C Programming Complete Guide to Learn the Basics

of C Programming in 7 days 2nd Edition Xavier S

Martin download

https://textbookfull.com/product/c-programming-complete-guide-to-
learn-the-basics-of-c-programming-in-7-days-2nd-edition-xavier-s-
martin/

Download more ebook from https://textbookfull.com

We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit textbookfull.com
to discover even more!

C++ Programming D. S

https://textbookfull.com/product/c-programming-d-s/

ANSI C Programming Learn ANSI C Step by Step 1st

Edition Yashavant Kanetkar

https://textbookfull.com/product/ansi-c-programming-learn-ansi-c-
step-by-step-1st-edition-yashavant-kanetkar/

Python Advanced Programming: The guide to learn pyhton

programming Marcus Richards

https://textbookfull.com/product/python-advanced-programming-the-
guide-to-learn-pyhton-programming-marcus-richards/

Effective C An introduction to professional C

programming 1st Edition Robert C. Seacord

https://textbookfull.com/product/effective-c-an-introduction-to-
professional-c-programming-1st-edition-robert-c-seacord/
Modern C for Absolute Beginners: A Friendly
Introduction to the C Programming Language 2nd Edition
Slobodan Dmitrovi■

https://textbookfull.com/product/modern-c-for-absolute-beginners-
a-friendly-introduction-to-the-c-programming-language-2nd-
edition-slobodan-dmitrovic/

The Ultimate Beginner s Guide to Learn kotlin

Programming Step by Step 2020 2nd Edition Moaml Mohmmed

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-ultimate-beginner-s-guide-
to-learn-kotlin-programming-step-by-step-2020-2nd-edition-moaml-
mohmmed/

Learning C 7 By Developing Games with Unity 2017 Learn

C Programming by building fun and interactive games
with Unity Third Edition Micael Dagraca

https://textbookfull.com/product/learning-c-7-by-developing-
games-with-unity-2017-learn-c-programming-by-building-fun-and-
interactive-games-with-unity-third-edition-micael-dagraca/

C Programming From Problem Analysis to Program Design

D. S. Malik

https://textbookfull.com/product/c-programming-from-problem-
analysis-to-program-design-d-s-malik/

Functional Programming in C#: How to write better C#

code 1st Edition Enrico Buonanno

https://textbookfull.com/product/functional-programming-in-c-how-
to-write-better-c-code-1st-edition-enrico-buonanno/
 C++ Programming
Complete Guide to Learn the Basics of C++
Programming in 7 Days

By
Xavier S Martin
 © Copyright 2020 by Xavier S Martin- All
rights reserved.
The content contained within this book may not be reproduced,
duplicated or transmitted without direct written permission from the
author or the publisher.
Under no circumstances will any blame or legal responsibility be held
against the publisher, or author, for any damages, reparation, or
monetary loss due to the information contained within this book,
either directly or indirectly.
Legal Notice:
This book is copyright protected. It is only for personal use. You
cannot amend, distribute, sell, use, quote or paraphrase any part, or
the content within this book, without the consent of the author or
publisher.
Disclaimer Notice:
Please note the information contained within this document is for
educational and entertainment purposes only. All effort has been
executed to present accurate, up to date, reliable, complete
information. No warranties of any kind are declared or implied.
Readers acknowledge that the author is not engaged in the
rendering of legal, financial, medical or professional advice. The
content within this book has been derived from various sources.
Please consult a licensed professional before attempting any
techniques outlined in this book.
By reading this document, the reader agrees that under no
circumstances is the author responsible for any losses, direct or
indirect, that are incurred as a result of the use of the information
contained within this document, including, but not limited to, errors,
omissions, or inaccuracies.
Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO C++

1.1 Background of C++
1.2 C++ Programming
● ​How to write a C++ program
● ​Simple Program
● ​Hello World

1.3 Constants
● ​Integer Constants
● ​Character Constants
● ​Float Constants
● ​Boolean Constants
● ​Programming Constants

1.4 Data Type

● ​void (Void)
● ​int (Integer)
● ​char (Character)
● ​bool (Boolean - logical data in C++)
● ​float (Floating Point)

1.5 Variables
● ​Variable Initialization
● ​Variable Declaration

1.6 Programming Examples

Problem 1
Problem 2
1.7 Exercise Sets

CHAPTER 2: HOW TO WRITE A C++ PROGRAM

2.1 Expressions
● ​Primary Expressions in a C++ Program
 ● ​ inary Expressions in C++
B
● ​Assignment Expressions
● ​Postfix Expressions

