led by Lord Robert
to Mary. Lord Robert was the only friend of Darnley in Mary's entourage;
and he even, according to the accusers, warned him of his danger in Kirk
o' Field, to which they said that a Casket Letter (III.) referred. The
reference is only to be seen by willing eyes.

Is it credible that a forger, using Crawford's Declaration, which is
silent as to Mary's brother at Stirling, should have superfluously added
what is not to any purpose? Could he have combined with Crawford's
matter the passage "he (Darnley) showed me almost all that is in name of
the Bishop and Sutherland, and yet I have never touched a word of what
you (Bothwell) showed me ... and by complaining of the Bishop, I have
drawn it all out of him."

Who but Mary herself could have written about this unknown affair of the
Bishop, and what had the supposed forger to gain by inventing and adding
these references to affairs unconnected with the case?

There remains what looks like absolute proof that, in essence,
Crawford's Declaration and Letter II. are independent documents. We are
not aware that this crucial point has been noticed by the earlier
critics of the Letters. In Letter II. (paragraph 7, p. 398, in Lang's
_Mystery of Mary Stuart_, 1901) Mary writes, "I asked why he (Darnley)
would pass away in the English ship. He denies it, and swears thereunto;
but he grants that he spoke unto the men." Here Crawford's declaration
has, "She asked him why he would pass away in the English ship. He
answered that he had spoken with the Englishman, but not of mind to go
away with him. And, if he had, it had not been without cause,
considering how he was used. For he had neither [means] to sustain
himself nor his servants, and need not make further rehearsal thereof,
seeing she knew it as well as he." (_Mystery of Mary Stuart_, p. 429.)

It may seem to the reader doubtful whether these complaints are words of
Darnley's, or an indignant addition by his friend Crawford. But Mary, in
Letter II., shows that the complaints and the self-defence are Darnley's
own. It was in paragraph 7 that she wrote about the English ship; she
did not then give Darnley's remonstrances, as Crawford does. But in
paragraph 18 (_Mystery_, p. 406) Mary returns to the subject, and
writes, "He (Darnley) spoke very bravely at the beginning, as the bearer
will show you, upon the subject of the Englishmen, and of his departing;
but in the end he returned to his humility."

Thus it is c