Crawford’s Deposition
(State Papers, Scotland, Elizabeth, vol. xiii. No. 14. Cal. Foreign State Papers, Elizabeth, vol. viii. No. 954, February 1566-7.)
The Wordes betwixt the Q. and me Thomas Crawforde bye the waye as she came to Glasco to fetche the kinge, when mye L. my Master sent me to showe her the cause whye he came not to mete her him sellfe.
Firste I made my L. mye masters humble com̃endac̃ons vnto her Mati wth thexcuse yt he came not to mete her praing her grace not to thinke it was eathr for prowdnesse or yet for not knowinge hys duetye towardes her highnesse, but onelye for want of helye at ye present, and allso yt he woulde not p’sume to com in her presence vntille he knewe farder her minde bicause of the sharpe Wordes yt she had spoken of him to Robert Cuningham hys servant in Sterling. Wherebye he thought he Was in her Matis displesvre Notwithstanding he hathe sent hys servantᕦ and frendᕦ to waite vppon her Mati.
She aunswered yt there was no recept against feare.
I aunswered yt mye L. had no feare for anie thinge he knewe in him sellf, but onelye of the colde and vnkinde Wordes she had spoken to hys servant.
She aunswered and said yt he woulde not be a fraide in case he were not culpable.
I aunswered yt I knewe so farr of hys Lordsh. yt he desired nothing more than yt the secretts vf everye creatures harte were writtē in theire face.
She asked me yf I had anie farder com̃ission.
I aunswered no.
Then she com̃aunded me to holde mye peace.
The Wordes yt I remembr were betwixt the Kinge and the Q. in Glasco when she took him awaie to Edinbrowghe.
The Kinge for yt mye L. hys father was then absent and sicke, bye reason whereof he could not speke wth him him sellfe, called me vnto him and theise wordes that had then passed betwixt him and the Quene, he gaue me in remembraunce to reporte vnto the said mye Lord hys father.
After theire metinge and shorte speking to gethr she asked him of his lr̃es, wherein he complained of the cruelltye of som.
He aunswered yt he complained not wthowt cause and as he beleved, she woulde graunte her sellfe when she was well advised.
She asked him of hys sicknesse, he answered yt she was the cause thereof, and moreover he saide, Ye asked me What I ment bye the crueltye specified in mye lr̃es, yt procedeth of yow onelye yt wille not accepte mye offres and repentaunce, I confesse yt I haue failed in som thingᕦ, and yet greater fautes haue bin made to yow sundrye times, wch ye haue forgiuē. I am but yonge, and ye will saye ye haue forgiuē me diverse tymes. Maye not a man of mye age for lacke of Counselle, of wch I am verye destitute falle twise or thrise, and yet repent and be chastised bye experience? Yf I haue made anye faile yt ye but thinke a faile, howe so ever it be, I crave yor ᵱdone and protest yt I shall never faile againe. I desire no othr thinge but yt we maye be to geathr as husband and wife. And yf ye will not consent hereto, I desire never to rise forthe of thys bed. Therefore I praye yow give me an aunswer here vnto. God knowethe howe I am punished for makinge mye god of yow and for having no othr thowght but on yow. And yf at anie tyme I offend yow, ye are the cause, for yt whẽ anie offendethe me, if for mye refuge I might open mye minde to yow, I woulde speak to no other, but whē anie thinge ys spokē to me, and ye and I not beinge as husband and wife owght to be, necessite compelleth me to kepe it in my breste and bringethe me in suche melancolye as ye see me in.
She aunswered yt it semed him she was sorye for hys sicknesse, and she woulde finde remedye therefore so sone as she might.
She asked him Whye he woulde haue passed awaye in Thenglishe shipp.
He aunswered yt he had spokē wt thenglishe mã but not of minde to goe awaie wt him. And if he had, it had not bin wthowt cause consideringe howe he was vsed. For he had neathr to susteine him sellfe nor hys servantᕦ, and nede not make farder rehersalle thereof, seinge she knewe it as well as he.
Then she asked him of the purpose of Hegate, he aunswered yt it was tolde him.
She required howe and bye whome it was told him.
He aunswered yt the L. of Minto tolde him yt a lr̃e was presented to her in Cragmiller made bye her own divise and subscribed by certeine others who desired her to subscribe the same, wch she refused to doe. And he said that he woulde never thinke yt she who was his owne propre fleshe, woulde do him anie hurte, and if anie othr woulde do it, theye shuld bye it dere, vnlesse theye took him sleping, albeit he suspected none. So he desired her effectuouslye to beare him companye. For she ever fownde som adoe to drawe her selfe frõ him to her owne lodginge and woulde never abyde wt him past two howres at once.
She was verye pensiffe. Whereat he fownd faulte he said to her yt he was advrtised she had browght a litter wt her.
She aunswered yt bicause she vnderstoode he was not hable to ryde on horseback, she brought a litter, yt he might be caried more softlye.
He aunswered yt yt was not mete for a sick mā to travelle yt coulde not sitt on horsebacke and especiallye in so colde weather.
She aunswered yt she would take him to Cragmiller where she might be wt him and not farre from her sonne.
He aunswered yt vppon condic̃on he would goe wth her wch was that he and she might be to geathr at bedde and borde as husband and wife, and yt she should leaue him no more. And if she would promise him yt, vppon her worde he would goe wth her, where she pleised wthowt respecte of anye dangr eathr of sicknesse, wherein he was, or otherwise. But if she would not condescend thereto, he would not goe wth her in anye wise.
She aunswered that her comminge was onelye to that effecte, and if she had not bin minded thereto, she had not com so farre to fetche him, and so she graunted hys desire and pomised him yt it should be as he had spoken, and therevppon gave him her hand and faithe of her bodye yt she woulde love him and vse him as her husband. Notwithstanding before theye coulde com to geathr he must be purged and clensed of hys sicknesse, wch she truisted woulde be shortlye for she minded to giue him the bathe at Cragmillr. Than he said he would doe what soever she would have him doe, and would love all that she loved. She required of him in especialle, whome he loved of the nobilitie and Whome he hated.
He aunswered yt he hated no mã, and loved all alike well.
She asked him how he liked the Ladye Reresse and if he were angrye wth her.
He aunswered yt he had litle minde of suche as she was, and wished of God she might serve her to her honor.