2.2 Statements
● ​Expression Statement
● ​Compound Statement

2.3 Programming Examples

Problem - 1
Problem-2
2.4 Exercise Sets

CHAPTER 3: CONCEPT OF “FUNCTIONS” IN C++

3.1 Structured Programming and Designing
3.2 Functions in C++
● ​User Defined Functions
● ​Function Definition
● ​Prototype Declaration
● ​Function Call
● ​Void Functions with no Parameters
● ​Void Functions with Parameters
● ​Function Example

3.3 Default Parameter Arguments

3.4 Programming Examples
Problem - 1
Problem - 2
3.5 Exercise Sets

CHAPTER 4: SELECTION-MAKING
4.1 Logical Data and Operators
● ​Logical Data in C++
● ​Logical Operators
● ​Evaluating Logical Expressions
● ​Relation Operators

4.2 Two Way Selection

 ● I​ f, Else
● ​Rules for If Else statements
● ​Null Else Statement
● ​Nested If Statements

4.3 Multiway Selection

● ​The Switch Statement
● ​Else If Statement
● ​Example Program

4.4 Menu Program, C++

Problem
4.5 Programming Examples
Problem
4.6 Exercise Sets

CHAPTER 5: CONCEPT OF “ARRAYS” IN C++

5.1 Using Arrays in C++
● ​Declaration and Definition
● ​Accessing Elements in Arrays
● ​Storing Values in Arrays
● ​Inputting Values
● ​Assigning Values
● ​Exchanging Values
● ​Putting Value

5.2 Arrays and Functions

● ​Passing Individual Element
● ​Passing the Whole Array

5.3 Array Applications

● ​Frequency Distribution Arrays
● ​Histograms

5.4 Sorting
● ​Selection Sort
● ​Insertion Sort
● ​Bubble Sort

5.5 Programming Examples

 Problem - 1
Problem - 2
5.6 Exercise Sets

CHAPTER 6: CONCEPT OF “POINTERS” IN C++

6.1 Pointers
● ​Pointer Constants
● ​Pointer Values
● ​Pointer Variables

6.2 Accessing Variables through pointers

6.3 Pointer Declaration
6.4 Initialization of a Pointer Variable
Problem-1
Problem-2
6.5 Pointers and Functions
● ​Pointers as Formal Parameters
● ​Functions Return Pointers

6.6 Arrays and Pointers

6.7 Programming Examples
Problem - 1
Problem - 2
6.8 Exercise Sets

CHAPTER 7: CONCEPT OF “CLASSES” IN C++

7.1 Classes
● ​Access Specifiers
● ​Creating a Class
● ​Declaring a Class
● ​Class Definition

7.2 Defining a Class Object

● ​Instantiation
● ​Accessing Class Members
● ​Using Classes
7.3 Constructors and Destructors
● ​Constructors
● ​Destructors

7.4 Programming Examples

Problem - 1
Problem - 2
7.5 Exercise Sets

CHAPTER 8: CONCEPT OF “STRINGS” IN C++

8.1 Strings
● ​Fixed Length String
● ​Variable Length String

8.2 C++ Strings

● ​Storing Strings
● ​String Literals

8.3 String Input/Output

● ​String Input “>>”
● ​String Output “<<”

8.4 Array and Strings

8.5 Compare Packed Strings
8.6 Morse Code Program Design
8.7 The String Class
8.8 Programming Examples
Problem
8.9 Exercise Sets

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES
Introduction
C++ is a computer programming language widely used for general-
purpose programming. It is an extension of C-language. The basic
understanding of C++ can be acquired from C. That’s why both
computer languages are represented as C/C++. Bjarne Stroustrup
developed this multi-paradigm language in 1979.
In today’s world, many operating systems use C++ as their basic
language. Some system drivers, browsers, and games are based on
C++ programs. It is a free-form, compiled, and statically-typed
programming language. Many professionals believe that C++ is the
most efficient language to achieve the desired results.
In the “Complete guide to learn the basics of C++ programming in 7
days”, I have covered all the essential basic concepts for beginners.
It is a step by step guide, which makes sure the understanding of
C++ programming. First of all, there is a need to know the structure
and syntax of C++, along with the basic expressions. Then, it guides
the major “Functions” such as mathematical manipulation and
Standard Library. Moreover, there are complete guidance about the
selection making of operators and logical data, concepts of Arrays,
Pointers, Classes and Strings in C++.
While there are so many great programming languages, but C++ is
the most favorite owing to have the privilege of the first Object-
Oriented Programming language. Nowadays, there are several high-
level languages with simple syntax and user-friendly options. Still,
programmers can’t deny the importance of C++ because of its huge
number of open-source libraries, wide applications, and highly fast
run-time performance.
This guide is designed for beginners who want to learn C++ in 7
days. You will discover this language by making your programs while
reading this book.
Chapter 1: Introduction to C++
In the following chapter, we will discuss about the evolution of
computer programming languages and their evolution from machine
languages.
As we know C++ is a high-level language. We’ll discuss the concepts
of C++, in this chapter. Moreover, you will be able to write your first
program, after going through this chapter, i.e. “Hello World”.
Furthermore, you’ll understand the concepts of Constants, Variables,
Data types and some of the operators that may help you writing and
understanding a C++ program.

