women, that can counterfeit my hand-writing, and write the like manner of writing which I use, as well as myself, and principally such as are in company with themselves.”260 “There are sundry who can counterfeit her hand-write,” says Lesley, “who have been brought up in her company, of whom there are some assisting themselves, as well of other nations as of Scotland. And I doubt not but your Majesty,” (he is addressing Elizabeth), “and divers others of your Highness’s Court, has seen sundry letters sent here from Scotland, which would not be known from her own hand-write; and it may be well presumed, in so weighty a cause, that they who have put hands on their Prince, imprisoned her person, and committed such heinous crimes, if a counterfeit letter be sufficient to save them, to maintain their cause, and conquer for them a kingdom, will not leave the same unforged, ‘cum si violandum est jus, imperii causa violandum est.’” In still further confirmation of these facts, Blackwood mentions that the hand-writing of Mary Beaton, one of her maids of honour, could not possibly be distinguished from that of the Queen;261 and Camden and other contemporary authors speak of it as a matter of established notoriety, that Maitland often counterfeited her hand.262
The second facility which the forgers enjoyed, arose from their either possessing among them, or having access to, many genuine letters of Mary. This is a circumstance of some consequence, and has scarcely been sufficiently attended to by the various writers on the subject. It at once obviates Robertson’s cause of wonder, that the letters should be “filled with a multiplicity of circumstances, extremely natural in a real correspondence, but altogether foreign to the purpose of the Queen’s enemies.” In all probability, Mary wrote to her Secretary Maitland from Glasgow, and had of course written to him a hundred times before. There is every reason to believe also, that she corresponded with Maitland’s wife, Mary Fleming, who had been one of her friends and attendants from infancy. Murray must have had in his possession numerous letters from his sister. Where then was the difficulty of founding these forgeries upon writings which were not forgeries, and of making it almost impossible for any one but Mary herself to detect what was genuine in them from what was fabricated? Many passages might be introduced which Mary had actually written, but which she had applied in some very different manner; and here and there might be artfully interwoven a few sentences which she never wrote, but which seemed so naturally connected with the rest, that they fixed upon her soul the guilt of adultery and murder. There is nothing which ought to be more constantly borne in mind, whenever these writings are read or discussed, than the probability, we might almost say the certainty, that the originals contained parts which had been actually written by Mary, although neither addressed to Bothwell, nor ever meant to be twisted into the sense which was afterwards put upon them; and which appeared the true meaning only, in consequence of their having been so much garbled and disfigured.
Were we disposed to enter still more minutely into an examination of these writings, it would not be difficult to show, as Goodall, Tytler, Whittaker and Chalmers, have in various instances done, that they abound in many other symptoms of forgery, which, though not perhaps conclusive, when taken separately, make up, when combined, a very strong presumption against them. It might be shown, for example, first, that as Mary, in all probability, did not set off for Glasgow till Friday the 24th of January 1567, and staid a night at Callendar on the way, it is quite impossible she could have been at Glasgow on Saturday the 25th, though her second letter ends with these words: – “From Glasgow, this Saturday, in the morning.”263 She is thus made to have written two letters from Glasgow, one of them a very long one, by Saturday morning; while, in point of fact, she could not have reached that town till Saturday afternoon. “Non sunt hæc satis divisa temporibus.”264 It might be shown, second, that these letters were neither addressed, signed, nor sealed; and that, in the words of Whittaker, “it violates every principle of probability to suppose, that letters with such a plenitude of murderous evidence in them should be sent open.”265 It might be shown, third, that before the appearance of the letters, they were differently described at different times, as if they were gradually undergoing changes; – that in the Act of Privy Council, in which they are first referred to, they are mentioned as Mary’s “Privy Letters, written and subscribed with her own hand;” – but in the Act of Parliament passed a few weeks afterwards, they are only spoken of as “written wholly with her own hand,” not, “written and subscribed;”266 – that though at first nothing was spoken of as having been found in the box but the “Privy Letters,” “written and subscribed with her own hand,” and afterwards only “wholly written with her own hand,” yet, before the box made its appearance at York, love-sonnets and contracts of marriage were also found in it; – and that at York and Westminster only five letters were laid before the Commissioners, though the number afterwards printed was eight. “Did the three remaining letters,” asks Whittaker, “lie still lower in the box, under the contracts and sonnets, and so escape the notice of the rebels?”267 It might be shown, fourth, that all the letters are contradicted and overthrown by the first three lines of the ninth sonnet, which are, in French, and in English – “For him also I shed many a tear, when he first made himself possessor of this body, of which he did not then possess the heart.”268 In the letters, Mary is made, with the most violent protestations of love, to suggest arrangements for her pretended abduction by Bothwell; yet here she expressly says, that when he first carried her off, he did not possess her heart. How then could she have written him love-letters before this event? These and other things might be insisted on. The sonnets and contracts of marriage might be also minutely examined and proved, both to contradict one another, and to be liable, in a still stronger degree, to almost all the objections which have been advanced against the letters.269 But it is much better to rest Mary’s innocence on the broad basis of her life and character, and a distinct statement of leading and incontrovertible facts, than on wranglings about dates, or disputations concerning detached incidents and ill-authenticated papers.
