Second. Because these letters, and these letters only, exhibit in Mary an indelicacy of language, and a jestful levity in treating of crime, which are altogether foreign to her character as learned from reliable and authentic sources. Third. Because a score, or thereabouts, of the most distinguished Scottish peers, in the instructions which they issued in September, 1568, to Mary’s commissioners in England, declared that at least the incriminating portions of these letters were not in the Queen’s handwriting. This valuable document recounts clearly and briefly the history of the disturbance which had ended in Mary’s overthrow, and exposes, according to the view of the subscribers, the deceitful conduct of her enemies. I am not aware of any external evidence bearing on the Casket Letters that can compare in force and authority with this document. Whoever is acquainted with the history of the Scottish nobility of that time, must admit that the men whose names are subscribed thereto were at least as honest and honourable as the leaders of the Regent’s party; and that the vindication of the Queen’s honour would be no more profitable to them than her complete overthrow would be to those who had usurped her power and authority. Now these instructions state, in express terms, what many other evidences, both internal and external, have since gone to establish, that, however much of the Casket literature was Mary’s the compromising parts had been interpolated by her enemies. "If it be alleged" (thus the instructions) "that Her Majesty’s writing produced in Parliament should prove culpable, it may be answered that there is no place mention made in it by which she may be convicted, albeit it were her own hand-writing--_which it is not_--and also the same is devised by themselves in some principal and substantial clauses." Fourth. Because the papers that were passed off as the originals in Mary’s hand-writing were kept out of sight and, far as can be known, were seen, neither then nor since, by anybody except the select few at Hampton Court; and though Mary repeatedly demanded them, they were never shown her. Fifth. Another document, represented as a warrant from the Queen requiring the lords to sign the celebrated Anslie tavern "band" for her marriage with Bothwell, was said to be in the Casket also, and was furtively shown in the Conference at York, but was never produced in the official enquiry at Westminster. The suppression of such a document, which, by reason of its public nature, could easily have been proved genuine, if it really were so, seems to admit of only one explanation--it could not stand the light of criticism, it was forged. But if the other Casket papers were genuine, Mary’s accusers had no need of forged ones.