1.1 Background of C++

C++ is considered a properly structured programming language,

that’s why this is so popular. C++, as you know, is a high level
language because it allows a programmer to concentrate on the
problem at his hand, without worrying about the system that the
program may be using. There are many languages who claim to be
system or machine independent but C++ is one of the best among
them.
Like many other languages, C++ is basically derived from ALGOL,
which was the first language to have a structure. ALGOL was
developed in the early 1960s and it made a path for structured
programming and its concepts. Very first work in ALGOL was done
by two scientists name as Guiseppe Jacopini and Corrado Bohm.
Both of them published a research in 1960 which defined a thorough
idea of structured programming.
In 1967, a computer scientist named as Martin Richards designed a
language designed a programming language; he named Basic
Combined Programming Language aka. BCPL. In 1970, Ken
Thompson developed a language, known as “B”. Following him,
Dennis Ritchie, in 1972, developed the concept of language “C”.
Following all the concepts from the languages, ALGOL, BCPL, B and
C, Bjarne Stroustrup, developed C++ in mid 1980s.
1.2 C++ Programming

Now, when you know about the background of C++, i guess, you’ll
be eager to write your first program. This section will let you know
the basic parts of a C++ program, so that you’ll be able to write
your very first program.

● How to write a C++ program

First of all, we need to understand, the “Global Declaration”. Your

program is considered a little world; a world of computer universe.
So, we may start our program with global declaration.
Secondly, only one function, in your program must be named as
“main”. Main is the starting of the basic program, after global
declaration. Main can have two kinds of code;
● Declaration
Declaration is considered the data that you may use to justify or
write your program or function. If you declare something in a
function, it’ll be known as “Local Declaration”. We call them local
declarations because they are read, only be the function itself.
● Statements
Statements are some commands to the machine that is using the
program. Statements cause the machine to perform the actions,
such as adding or subtracting numbers, multiply them, taking their
average etc.

● Simple Program
We know that C++ allow us to make declarations and statements at
the same time, but, every time, we should write a program, which
should be well organized so that any other programmer or even the
machine could understand it fast. This is the reason, we follow the
language C’s concepts of organization. The concept states that one
should perform declaration first and statements second. Moreover,
most of the times, one should use comments for the identification of
the sections; Declarations and Statements.
A C++ program is a mixture of two components main (Main) and
fun (function). In other words, function is called or used by main.
Usually, we write the code for the “main”, first. After that, we’ll code
the function and sub functions, in their order.
Moving forward, there is another concept; concept of preprocessor
directives or precompiler directives. These are some statements
which give instructions to a compiler or processor to execute the
program in a unique pattern.
A statement which is globally used as a preprocessor directive is,
“include”. This statement allows the compiler to extract some data
from global libraries, known as header files. Without these header
files or libraries, you will not be able to write even a single program,
because it’ll be so complex to write the commands even for your
input or output. Even, you will need an “include” command, to write
your very first program. This will be used to instruct C++ that you
will be in need for the input and output libraries, so that you may
print your desired data to the console screen.