Then she desired him to kepe to him sellfe the promise betwixt him and her, and to open it to nobodye. For ᵱadventure the Lordes woulde not thinke welle of their suddine agrement, consideringe he and theye were at some wordes before.
He aunswered that he knew no cause whye theye shulde mislike of it, and desired her yt she would not move anye of thẽ against him even as he woulde stirre none againste her, and yt theye would worke bothe in one mind, otherwise it might tourne to greatr inconvenience to them bothe.
She aunswered yt she never sowght anye waie bye him, but he was in fault him sellfe.
He aunswered againe yt hys faultes were published and yt there were yt made greatr faultes than ever he made yt beleved were vnknownē, and yet theye woulde speke of greate and smale.
Farder the Kinge asked me at yt present time what I thowght of hys voyage. I aunswered yt I liked it not, bicause she tooke him to Cragmillr. For if she had desired him wth her sellf or to have had hys companye, she would haue taken him to hys owne howse in Edinbr̃. Where she might more easely visit him, than to travelle two myles owt of the towne to a gentlemãis house. Therefore mye opiniō was yt she tooke him awaye more like a prisonr than her husbande.
He aunswered yt he thowght litle lesse him sellf and feared him sellfe indeid save the confidence, he had in her promise onelye, notwithstandinge he woulde goe wth her, and put him sellfe in her handes, thowghe she showlde cutte hys throate and besowghte God to be iudge vnto them bothe.
Endorsed: ‘Thomas Crawfordᕦ deposit.’
Footnotes
1 Blackwood’s Magazine, December, 1889.
2 Bond.
3 Laing, ii. 284.
4 See Murdin, p. 57.
5 Among the mysteries which surround Mary, we should not reckon the colour of her hair! Just after her flight into England, her gaoler, at Carlisle, told Cecil that in Mary Seton the Queen had ‘the finest busker of a woman’s hair to be seen in any country. Yesterday and this day she did set such a curled hair upon the Queen, that was said to be a perewyke, that showed very delicately, and every other day she hath a new device of head dressing that setteth forth a woman gaily well.’ Henceforth Mary varied the colour of her ‘perewykes.’ She had worn them earlier, but she wore them, at least at her first coming into England, for the good reason that, in her flight from Langside, she had her head shaved, probably for purposes of disguise. So we learn from Nau, her secretary. Mary was flying, in fact, as we elsewhere learn, from the fear of the fiery death at the stake, the punishment of husband-murder. Then, and then only, her nerve broke down, like that of James VIII. at Montrose; of Prince Charles after Culloden; of James VII. when he should have ridden with Dundee to the North and headed the clans.
6 The papers used by Lennox in getting up his indictment against Mary are new materials, which we often have occasion to cite.
7 Mr. Henderson doubts if Darnley knew French.
8 M. Jusserand has recently seen the corpse of Bothwell. Appendix A.
9 Actio, probably by Dr. Wilson, appended to Buchanan’s Detection.
10 Teulet, ii. p. 176. Edinburgh, June 17, 1567.
11 See a facsimile in Teulet, ii. 256.
12 Appendix B. ‘Burning of the Lyon King at Arms.’
13 The private report is in the Lennox MSS.
14 See the sketch, coloured, in Bannatyne Miscellany, vol. i. p. 184.
15 See description by Alesius, about 1550, in Bannatyne Miscellany, i. 185-188.
16 Information from Father Pollen, S.J.
17 This gentleman must not be confused with Ormistoun of Ormistoun, in Teviotdale, ‘The Black Laird,’ a retainer of Bothwell.
18 Riddell, Inquiry into the Law and Practice of the Scottish Peerage, i. 427. Joseph Robertson, Inventories, xcii., xciii. Schiern, Life of Bothwell, p. 53.
19 Randolph to Cecil, Edinburgh, Sept. 23, 1560. Foreign Calendar, 1560-61, p. 311.
20 Hay Fleming, Mary Queen of Scots, p. 236, note 32.
21 Cal. For. Eliz. 1561-62, iv. 531-539.
22 Knox, Laing’s edition, ii. 322-327. Randolph to Cecil ut supra.
23 Knox, ii. 347.
24 Knox, ii. 473.
25 Hay Fleming, p. 359, note 29.
26 Knox, ii. 479.
27 See Cal. For. Eliz. 1565, 306, 312, 314, 319, 320, 327, 340, 341, 347, 351.
28 Calendar, Bain, ii. 223.
29 Bain, ii. 213.
30 Ibid. ii. 242, 243.
31 Hosack, i. 524.
32 Cal. For. Eliz. 1564-5, 464.
33 Bain, ii. 222-223.
34 Bain, ii. 225. Cal. For. Eliz. 1564-5, 464, 495. Hay Fleming, pp. 380, 381.
35 Miss Strickland avers that ‘existing documents afford abundant proof, that whenever Darnley and the Queen were together, his name was written by his own hand.’
36 October 31, 1565. Bain, ii. 232.
37 Bain, ii. 234.
38 Randolph to Cecil, Nov. 19, Dec. 1, 1565. Bain, ii. 241, 242.
39 Bain, ii. 242.
40 Buchanan, Historia, 1582, fol. 210.
41 Bain, ii. 247.
42 The Foreign Calendar cites Randolph up to the place where amantium iræ is quoted, but omits that. The point is important, if it indicates that Randolph had ceased to believe in Mary’s amour with Riccio. Cf. Bain, ii. 248.
43 Nau, p. 192.
44 The subject is discussed, with all the evidence, in Hay Fleming, pp. 379, 380, note 33.
45 Ruthven’s Narrative. Keith, iii. 260. There are various forms of this Narrative; one is in the Lennox MSS.
46 Goodall, i. 274.
47 Bain, ii. 255.
48 Printed in a scarce volume, Maitland’s Narrative, and in Tytler, iii. 215. 1864.
49 Bain, ii. 259-261.
50 Goodall, i. 266-268.
51 Hosack, ii. 78, note 3.
52 See Dr. Stewart, A Lost Chapter in the History of Mary Queen of Scots, pp. 93, 94.
53 This is alleged by Mary, and by Claude Nau, her secretary.
54 Goodall, i. 264, 265.
55 Bain, ii. 289.
56 Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 51.
57 Bain, ii. 276. Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 52.
58 Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 62.
