[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.