ertain that Darnley had reported to Crawford his brave words
and reproaches of Mary, which Crawford gives in the proper place. But
Letter II. omits them in that place (paragraph 7); and only on her
second day of writing, in paragraph 18, does Mary's mind recur to
Darnley's first brave words--"he spoke very bravely at the beginning,"
about his wrongs, "but in the end he returned again to his humility."

Here is proof positive that Crawford does not copy Letter II., but gives
Darnley's words as reported to him by Darnley--words that Darnley was
proud of,--while Mary, returning on the second day of writing to the
topic, does not quote Darnley's brave words, but merely contrasts his
speaking "very bravely at the beginning" with his pitiful and craven
later submission; "he has ever the tear in his eye," with what follows.
(_Mystery_, paragraph 12, p. 402.)

When we add to these and other proofs the strange lists of memoranda in
the middle of the pages of the letter, and the breach in internal
chronology which was apparently caused by Mary's writing, on her second
day, on the clean verso of a page on the other side of which she had
written some lines during her first night in Glasgow; when we add the
dramatic changes of her mood, and the heart-breaking evidence of a
remorse not stifled by lawless love, we seem compelled to believe that
she wrote the whole of Letter II.; that none of it is forged.

In _The Mystery of Mary Stuart_ the evidence for an early forged letter
was presented with confidence; the interpolation of forgeries based on
Crawford's declaration was more dubiously suggested. That position the
writer now abandons. It may be asked why, after being with Wood on the
11th of June, did Lennox still rely on Moray's version of Mary's letter?
The reply may be that the Scots versions were regarded as a great
secret; that Lennox was a married man; and that though Lennox in June
knew about Mary's letters, doubtless from Wood, or from common report
(Bishop Jewell in a letter of August 1567 mentions that he had heard of
them), yet Wood did not show to him the Scots copies. Lennox quotes
Letter II. later, in an indictment to be read to the commission sitting
at York (October 1568). But, on the other hand, as Lennox after meeting
Wood wrote to Crawford for his reminiscences of his own interview with
Mary (January 21, 1567), and as these reminiscences were only useful as
corroborative of Mary's account in Letter II., it seems