59 Bain ii. 278.
60 Ibid. ii. 281.
61 See Joseph Robertson’s Inventories, 112.
62 Bain, ii. 283.
63 Melville, pp. 154, 155.
64 Bain, ii. 288, 289.
65 Bain, ii. 290.
66 Bain, ii. 294.
67 Nau, 20, 22.
68 Bain, ii. 296.
69 Detection, 1689, pp. 2, 3.
70 Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 118.
71 Stevenson, Selections, pp. 163-165.
72 Cheruel, Marie Stuart et Catherine de Médicis, p. 47.
73 Robertson, Inventories, p. 167.
74 Bain, ii. 300.
75 Detection (1689), p. 4.
76 Bain, ii. 440.
77 Bannatyne, Journal, p. 238. This transference of disease, as from Archbishop Adamson to a pony, was believed in by the preachers.
78 Teulet, Papiers d’État, ii. 139-146, 147, 151. See also Keith, ii. 448-459.
79 Frazer, The Lennox, ii. 350, 351.
80 Cal. For. Eliz. ix. 354, 355.
81 Laing, ii. 331, 334.
82 Nau, p. 35.
83 Bain, ii. 599, 600.
84 Bain, ii. 276.
85 Diurnal, p. 99.
86 See the evidence in Hay Fleming, 414, note 61.
87 Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 139. Diurnal, 101.
88 Teulet, ii. 150.
89 Laing, ii. 72.
90 Hay Fleming, 418, 419.
91 Queen Mary at Jedburgh, p. 23.
92 Bain, ii. 597-599. Anderson, iv. pt. ii. 186. Keith, iii. 290-294.
93 Goodall, ii. 359.
94 Historia, fol. 214.
95 Keith, iii. 294. Bain, ii. 600.
96 Laing, ii. 293, 294.
97 The original MS. has been corrected by Lennox, in the passages within brackets. The italics are my own.
98 Bain, ii. 516, 517.
99 De Brienne came to Craigmillar on November 21, 1566, Diurnal.
100 Nau, p. 33.
101 Bain, ii. 293, 310.
102 Melville, p. 172. (1827.)
103 Crawford, in his deposition against Mary, says that she spoke sharp words of Lennox, at Stirling, to his servant, Robert Cunningham.
104 Keith, i. xcviii.
105 Bain, ii. 293. This Rogers it was who, later, informed Cecil that ‘gentlemen of the west country’ had sent to Darnley a chart of the Scilly Isles. If Darnley, among other dreams, thought of a descent on them, as he did on Scarborough, he made no bad choice. Mr. A. E. W. Mason points out to me that the isles ‘commanded the Channel, and all the ships from the north of England,’ which passed between Scilly and the mainland, twenty-five miles off. The harbours being perilous, and only known to the islesmen, a small fleet at Scilly could do great damage, and would only have to run back to be quite safe. Darnley, in his moods, was capable of picturing himself as a pirate chief.
106 Hay Fleming, p. 415, note 63.
107 Labanoff, ii.
108 Labanoff, i. 396-398. Mary to Beaton, Jan. 20, 1567.
109 Hosack, ii. 580. Crawford’s deposition.
110 Hosack, i. 534.
111 Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 163, 164. January 9, 1567.
112 See Appendix C, ‘The date of Mary’s visit to Glasgow.’
113 The ‘undermining and’ are words added by Lennox himself to the MS. They are important.
114 Maitland of Lethington.
115 Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 167-168.
116 On July 16, 1583, she wrote from Sheffield to Mauvissière, the French Ambassador, bidding him ask the King of France to give Archibald Douglas a pension, ‘because he is a man of good understanding and serviceable where he chooses to serve, as you know.’ She intended to procure his pardon from James (Labanoff, v. 351, 368). She employed him, and he betrayed her.
117 Laing, ii. 223-236.
118 Bain, ii. 599, 600.
119 Registrum de Soltre, p. xxxv, Bannatyne Club, 1861.
120 Records of the Burgh of Edinburgh, March 14, 1541.
121 Registrum de Soltre, xxxvii.
122 Burgh Records, Nov. 5, 1557.
123 Burgh Records, Feb. 19, 1560, March 12, 1560.
124 Burgh Records.
125 Keith, ii. 151, 152. Editor’s note.
126 Registrum de Soltre, p. xli.
127 Burgh Records, Feb. 19, March 12, 1560.
128 Laing, ii. 254.
129 Lennox MSS.
130 See Hay Fleming, p. 434.
131 Lennox’s sources must have been Nelson and the younger Standen, to whom Bothwell gave a horse immediately after the murder. Standen returned to England four months later.
132 Diurnal, 105, 106.
133 Keith, i. cii.
134 Register Privy Council, i. 498.
135 Melville, p. 174, Bannatyne Club.
136 Labanoff, vii. 108, 109, Paris. March 16, 1567.
137 Hosack, i. 536, 537.
138 Spanish Calendar, i. 635, April 23.
139 Hosack, i. 534. The ‘Book of Articles,’ of 1568, was obviously written under the impression left by a forged letter of Mary’s, or by the reports of such a letter, as we shall show later. Yet the author cites a Casket Letter as we possess it.
140 Bain, ii. 393.
141 This is not, I think, a letter of September 5, but of September 16, but in Foreign Calendar Elizabeth, viii. p. 342, most of the passage quoted by Mr. Hosack is omitted.
142 Laing, ii. 28.
143 Cal. For. Eliz. viii. p. 392.
144 Laing, ii. 256.
145 Diurnal, 127, 128. Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 393.
146 Hosack, ii. 245.
147 This was obvious to Laing. Replying to Goodall’s criticism of verbal coincidences in the confessions, Laing says, ‘as if in any subsequent evidence concerning the same fact, the same words were not often dictated by the same Commissioner, or recorded by the Clerk, from the first deposition which they hold in their hands.’ It does not seem quite a scientific way of taking evidence.
148 See the Confessions, Laing, ii. 264.
149 Bain, ii. 312, 313.
150 Arnott and Pitcairn, Criminal Trials.
151 Buchanan, History (1582), fol. 215.
152 Maitland Miscellany, iv. p. 119.
153 French Foreign Office, Registre de Depesches d’Ecosse, 1560-1562, fol. 112.
154 Cal. For. Eliz. viii. p. 7, No. 31.
155 Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 229. Drury would not here add to our confidence by saying that ‘Sir Andrew Ker’ (if of Faldonside) ‘with others were on horseback near to the place for aid to the cruel enterprize if need had been.’ Ker, a pitiless wretch, was conspicuous in the Riccio murder, threatened Mary, and had but lately been pardoned. After Langside, he was kept prisoner, in accordance with Mary’s orders, by Whythaugh. But the Sir Andrew of Drury is another Ker.