– “Pour luy aussi J’ay jeté mainte larme,
Premier qu’il fust de ce corps possesseur,
Du quel alors il n’avoit pas le cœur;”
From a full review of the proof on both sides, and an ample examination of all the principal facts advanced in the controversy, it appears evident that one of two conclusions must be formed. Either that Mary, having formed a criminal attachment to Bothwell, encouraged him to perpetrate the murder, and that, having thus become responsible for at least an equal share of the guilt, was justly imprisoned and dethroned; or that, never having had any excessive love for Bothwell, she was altogether ignorant of his designs, and irresponsible for his crimes, of which his own lawless ambition made her the victim, and with which the treachery of Murray, Morton and Elizabeth, too successfully contrived to involve her for the remainder of her life. That the latter conclusion is that to which impartial inquiry must inevitably lead, these Memoirs, it is hoped, have sufficiently established. That the arguments in Mary’s favour, drawn from the history of her life and death, are not invalidated by the contents of the “gilt coffer,” it has been the object of the present Examination to prove.
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 whom, at best, she never felt any thing but common regard, and who was obliged to seize and carry off her person, in order to force her into an unwilling marriage, – because such letters, if they had been written, would not have been preserved by Bothwell, or, if preserved, would have been more numerous, – because the story of their discovery is altogether improbable, since Bothwell, for the most satisfactory reasons, would never have thought of sending for them to the Castle of Edinburgh on the 20th of June 1567, – because not a word was said about them long after they were discovered, but, on the contrary, motives quite inconsistent with their contents assigned for sequestrating Mary’s person in Loch-Leven, – because, though Dalgleish was tried, condemned, and executed, not a question was put to him, as appears by his examination, still extant, concerning these letters, – because the originals were only produced twice, and that under suspicious and unsatisfactory circumstances, – because nothing but translations, and translations from translations, of these originals, now exist, from which no fair arguments 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 numerous party in England, and all her Continental friends, avowed their belief of her innocence, – because the confessions and depositions of Bothwell’s accomplices, so far from implicating, tended to acquit her of all blame, though 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 composition of many passages, are not such as could ever have come from Mary’s pen, – because every facility was given to forgery 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 time in which they are alleged 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, from all the blacker crimes with which she has been charged, must still continue matter of doubt, it is not too much to declare all history uncertain, and virtue and vice merely convertible terms.
ADDENDUM
Through the kindness of William Traill, Esq. of Woodwick, Orkney, we are enabled to give the following authentic genealogical account of the manner in which the interesting portrait of Mary Queen of Scots, engraved for this Work, and particularly described in Vol. I. Chap. IV., came into the possession of his family.
“Sir Robert Stewart of Strathdon, son of King James V., by Eupham, daughter of Alexander, 1st Lord Elphingston, 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 James VI., 28th October 1581. He married Lady Jean Kennedy, daughter 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 accompanied the Earl to Orkney; got a grant from the Earl of the lands of Quandale, in the Island of Ronsay, and, as stewart or factor, managed the affairs of the earldom. By Jean Kennedy he had one son, the first Thomas Traill of Holland. He afterwards married Isobel Craigie of Gairsay, by whom he had James Traill of Quandale, who married Ann Baikie of Burness. Lady Barbara Stewart, the Earl’s youngest daughter, married Hugh Halcro of Halcro, a descendant of the Royal Family of Denmark, and who possessed a great 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 moveables, and amongst the rest, the family picture of Queen Mary. Hugh Halcro of that Ilk, the eldest son of this marriage, succeeded his father, and married Jean, daughter of William Stewart of Mains and Burray. Vid. Charters 1615 and 1620. In 1644, this Hugh Halcro executed a settlement in favour of Hugh his Oye, and his heirs; whom failing, to Patrick his brother; whom failing, to Harry fiar of Aikrs; whom failing, to Edward of Hauton; whom all failing, to the name of Halcro. Hugh the Oye, married Margaret, daughter 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, married Barbara Greem, by whom he had two daughters, 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.”