[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.