156 Bain ii. 321, 325.
157 Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 252.
158 Bain, ii. 394. Cullen is spelled ‘Callan,’ and is described as Bothwell’s ‘chalmer-chiel.’
159 Bain, ii. 355.
160 Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 500. Hosack, i. 350, note 2, and Schiern’s Bothwell.
161 Laing, ii. 269.
162 Bain, ii. 698.
163 See Appendix B, ‘The Burning of the Lyon King at Arms.’
164 Bain, ii. 667, 668.
165 Laing, i. 256, 257.
166 Laing, ii. 253.
167 Murdin, i. 57.
168 Laing, ii. 286, 287.
169 Laing, ii. 259.
170 Laing, ii. 254.
171 Laing, ii. 267, 268.
172 Laing, ii. 287.
173 Anderson, 1, part II., 76, 77.
174 Nau, Appendix ii. 151, 152. The Jesuits’ evidence was from letters to Archbishop Beaton.
175 Murdin, p. 57.
176 In the ‘Book of Articles,’ and in the series of dated events called ‘Cecil’s Journal.’
177 Hay Fleming, p. 444.
178 Spanish Calendar, i. 628. For Moray’s dinner party, cf. Bain, ii. 317.
179 Spanish Calendar, i. 635.
180 Laing, ii. 244.
181 Labanoff, ii. 2-4.
182 Venetian Calendar, vii. 388, 389. There were rumours that Lennox had been blown up with Darnley, and, later, that he was attacked at Glasgow, on February 9, by armed men, and owed his escape to Lord Semple. It is incredible that this fact should be unmentioned, if it occurred, by Lennox and Buchanan.
183 Hay Fleming, pp. 442-443.
184 Robertson, Inventories, p. 53.
185 Anderson, i. 112. Bain, ii. 322.
186 Keith knew a copy in the Scots College at Paris, attested by Sir James Balfour as ‘the authentick copy of the principall band.’ This copy Sir James sent to Mary, in January, 1581, after Morton’s arrest. The names of laymen are Huntly, Argyll, Morton, Cassilis, Sutherland, Errol, Crawford, Caithness, Rothes, Boyd, Glamis, Ruthven, Semple, Herries, Ogilvy, Fleming. John Read’s memory must have been fallacious. There are eight prelates in Balfour’s band, including Archbishop Hamilton, the Bishop of Orkney, who joined in prosecuting Mary, and Lesley, Bishop of Ross (Keith, ii. 562-569). On the whole subject see a discussion by Mr. Bain and Mr. Hay Fleming, in The Genealogist, 1900-1901. Some copies are dated April 20. See Fraser, The Melvilles, i. 89.
187 Spanish Calendar, i. 662.
188 Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 213.
189 Bain, ii. 323, 324.
190 Melville, p. 177.
191 Melville, p. 178.
192 Drury to Cecil, Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 222.
193 Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 223-224.
194 May 6, Drury to Cecil.
195 Drury to Cecil, May 6. Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 223, 224.
196 Undated letter in Bannatyne, of 1570-1572.
197 See Stewart’s Lost Chapter in the History of Queen Mary for the illegalities of the divorce. The best Catholic opinion is agreed on the subject.
198 Melville, 182. Teulet, ii. 153, 170.
199 Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 235.
200 Drury to Cecil, Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 240.
201 Dates from James Beaton’s letter of June 17. Laing, ii. 106, 115.
202 Nau, 46-48.
203 Laing, i. 113. June 17, 1567.
204 Melville, p. 183.
205 Teulet, ii. 179.
206 Teulet, ii. 169, 170. June 17.
207 Bannatyne’s Memorials, p. 126.
208 Nau, 50-54.
209 Laing, ii, 115.
210 Bannatyne, Journal, 477, 482.
211 Chalmers, Life of Mary, Queen of Scots (1818), ii. 486, 487, note. I do not understand Randolph to bring these charges merely on the ground of Mary’s word. That he only adds as corroboration, I think, of facts otherwise familiar to him.
212 Mr. Froude has observed that the Lords, ‘uncertain what to do, sent one of their number in haste to Paris, to the Earl of Moray, to inform him of the discovery of the Letters, and to entreat him to return immediately.’ Mr. Hosack says that Mr. Froude owes this circumstance ‘entirely to his imagination.’ This is too severe. The Lords did not send ‘one of their number’ to Moray, but they sent letters which Robert Melville carried as far as London, and, seventeen days later, they did send a man who, if not ‘one of their number,’ was probably Moray’s agent, John Wood (Hosack, i. 352).
213 Cal. For. Eliz. viii. p. 261.
214 Spanish Calendar, i. 657.
215 Cal. For. Eliz. ix. pp. 354, 355.
216 Fénelon, Dépêches (1838), i. 19, 20.
217 Fénelon, i. 22. To this point we shall return.
218 La Mothe Fénelon, vii. 275-276.
219 Cal. Span. i. 659.
220 Bain, ii. 336.
221 Bain, ii. 338.
222 Bain, ii. 339.
223 Bain, ii. 341.
224 Melville to Cecil, July 1. Bain, ii. 343.
225 Bain, ii. 350, 351.
226 Bain, ii. 322, 360.
227 Ibid. 358.
228 Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 297, 298. Keith, ii. 694, 700.
229 Already, on July 16, Mary had offered verbally, by Robert Melville, to the Lords, to make Moray Regent: or, failing him, to appoint a Council of Regency, Châtelherault, Huntly, Argyll, Atholl, Lennox, and, ‘with much ado,’ Morton, Moray, Mar, and Glencairn. But she would not abandon Bothwell, as she was pregnant. Throckmorton does not say that she now promised to sign an abdication. A letter of Mary’s, to Bothwell’s captain in Dunbar, was intercepted, ‘containing matter little to her advantage.’ It never was produced by her prosecutors (Throckmorton, July 18. Bain, ii. 355,356). Robert Melville, visiting her, declined to carry such a letter to Bothwell. See his examination, in Addit. MSS. British Museum, 33531, fol. 119 et seq.
