Vous depeignez de cire mon las ceur, Et tout cela augmente mon ardeur. The contents and form of the letters agree with the sonnets, and the credibility of both is again confirmed by the depositions of those who, after the fall of Mary, were called to account, and executed for their participation in the King's murder, as well as by the whole course of the events. Some allusions, which are in themselves unintelligible, were explained a century afterwards by Mary's correspondence with her Ambassador in Paris. Forgers could not be acquainted with the subject of these allusions, they would certainly not have gone so much into detail on a number of things which were not connected with the main point, and must necessarily make the deception so much easier to be discovered: least of all would they have ventured into the domain of lyric poetry, and would have expressed the participation and guilt of Mary in much plainer, positive terms. Both the letters as well as the sonnets give evidence of a mind entirely under the dominion of the passion of love; they prove, not in plain words, but sufficiently for every impartial person, that Mary lived on a footing of improper intimacy with Bothwell, and was aware of his plans to murder her husband. Between her hatred of him and her wish to get rid of him, traces of fear, scruples of conscience, remorse, do indeed inter vene; but they were entirely overcome by the violence of that criminal passion; they never amounted to a resolution to save Darnley, though (as the letters do not conceal,) he sought a reconciliation in the most affecting manner, nay, implored his hypocritical consort to grant it. One thing only may remain doubtful: whether Mary gave her consent to Bothwell's plans generally, or whether she was personally made fully acquainted with the manner in which the murder was at length perpetrated. It is evident, from the preceding account, that Mary was fully convinced of the authenticity of the letters and sonnets, and greatly dreaded their being produced; and even Chalmers, the most passionate advocate of Mary, confesses that it was most injudicious not to answer to such ant accusation as soon as possible, and it was still more foolish to refuse to make any reply, after Mary (to say nothing of the partiality of the mode of proceeding,) had assented to the investigation. Even the manner in which those papers disappeared in the time of James I. is a proof of their importance, whereas a pretended will of Bothwell, wholly acquitting Mary, is a forgery; and, even were it genuine, would not weaken the force of the proofs on the other side. The fact that James, who resided for a long time in Denmark and Norway, published nothing in favour of his mother, is a tolerable proof that nothing could be found. Those who, (like Whitaker, Gilbert Stewart, Chalmers, and others,) without having made any discoveries of importance, maintain the spuriousness of Mary's letters and sonnets, and her entire innocence, run, as we have said, by rejecting the most. simple explanation, by disregarding the most natural connection of the circumstances, into extravagant and endless hypotheses.(6) In order to clear Mary alone they declare Murray, the Reformers, Elizabeth, all the Lords of the privy council, the Scotch Parliament, the most judicious writers, to be altogether cheats, forgers, and blockheads; and because one concoction of false documents will by no means suffice to explain the transactions, it is pretended, that in a quite incomprehensible manner, they were altered, three or four times, without any persons remarking it, or choosing to remark it. Murray (such is the tendency of the opinions of those writers,) was the author of the King's murder: he resolved to destroy Darnley, (who did not stand in his way,) in order to elevate Bothwell, (who had long been his enemy, and from whom he had much to fear,) and to marry him to the Queen; hé then desired to have the innocent found guilty, and himself declared innocent and raised to the throne. Bothwell, says Chalmers, demanded the Queen as a reward for the murder, from the conspirators, (that is, in his opinion, first of Murray, who, however, was absent in France;) he did not prevail on her to agree to the marriage, for he had no ascendency over her! (87) These unproved and most improbable assertions have been already fully exposed by Thuanus, and all the long dissertations that have since been written on the subject have been so candidly and thoroughly examined and refuted in the first two volumes of Malcolm Laing's History of Scotland, that we may confidently refer any who may still doubt to them. Of course, Mary could not but be dissatisfied with the issue of the conferences at Westminster; and besides, letters fell into the hands of Elizabeth, in which Mary, alleging many grievances, encouraged her partisans in Scotland, hinting at powerful support, which it was supposed would come from the Catholic Princes and the Pope. Elizabeth would, on this account, have willingly removed Mary from England, or given her up to Scotland, on satisfactory conditions; but the Scotch would by no means hear of her restoration, France and Spain disapproved of her being delivered up to her adversaries, and it was difficult to find out measures which would have secured all parties. However, negociations were entered into with the Scotch in August, 1569, respecting what hostages and pledges they would give, if Mary were sent back with the condition that no violence should be done her. The Duke of Norfolk, the richest and most dis tinguished man in England, moderate, and in favour with Elizabeth, as well as with the people, made again at this time, secretly and unadvisedly, overtures for a marriage with Mary, and for a treaty by which she should be restored in Scotland, and declared to be the future successor of Elizabeth. This, it was said, would be a salutary means of preventing the marriage of Mary to a powerful Catholic Prince; but the Scotch, penetrating other views, instead of promoting Mary's divorce from Bothwell, gave, as is related, the bitter answer, "that she might apply to the King of Denmark to have her husband executed, then she would be free and might marry whom she pleased." Mary, in her tender letters, promised the Duke eternal love, constancy, and obedience; and he was so weak as to forget, for these prospects, all caution, and even his most imperative duties. For it was certainly more than suspicious that Elizabeth was not made acquainted with these plans, and very foolish that her future assent to these conditions was taken for granted. Norfolk, as he paid no regard to Elizabeth's warnings, was arrested in October, 1569; Mary was removed to Coventry, as a place of greater security; and the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland, who were suspected, were ordered to come to court. They, conscious of their guilt, instead of obeying had recourse to arms, and publicly declared that the object of their enterprise |