ad belonged to the queen's first husband, and which now
contained papers, the property of her third husband. Among them were
eight letters, not directed, or dated, or signed, but which were
recognised by those who saw them to be in the handwriting of the
queen.

Towards the end of July it began to be whispered, by Moray in London,
by Throckmorton at Edinburgh, that they proved her complicity in the
death of Darnley, and justified the Lords in deposing her. In the
following year, when Mary had sought a refuge in England, these papers
were produced, and they furnished the argument by which Elizabeth
justified the detention of the Scottish queen. The decisive piece is a
long document, known as the Glasgow letter, which alludes distinctly
to the intended crime. As it contains a conversation with Darnley,
which he repeated to Crawford, one of his officers, the confirmation
thus supplied caused it to be widely accepted at the time, and by the
four writers I named just now.

That is what puts them out of court; for the letter was evidently
concocted by men who had Crawford's report before them. The letter is
spurious, and it is the only one that connects the queen with the
death of Darnley. It does not follow that the others are spurious,
for they add nothing to the case. The forgers, having constructed the
damning piece, would not be likely to do more. Every additional
forgery would increase the risk of detection, without any purpose.
What purported to be the originals do not exist. They can be traced
down to 1584, and no farther. The handwriting can no longer be
tested. Until lately, the French text of the letters was not known,
and they could be studied only in translations.

Since 1872, when the Hatfield letters were discovered, and were
printed at Brussels, we possess four in their original shape. These
cannot be seriously impeached. The comparison of the style and
language with that of Mary's undisputed writings shows that they
correspond; and they do not resemble in the same degree those of her
contemporaries. The ablest of Mary's advocates accept these letters as
genuine. But they deny that they were written to Bothwell. The writer
speaks of a secret marriage, which she would like to disclose. There
certainly was no secret marriage with Bothwell; but it is a possible
hypothesis that she may have married Darnley in secret before the
ceremonial wedding. Therefore this letter, which is a love letter,