230 Bain, ii. 367.
231 Bain, ii. 328.
232 Ibid. i. 346-348.
233 Bain, ii. 346.
234 Ibid. 354. July 16.
235 Alava to Philip, July 17. Teulet, v. 29.
236 De Silva, July 26, August 2. Spanish Calendar, i. 662, 665. I have occasionally preferred the Spanish text to Major Hume’s translations. See also Hosack, i. 215, 216.
237 Froude, iii. 118. 1866.
238 Lennox MSS.
239 The words within inverted commas are autograph additions by Lennox himself.
240 Ogilvy of Boyne, who married his old love, Lady Bothwell, after the death of her second husband, the Earl of Sutherland. See pp. 26, 27, supra.
241 A Lost Chapter in the History of Mary Stuart.
242 Throckmorton to Elizabeth, July 18. Bain, ii. 355.
243 Throckmorton to Elizabeth, July 31, 1567. Bain, ii. 370.
244 Maitland Miscellany, vol. iv. part i. p. 119.
245 Teulet, ii. 255, 256.
246 Labanoff, ii. 106.
247 Bain, ii. 423.
248 Ibid. 441, 442.
249 I do not know where the originals of these five letters now are. They were among the Hamilton Papers, having probably been intercepted by the Hamiltons before they reached Moray, Lethington, Crawford, and the others.
250 Bain, ii. 514.
251 Ibid. 523, 524.
252 For. Eliz. viii. 478, 479. Bain, ii. 426, 427.
253 Bowton’s confession. Laing, ii. 256, 257.
254 Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 331.
255 Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 363.
256 Moray, Morton, Glencairn, Errol, Buchan, Home, Ruthven, Semple, Glamis, Lindsay, Gray, Graham, Ochiltree (Knox’s father-in-law), Innermeith, the treacherous Bishop of Orkney, Sir James Balfour (deeply involved in the murder), Makgill, Lethington, Erskine of Dun, Wishart of Pitarro, Kirkcaldy of Grange, and others of less note.
257 Nau, pp. 71-73.
258 Teulet, ii. 247.
259 Act in Henderson, 177-185.
260 Nau, 74, 75.
261 Goodall, ii. 361. B. M. Titus, c. 12, fol. 157 (olim 175). ‘And gif it beis allegit, yat hir matz wretting producit in pliamẽt, sould proiff hir g, culpable. It maybe ansrit yat yäre is na plane mentione maid in it, be ye quhilk hir hienes may be convict Albeit it wer hir awin hand wreitt, as it is not And als the same is cuttit (cullit?) be yame selfis in sum principall & substantious clausis.’
262 Sepp, Tagebuch, Munich, 1882.
263 Bain, ii. 441, 442.
264 Maitland Club Miscellany, iv. 120, 121.
265 Teulet, ii. 248.
266 Bain, ii. 517.
267 Bain, ii. 434.
268 Nov. 8, 1571. Murdin, p. 57.
269 State Trials, i. 978.
270 As to ‘the subtlety of that practice,’ which puzzled Mr. Froude, Laing offers a highly ingenious conjecture. Mary was to do the Scots translations, procured for her by Lethington, into her own French, omitting the compromising portions. Lethington was next ‘privately to substitute or produce the Queen’s transcript instead of the originals, with the omission of those criminal passages, which might then be opposed as interpolated in the translation.’ But in that case ‘some variance of phrase’ by Mary could bring nothing ‘to light,’ for there would be no originals to compare. Lethington, while slipping Mary’s new transcript into the Casket (Laing, i. 145, 146), would, of course, remove the original letters in French, leaving the modified transcript in their place. ‘Variance of phrase’ between an original and a translation could prove nothing. Moreover, if Lethington had access to the French letters, it was not more dangerous for him to destroy them than to substitute a version which Moray, Morton, Buchanan, and all concerned could honestly swear to be false. The Bishop of Ross did, later, manage an ingenious piece of ‘palming’ letters on Cecil, but, in the story of ‘palming’ fresh transcripts into the Casket there is no consistency. Moreover Melville’s word is at least as good as Lesley’s, and Melville denies the truth of Lesley’s confession.
271 British Museum Addit. MSS. 33531, fol. 119, et seq. The MS. is much injured.
272 Murdin, pp. 52, 58.
273 Bain, ii. 524.
274 Addit. MSS. ut supra.
275 Goodall, ii. 111.
276 Bain, ii. 518, 519.
277 Ibid. 519.
278 Bain, ii. 524.
279 Lennox MSS.
280 Bain, ii. 520, 521.
281 Goodall, ii. 140.
282 The production is asserted, Goodall, ii. 87.
283 Calderwood, iii. 556.
284 For the Ainslie Band, and the signatories, see Bain, ii. 322, and Hay Fleming, p. 446, note 60, for all the accounts.
285 Hosack, i. 543.
286 There are two sets of extracts (Goodall, ii. 148-153): one of them is in the Sadleyr Papers, edited by Sir Walter Scott, and in Haynes, p. 480. This is headed ‘A brief Note of the chief and principal points of the Queen of Scots Letters written to Bothwell for her consent and procurement of the murder of her husband, as far forth as we could by the reading gather.’ The other set is in Scots, ‘Notes drawin furth of the Quenis letters sent to the Erle Bothwell.’ If this were, as Miss Strickland supposed, an abstract made and shown in June-July, it would prove, of course, that Letter II. was then in its present shape, and would destroy my hypothesis. But Cecil endorses it. ‘sent October 29.’ I think it needless to discuss the notion that Lethington and his companions showed only the Scots texts, and vowed that they were in Mary’s handwriting! They could not conceivably go counter, first, to Moray’s statement (June 22, 1568) that the Scots versions were only translations. Nor could they, later, produce the Letters in French, and pretend that both they and the Scots texts were in Mary’s hand. Doubtless they showed the French (though we are not told that they did), but the English Commissioners, odd as it seems, preferred to send to Elizabeth extracts from the Scots.
287 Bain, ii. 526-528. See also in Hosack, ii. 496-501, with the obliterated lines restored.
288 Bain, ii. 529-530.
289 Bain, ii. 533, 534.
290 Goodall, ii. 162-170. The dates here are difficult. Lesley certainly rode to Bolton, as Knollys says, on October 13, a Wednesday. (See the English Commissioners to Elizabeth. Goodall, ii. 173. York, October 17.) By October 17, Lesley was again at York (Goodall, ii. 174). Therefore I take it that Lesley’s letter to Mary (Bain, ii. 533, 534) is of October 18, or later, and that the ‘Saturday’ when Norfolk and Lethington rode together, and when Lethington probably shook Norfolk’s belief in the authenticity of the Casket Letters, is Saturday, October 16.
