[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.