The celebrated Casket Letters demand at least a brief consideration. If they are genuine, Mary was undoubtedly implicated in the murder of her husband. If they are forged or interpolated, they are not only worthless as evidence against her, but are a crowning proof of her innocence. Much of the matter of these letters might have been written by Mary--and probably was written by her, though not to Bothwell--without being evidence that she shared in the murder. It is commonly believed by her friends that the Casket Letters are partly made up of letters written by her to Darnley. It is well known that, while she was in Lochleven, Holyrood was ransacked by the Morton-Moray faction, and that her papers, as well as those which Darnley may have left there, were at their disposal. They could easily select those letters which could be most readily doctored up so as to bear a sinister meaning, and those which, as they stood, would appear criminal if addressed to other than Darnley. There is, however, one letter, or at least part of one letter, that could not be written by Mary if she was innocent, namely, letter No. 2, represented as written to Bothwell from Glasgow, while she was visiting Darnley in his sickness. With regard to these letters, I would say, in the first place, that they cannot be adduced as conclusive evidence of Mary’s guilt, because, at best, their genuineness is doubtful. I would say, in the second place, that at any rate as far as the incriminating portions are concerned, I cannot regard them as other than forged; and here in brief are my principal reasons for rejecting them:-- First. Because, in view of the ill-treatment to which in other things she was subjected, and of the unfair tactics used against her, by those interested in producing the Casket Letters, no accusation proceeding from that same source against her honour as a woman, can be accepted, unless it is clearly substantiated. It can hardly be controverted that, whatever Mary’s faults may have been, the Morton-Moray faction had already treated her dishonourably and unjustly. They had plotted with foreigners against her before ever the Bothwell imbroglio arose; they had tried to brand her with dishonour at the time of the Rizzio murder; they had broken their promise, given at Carberry Hill, and had cast her into prison; they had brutally forced her to abdicate, and then, in open Parliament, solemnly professed that she had voluntarily resigned. Besides, the Earl of Morton, whose testimony is the principal evidence in support of the genuineness of the Casket Letters, was probably the most vicious and unscrupulous man in Scotland. Can the testimony of such men,--men who had acknowleged that they had gone too far to recede,--given to protect their most cherished interests, to defend perhaps their very lives, be accepted as conclusive evidence, where there are so many evident reasons to suspect their veracity?