291 Bain, ii. 533, 534.
292 Ibid. ii. 693.
293 Bain, ii. 541.
294 Ibid. ii. 533.
295 Addit. MSS. ut supra.
296 His letter is given in full by Hosack, i. 518-522.
297 Goodall, ii. 179-182.
298 Bain, ii. 551.
299 Goodall, ii. 182, 186.
300 Goodall, ii. No. lxvi. 189.
301 Anderson, iv. pt. ii. 115-121. Goodall, ii. 203-207.
302 Teulet, ii. 237.
303 Anderson, ii. 125-128. Bain, ii. 562, 563.
304 See Hosack, i. 432, 583. The opinions of the Legists are taken from La Mothe, i. 51, 54. December 15, 1568.
305 Goodall, ii. 222-227. But compare her letter of Nov. 22, p. 265, supra.
306 Bain, ii. 565, 566.
307 Goodall, ii. 229.
308 In my opinion the book is by George Buchanan, who presents many coincident passages in his Detection. On February 25, 1569, one Bishop, an adherent of Mary’s, said, under examination, that ‘there were sundry books in Latin against her, one or both by Mr. George Buchanan,’ books not yet published (Bain, ii. 624). Can the Book of Articles have been done into Scots out of Buchanan’s Latin?
309 When Goodall and Laing wrote (1754, 1804) the Minutes of December 7 had not been discovered.
310 Bain, ii. 569, 570.
311 Bain, ii. 571-573. (Cf. pp. 254, note 3, and 271, supra.)
312 See Appendix E, ‘The Translation of the Casket Letters.’
313 The extant copy is marked as of December viii. That is cancelled, and the date ‘Thursday, December 29’ is given; the real date being December 9. (Bain, ii. 576, 593, 730, 731.) This Declaration was one of the MSS. of Sir Alexander Malet, bought by the British Museum in 1883. The Fifth Report of the Historical MSS. Commission contains a summary, cited by Bresslau, in Kassetenbriefen, pp. 21, 23, 1881. In 1889, Mr. Henderson published a text in his Casket Letters. That of Mr. Bain, ut supra, is more accurate (ii. 730 et seq.). Mr. Henderson substitutes Andrew for the notorious Archibald Douglas, and there are other misreadings in the first edition.
314 See ‘The Internal Evidence,’ pp. 302-313.
315 Mr. Bain omits December 13; see Goodall, ii. 252.
316 Bain, ii. 579, 580.
317 Froude, 1866, iii. 347.
318 Proceedings of Society for Psychical Research, vol. iii. pp. 282, 283, 294.
319 See Bain, ii. 581, for Crawford; the matter of this his second deposition, made on December 13, is not given; we know it from the Lennox Papers. The Diurnal avers that Tala, on the scaffold, accused Huntly, Argyll, Lethington, Balfour, and others of signing the band for the murder, ‘whereto the Queen’s grace consented.’ Naturally the Queen’s accusers did not put the confession about Lethington forward, but if Tala publicly accused Mary, why did they omit the circumstance?
320 Ballad by Tom Truth, in Bain under date of December, 1568.
321 Goodall, ii. 257-260. Bain, ii. 580, 581.
322 Froude, viii. 484. Mr. Froude’s page-heading runs: ‘The English nobles pronounce them’ (the Letters) ‘genuine.’ But this, as he shows in the passage cited, they really did not do. They only said that Elizabeth must not see Mary, ‘until some answer had been made first....’ However, Elizabeth would not even let Mary see the Letters; and so no ‘answer’ was possible.
323 Lingard, vi. 94, note 2 (1855).
324 Bain, ii. 583.
325 Another account, by Lesley, but not ‘truly nor fully’ reported, as Cecil notes, is in Groodall, ii. 260, 261. Compare La Mothe Fénelon, i. 82. Bain, ii. 585.
326 Hosack, i. 460.
327 Goodall, ii. 281.
328 La Mothe, January 20, 30, 1569, i. 133-162.
329 Goodall, ii. 272, 273.
330 Goodall, ii. 307-309.
331 Lesley, like Herries, had no confidence in Mary’s cause. On December 28, 1568, he wrote a curious letter to John Fitzwilliam, at Gray’s Inn. Lesley, Herries, and Kilwinning (a Hamilton) had met Norfolk, Leicester, and Cecil privately. The English showed the Book of Articles, but refused to give a copy, which seems unfair, as Mary could certainly have picked holes in that indictment. Lesley found the Englishmen ‘almost confirmed in favour of our mistress’s adversaries.’ Norfolk and Cecil ‘war sayrest’ (most severe), and Norfolk must either have been dissembling, or must have had his doubts about the authenticity of the Casket Letters shaken by comparing them with Mary’s handwriting. Lesley asks Fitzwilliam to go to their man of law, ‘and bid him put our defences to the presumptions in writ, as was devised before in all events, but we hope for some appointment (compromise), but yet we arm us well.’ Mary, however, would not again stoop to compromise. (Bain, ii. 592, 593.)
332 Bain, ii. 570.
333 In the Cambridge MS. of the Scots translations (C) our Letter II. is placed first. This MS. is the earliest.
334 It is indubitable that ‘Cecil’s Journal’ was supplied by the prosecution, perhaps from Lennox, who had made close inquiries about the dates.
335 Bresslau, Hist. Taschenbuch, p. 71. Philippson, Revue Historique, Sept., Oct., 1887, p. 31. M. Philippson suggests that Lethington’s name may not have been mentioned in the French, but was inserted (perhaps by Makgill, or other enemy of his, I presume) in the English, to damage the Secretary in the eyes of the English Commissioners.
336 Hosack, i. 217, 218.
337 See the letter in Appendix, ‘Casket Letters.’
338 ‘Yesternicht’ is omitted in the English. See Appendix E, ‘Translation of the Casket Letters.’
