cause; for that when anie offendethe me, if for mye refuge I might open mye minde to yow, I would speak to no other; but when ainie thing is spoken to me, and ye and I not beinge as husband and wife ought to be, necessitee compelleth me to kepe it in my brest," &c.

I micht playne unto yow, I wold speiks it unto na uther body; but quhen I heir ony thing, not being familiar with yow, neccessitie constrains me to keip it in my briest," &c.

I venture to affirm that the two most skilful reporters in the world, sitting side by side, and recording the words as they fell from the lips of the speakers, could not have preserved a more perfect verbal accord. It is clear as day, indeed, that the two documents were drawn by the same hand, were coined in the same mint. But what does this imply? The persons for whom Crawfurd's report was prepared were the persons who afterwards produced the Glasgow letter; and the inference that the letter was (so far) copied from the deposition appears to be irresistible. Where the rest of the letter was taken from, we have at present no means of knowing.1

This is the case that has been made against

1 Here again the question of the original language of the letters comes in. Is it conceivable that that part of the (Scots) Glasgow letter which corresponds word for word with Crawfurd's deposition could have been translated from the

French? This is to reverse the natural order, which is,1. Crawfurd's deposition; 2. Crawfurd's deposition copied into the Scots version of the Glasgow letter; 3. The Scots version of the letter translated into French.

the Casket Letters. I do not say that it is conclusive. Though it is extremely unlikely that the letters were written by Mary, yet it cannot be asserted with absolute certainty of conviction that she did not write them. The historian, however, is not required to address himself to the solution of problems which the lapse of time, or the animosity of partisans, may have rendered insoluble. He has to consider only whether certain documents, to which, ever since they were first produced, acute suspicion has been held to attach, can be accepted by him as material on which it is safe to build. For my own part, I am slow to believe that any entirely candid and cautious inquirer will henceforth be willing to accept the responsibility. He will hold, on the contrary, that the contents of Morton's casket have been insufficiently authenticated, and that Mary must be condemned, if condemned at all, upon other evidence.

CHAPTER THREE.

THE DOUGLAS WARS.

THE death of Moray is a distinct landmark in

the contest which had been begun when the Confederate Lords first rose against their Sovereign. Maitland had for some months now been regarded, both at home and abroad, as the leader of the Queen's party; on Moray's death the "King's men" had to look about for a new leader, and the new leader was found in Morton. The "dark and dangerous" Douglas was a man eminently suited to the time; and yet, from almost every point of view, his character was detestable. He was insatiably greedy. It was said of Moray that his avarice was like the bottomless pit; the saying might have been applied far more truly to Morton. He was notoriously and shamelessly profligate. He had no lawful issue; but the richest benefices in Scotland were held by a score of needy bastards. He was hard, cruel, unscrupulous. He had as little mercy for

man as he had respect for woman. His rivals died like flies; and his Castle of Dalkeith-to which he sullenly withdrew when the evil mood was on him-was, in popular parlance, "the Lion's Den." But he was a strong man,—a man of no mean political sagacity who went straight to his mark. He had immense patience, unflinching firmness, dog-like tenacity. Though feared and hated, he was implicitly obeyed. The earlier Regents-Moray, Lennox, Marwere puppets in his hand. He held Scotland in an iron grip. He brought the lawless Borderers to their senses,-" a matter not heard nor seen in many ages before."1 In spite of his vices, in spite of his crimes, he was the trusted leader of the Congregation: and though he treated the preachers with cynical insolence, and though his Tulchan Bishops were a scandal to the Church, yet in a sense he was always true to the Reformation. His lewd conversation, his filthy jests, his shameless greed, his rapacious exactions, his unclean life, were forgiven; for he was one of the "elect," and do what he chose he could not forfeit his birthright.

The funeral of the Regent was the occasion of a great gathering of the Lords in Edinburgh; and by them-when the ceremony in St Giles'

1 Murdin, 203.

was over-Maitland was brought down from the Castle, and, being placed at the bar to answer the charge preferred against him by Crawfurd, was promptly acquitted. "After his coming he made ane perfect oration, in sic sort and manner, that all the Lords, yea, his verry enemies, judgit him to be innocent thereof." 1

Moray had been in a sense the lawful Regent: but Moray was gone; and the course was now clear for Mary. There would be no peace for the distracted country until their lawful Sovereign was restored. This was Maitland's view, and it was the view of Grange, and Huntly, and Hume, and Herries, and Hamilton, and three-fourths of the peers and people of Scotland. But peace and prosperity in Scotland under Mary was a prospect which Elizabeth did not relish: nor did Morton; and between them they made peace impossible. The Scottish Anarchy was their joint work.

Elizabeth for fifteen years was the evil genius of Scotland. During all that time she did her best to make anything like orderly or settled government impossible. She did not desire, as so many of the English kings had desired, to extend the English border from the Tweed to the Tay. It would have been better, perhaps, if her

1 Diurnal of Occurrents, 158.