FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347  
348   349   350   351   352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   >>   >|  
The conclusion arrived at here is that of Henderson, but it is reached independently. The history of the letters must be given in summary. Henderson, in _The Casket Letters_ (1889), was the first to publish and use as evidence a document of which the existence was made known in the fifth report of the royal commission on historical manuscripts. It is a sworn statement of the earl of Morton, written in 1568. A silver casket (originally Mary's property, but then in the possession of Bothwell) was placed in his hands on the 20th of June, and was inspected by several nobles and gentlemen on the 21st of June 1567. Morton denies that the contents, the letters, sonnets, and some other papers, had been in any way tampered with. But if Moray could knowingly submit garbled evidence, Morton's oath is of no value if uncorroborated. Mary was, on the 21st of June 1567, a prisoner in Loch Leven Castle. A messenger was at once sent from Edinburgh to London with a letter from Lethington and a verbal message. By the 12th of July, de Silva, the Spanish ambassador, reports on the authority of the French ambassador that du Croc, French envoy to Scotland, avers that Mary's Scottish enemies have autograph letters of hers proving her guilt, and himself possesses copies. Of these copies no more is heard, and they cannot be found. According to de Silva, Elizabeth said that she did not believe in the Letters, and that Lethington, who wrote to Cecil on the 21st of June, and sent a verbal message by the bearer, "had behaved badly in the matter,"--whether that of the letters, or in general. On what evidence she based that opinion, if she really held it, is unknown. In December 1567 the Scottish parliament was informed that the letters were _signed_ by Mary (they are unsigned), but the phrase is not used in the subsequent act of parliament. The letters were exhibited and apparently were read, probably read aloud. Mary's party in September 1568 declared that they were garbled, and that the handwriting was not hers. In the end of July 1567 the earl of Moray, Mary's brother, passing through London from France, told de Silva, as de Silva reported to his government, that there was proof of Mary's guilt in a letter of three double sheets of paper _signed_ by her. According to Moray's version of the letter, Mary was to try to poison Darnley in a house on the way between Glasgow and Edinburgh where he and she were to stop. Clearly Lord Livingstone's hou
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347  
348   349   350   351   352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

letters

 

Morton

 
evidence
 

letter

 

message

 
Henderson
 
ambassador
 
Letters
 

verbal

 

Edinburgh


Lethington
 

London

 

According

 
Scottish
 
French
 
parliament
 
copies
 

signed

 

garbled

 
general

matter

 

opinion

 

Elizabeth

 

arrived

 

bearer

 
behaved
 

conclusion

 

sheets

 

version

 

double


reported

 

government

 
poison
 

Darnley

 

Clearly

 

Livingstone

 

Glasgow

 
France
 

subsequent

 

exhibited


phrase

 

unsigned

 

December

 

informed

 

apparently

 
brother
 
passing
 

handwriting

 

declared

 

September