339 The last italicised words are in the English translation, not in the Scots.
340 Hosack, ii. 24.
341 Father Pollen kindly lent me collations of this Cambridge MS. translation into Scots, marked by me ‘C.’
342 See Letter and Crawford’s Deposition in Appendix. Mr. Henderson, in his Casket Letters (second edition, pp. xxvi, xxvii, 82-84), argues that the interdependence of Crawford’s Deposition and of Letter II. ‘does not seem to be absolutely proved.’ Perhaps no other critic doubts it.
343 Goodall, ii. 246.
344 The English runs, ‘Indeede that he had found faulte with me....’ Mr. Bain notes ‘a blank left thus’ (Bain, ii. 723).
345 Lennox MSS.
346 Mr. Frazer-Tytler, who did not enter into the controversy, supposed that Crawford’s Deposition was the actual written report, made by him to Lennox in January 1567. If so, Letter II. is forged.
347 Mr. Henderson writes (Casket Letters, second edition, p. xxvi): ‘It must be remembered that while Crawford affirms that he supplied Lennox with notes of the conversation immediately after it took place, he does not state that the notes were again returned to him by Lennox in order to enable him to form his deposition.’ How else could he get them, unless he kept a copy? ‘It is also absurd to suppose that Lennox, on June 11, 1568, should have written to Crawford for notes which he had already in his own possession.’ But Lennox did not do that; he asked, not for Mary’s conversation with Darnley, but for Crawford’s with Mary, which Crawford never says that he wrote down ‘at the time.’ Mr. Henderson goes on to speak of ‘the notes having been lost,’ and ‘these documents had apparently been destroyed’ (p. 84), of which I see no appearance.
348 Goodall, ii. 246. Maitland Club Miscellany, iv. pt. i. p. 119. It will be observed that while Crawford swears to having written down Darnley’s report for Lennox ‘at the time,’ he says that he ‘caused to be made’ the writing which he handed in to the Commissioners, ‘according to the truth of his knowledge.’ Crawford’s Deposition handed in to the Commissioners, in fact, has been ‘made,’ that is, has been Anglicised from the Scots; this is proved by the draft in the Lennox Papers. This is what Crawford means by saying that he ‘caused it to be made.’ There is a corrected draft of the declaration in the Lennox MSS., but Crawford’s original autograph text, ‘written with his hand’ (in Scots doubtless), was retained by the Lords (Goodall, ii. 88).
349 The Deposition, in Bain, ii. 313, is given under February, 1567, but this copy of it, being in English, cannot be so early.
350 Historia, fol. 213. Yet the Lennox dossier represents Darnley as engaged, at this very time, at Stirling, in a bitter and angry quarrel with Mary. He may have been in contradictory moods: Buchanan omits the mood of fury.
351 Maitland of Lethington, ii. 337.
352 Mary to Norfolk, Jan. 31, 1570. Labanoff, iii. 19.
353 Labanoff, iii. 62.
354 The prosecution is in rather an awkward position as to Bothwell’s action when he returned to Edinburgh, after leaving Mary at Callendar, which we date January 21, and they date January 23. Cecil’s Journal says, ‘January 23... Erle Huntly and Bothwell returnit that same nycht to Edynt [Edinburgh] and Bothwell lay in the Town.’ The Book of Articles has ‘Bot boithuell at his cuming to Edinburgh ludgit in the toun, quhair customably he usit to ly at the abbay,’ that is, in Holyrood (Hosack, i. 534). The author of the Book of Articles clearly knew Cecil’s Journal; perhaps he wrote it. Yet he makes Mary stay but one night at Callendar; Cecil’s Journal makes her stay two nights. However, our point is that both sources make Bothwell lie in the town, not at Holyrood, on the night of his return from Callendar. His object, they imply, was to visit Kirk o’ Field privately, being lodged near it and not in his official rooms. But here they are contradicted by Paris, who says that when he brought Mary’s first Glasgow Letter to Bothwell he found him in his chambers at Holyrood (Laing, ii. 282).
355 Nelson, according to Miss Strickland (Mary Stuart, ii. 178, 1873), left Edinburgh for England, and was detained by Drury for some months at Berwick. For this Miss Strickland cites Drury to Cecil, Berwick, February 15, 1567, a letter which I am unable to find in the MSS. But the lady is more or less correct, since, on February 15, Mary wrote to Robert Melville, in England, charging him, in very kind terms, to do his best for Anthony Standen, Darnley’s friend, who was also going to England (Frazer, The Lennox, ii. 7). A reference to Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 193, No. 1029, shows that a letter of Mary to Drury, asking free passage for Standen and four other Englishmen, is really of March 15, not of February 15. Again, a letter of March 8, 1567, from Killigrew, at Edinburgh, to Cecil, proves that ‘Standen, Welson, and Guyn, that served the late king, intend to return home when they can get passport’ (Bain, ii. 347, No. 479). Now ‘Welson’ is obviously Nelson. On June 16, Drury allowed Standen to go south (Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 252, No. 1305). Nelson, doubtless, also returned to Lennox. It is odd that Lennox, having these two witnesses, should vary so much, in his first indictment, from the accepted accounts of events at Kirk o’ Field. This Anthony Standen is the younger of the two brothers of the same name. The elder was acting for Darnley in France at the time of the murder. He lived to a great age, recounting romances about his adventures.
356 Mr. Hay Fleming suggests that ‘Jhone a Forret’ may be Forret of that ilk—of Forret near Cairnie. Of him I have no other knowledge.
357 Hatfield MSS. Calendar, i. 376, 377.
358 Melville, Memoirs, 173, 174. Hosack’s Mary, i. 536 (The Book of Articles). Anderson, ii. 18, 19 (Detection). Cecil’s Journal, under date Saturday, February 8, has ‘She confronted the King and my lord of Halyrodhouse conforme to hir letter wryttin the nycht before:’ that is, this Letter III.
359 Mr. Hosack makes an error in averring that no letter as to this intrigue was produced at Westminster or later; that the letter was only shown at York in October, 1568. There and then Moray’s party ‘inferred, upon a letter of her own hand, that there was another meane of a more cleanly conveyance devised to kill the King’ (Goodall, ii. 142; Hosack, i. 409, 410). The letter was that which we are now considering.
360 The Scots has ‘handling.’ The Cambridge MS. of the Scots translation reads ‘composing of thame,’ from ‘le bien composer de ceux’ in the original French.
361 Dr. Bresslau notes several such coincidences, but stress cannot be laid on phrases either usual, or such as a forger might know to be favourites of Mary’s.
362 Laing, ii. 286.
363 Mary Queen of Scots, vol. ii. No. 63.
364 ‘Je m’en deferay au hazard de la faire entreprandre:’ the translators, not observing the gender referring to the maid, have blundered.
365 It appears that they did not officially put in this compromising Ainslie paper. Cecil’s copy had only such a list of signers ‘as John Read might remember.’ His copy says that Mary approved the band on May 14, whereas the Lords allege that she approved before they would sign. Bain, ii. 321, 322. A warrant of approval was shown at York. Bain, ii. 526. Cf. supra, p. 254, note 3.
366 Labanoff, ii. 32-44.
367 Maitland of Lethington, ii. 224.
368 Lethington to Beaton, October 24, 1566; cf. Keith, ii. 542.
369 ‘The safety,’ ‘la seurete.’ Mr. Henderson’s text has ‘la seincte.’ The texts in his volume are strangely misleading and incorrect, both in the English of Letter II. and in the copies of the original French.
370 This means a ring in black enamel, with representations of tears and bones, doubtless in white: a fantastic mourning ring. Mary left a diamond in black enamel to Bothwell, in June, 1566.
371 This coincidence was pointed out to me by Mr. Saintsbury.
372 By the way, she says to Norfolk, in the same Letter, ‘I am resolvid that weale nor wo shall never remove me from yow, If yow cast me not away.’ Compare the end of this Letter VIII.: ‘Till death nor weal nor woe shall estrange me’ (jusques à la mort ne changera, car mal ni bien oncque ne m’estrangera). Now the forger could not copy a letter not yet written (Labanoff, iii. 5). This conclusion of her epistle is not on the same level as the customary conclusion—the prayer that God will give the recipient long life, and to her—something else. That formula was usual: ‘Je supplie Dieu et de vous donner bonne vie, et longue, et a moy l’eur de votre bonne grasse.’ This formula, found in Mary’s Letters and in the Casket Letters, also occurs in a note from Marguerite de France to the Duchesse de Montmorency (De Maulde, Women of the Renaissance, p. 309). A forger would know, and would insert the stereotyped phrase, if he chose.
373 On the point of wearing a concealed jewel in her bosom, the curious may consult the anecdote, ‘Queen Mary’s Jewels,’ in the author’s Book of Dreams and Ghosts.
374 In Laing, ii. 234.
375 Cecil’s Journal.
376 Cecil’s Journal.
377 Laing, ii. 285.
378 Laing, ii. 289.
379 Laing, ii. 325, 326. Laing holds that between April 21 and April 23 Mary wrote Letters V. VI. VII. VIII. and Eleven Sonnets to Bothwell: strange literary activity!
380 Froude, iii. 75, note 1.
381 Teulet, ii. 169, 170.
382 Labanoff, iii. 5.
383 Labanoff, iii. 64.
384 Spanish Calendar, i. 659.
385 Bain, ii. 329, 330.
386 Privy Council Register.
387 Bain, ii. 336. Sir John Skelton did not observe the coincidence between the opening of the Casket and the ‘sudden dispatch’ of Robert Melville to London. The letter in full is in Maitland of Lethington, ii. 226, 227.
388 Bain, ii. 339.
389 Goodall, ii. 342, 343.
390 Goodall, ii. 388, 389.
391 Camden, Annals, 143-5. Laing, i. 226.
392 Laing, ii. 224-240.
393 Bain, ii. 322.
394 As to Randolph’s dark hint, Chalmers says, ‘he means their participation in Darnley’s murder’ (ii. 487). But that, from Randolph’s point of view, was no offence against Mary, and Kirkcaldy was not one of Darnley’s murderers.
395 Cal. For. Eliz. ix. 390.
396 See Hosack, ii. 217, 218. Bowes to Walsingham, March 25, 1581. Bowes Papers, 174. Ogilvie to Archibald Beaton. Hosack, ii. 550, 551.
397 Bain, ii. 569.
398 Robertson Inventories, 124.
399 Bowes Correspondence, 236.
400 Bowes, 265.
401 Goodall, i. 35, 36.
402 Vol. lxxx. 131, et seq.
403 Before the Reformation it belonged to the Bishops of Roskilde, and was confiscated from them, Henry VIII.’s fashion.
404 Bain, ii. 250.
405 Cal. For. Eliz. viii. 413, 414.
406 This picture seems to be lost.
407 Diurnal, p. 134.
408 Birrel’s Diary, p. 17.
409 Cot. Lib. Calig. B. ix. fol. 272. Apud Chalmers, i. 441, 442.
410 Bain, ii. 516.
411 Diurnal, p. 146.
412 Bain, ii. 665.
413 Nau, p. 80.
414 Chalmers’s date, as to Stewart’s expedition to Denmark, differs from that of Drury.
415 Such coffers were carefully covered. One had a cover of crimson velvet, with the letter ‘F’ in silver and gold work (Maitland Club, Illustrations of Reigns of Mary and James). Another coffer, with a cover of purple velvet, is described in a tract by M. Luzarche (Tours, 1868).
416 Nau, p. 48.
417 Tytler, iv. 324, 1864.
418 Diurnal, p. 127.
419 Laing, ii. 293, 294.
420 Bain, ii. 322.
421 Laing, ii. 314-318.
422 Tytler, iv. 323, 1864.
423 Labanoff, ii. 213.
424 Bain, ii. 576.
425 Laing’s efforts to detect French idioms lead him to take ‘all contrary’—as in
‘Mary, Mary,
All contrary,
How does your garden grow?’—
and ‘all goeth ill’ for French too literally translated.
426 Casket Letters, pp. 82, 83.
427 ‘He,’ that is, Lennox.
428 ‘He,’ misread for ‘I.’
429 The English translator apparently mistook ‘signer’ for ‘saigner.’
430 ‘They’: Darnley and Lady Bothwell.
431 ‘I cannot ceis to barbulze’ (Y).
432 ‘Humanitie’ (C).
433 His fair promises (C).
434 ‘Your brother.’ Huntly.
435 ‘Scriblit.’ Barbulzeit (C).
436 Cambridge MS. ‘l’acointance.’
437 Cambridge MS, ‘je’ omitted.
438 Cambridge MS. ‘Dont de grief doil me vint ceste dolleur.’
439 Cambridge MS. ‘Per.’
440 Cambridge MS. ‘honneur.’