● Hello World

Your first C++ program is going to be very straightforward. It will

include just one precompiler directive and no global or local
declaration would be made. It will just display a greeting to the user
on a console screen. Because this program is not so complex, it will
contain only two statements; first, to display a greeting, the second
one would be used to terminate our program.
We will write the precompiler directive in the very beginning of our
program. Precompiler directives must start with a number sign i.e.
“#”, in any C++ program. The syntax for our precompile directive
would be:
#include <iostream.h>
In this precompiler directive, we may write # first and there should
be no space between “#” and “include”. Statement “include” will
include the concerned library in your program, which will be
mentioned in the pointed brackets “<>”.
In the following statement, “iostream” is a short form for “input
output stream” and “.h” is to represent header file.
Moreover, we’ll use another statement in our program which is:
using namespace std;
For understanding this statement, we have to consider a classroom
with a boy and a girl; sharing the same name and class, but having
different functions. So, when you will call their name, both will
respond. The very same confusion can be a part of programming, as
if there is a function named as “poi()” and in some other library
there is another function named as “poi()”, your compiler would not
be able to identify your desired function. To overcome this difficulty
we usually use this statement.
Moving forward, our program’s executable part would be starting
with a function header, such as:
Int main (void)
For this statement, we have to understand that the “int” states that
this specific function will send back an integer value to the machine
or operating system.In the concerned statement, our function’s
name is “main” and it has no specific parameters, as we have voided
the parameter list with “(void)”.
Now, there are two more statements, with first, we will be able to
print our desired data. And with the second, we will be able to
terminate the program.
cout << “Hello world”;
This statement is used to display or print the desired data, in this
case “Hello World”. This statement uses an operator “<<”, this
operator allows us to print or display data in our console. This
statement contains inverted commas “”. Whatever, you will be
writing in these commas, will be displayed in your console.
Finally, the program will be terminated with a statement:
return 0;
This statement will simply end the program and will hand over the
control to operating system again.
Now, if you need to write your program, you’ll need a compiler first.
There are many compilers available, online and offline, to execute
your code in C++. If you need to compile your code offline Turbo
C++ and Dev C++ are highly recommended and if you need to
compile your code online, you may search for any online C++
compiler.
Typically, the first program is known as “Hello World”, but we’ll
change the odds. We will be writing our first program as “Hello to
the world of C++!”
So if you have a compiler now, you are all set to write your very first
program. We’ll start with header files and then the body of program
and we will terminate it with our termination statement.
So, your first program should look something like this:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

int main()
{
cout << "Hello to the world of C++!";
return 0;
}
When you’ll execute this program, there will be a console screen
popping up with the text:
Hello to the world of C++!

We’ve already written our first program so now, we will be

discussing some more important concepts of programming in C++.
1.3 Constants

The concept of constants in programming is very similar to the

concept of constant in Mathematics. Constants are the values or
data which remains unchanged during the execution of a code or
program.
In this section, we will define different types of constants in
programming.

● Integer Constants

First thing first, integers are stored in binary formation. You’ll code
integers, as you use them in your daily routine, for example you will
code eight simply as 8.
The following table will show you different integers, their values in
programming and their data types

Value in Number Data Type

programming
98 +98 int

-865 -865 int

-68495L -68495 long int

984325LU 984325 unsigned long int

● Character Constants

Whenever, you’ll find an integer, closed between two single

apostrophes, this would be character constant. Moreover, there is a
chance that you’ll find a backslash “\” between those apostrophes.
For most machines, ASCll character set is used, i.e.

ASCII Characters Symbolic Display

Null character “\0”

newline ‘\n’

horizontal tab ‘\t’

alert (bell) ‘\a’

backspace ‘\b’

form feed ‘\f’

vertical tab ‘\v’

single quote ‘\’’

backslash ‘\\’

carriage return ‘\r’

● Float Constants

Float constants are stored as two parts in memory as float constants

are numbers having decimal parts. The first part, they obtain in
memory is significand and the second is exponent.
Float constant’s default type is “double”. You must write a code to
specify your desired data type, i.e. “float” or “long double”. We may
remember that “f” or “F” is used to represent float and “l” or “L” is
used to represent long double.
In the following table, some of the examples of float, double and
long double.are shown:
Value in Number Data Type
Programming

.0 0.00 double

0. 0.00 double

3.0 3.0 double

5.6534 5.6534 double

-3.0f -3.0 float

5.6534785674L 5.6534785674 long double

● Boolean Constants
These constants are predefined keywords and they can not be
defined or declared by the programmer. It has two predefined
constants, “True” and “False”. In programming, we represent this
kind of constant as “bool”.

● Programming Constants

In this part, we are going to understand different programming

constants, and ways to write and define constants in a C++
program. Usually, there are three types of programming constants.
● Defined Constants
A way to define a constant in a C++ program is to use a precompiler
statement “define”. Like every other precompiler directive, it starts
with a “#”. For example, a traditional precompiler directive for
“define” would be:
#define TABLE_SIZE 150
Define directives are usually placed in the beginning of the program,
so that anyone reading your program, can find them easily.
● Memory Constants
Another way to code constants is by using a memory constant.
These constants use a C++ type qualifier to remember that the
specified data can not be changed.
C++ programming provides us with an ability to define named
constants. We just have to add type qualifier in our code, before
constant. For example:
Code :
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
#define val 50
#define floatVal 9.7
#define charVal 'K'
int main()
{
cout << "Integer Constant in our code: " << val
<< "\n";
cout << "Floating point Constant in our code: "
<< floatVal << "\n";
cout << "Character Constant in our code: "<<
charVal << "\n" ;
return 0;
}
Output :
In the case of this code, a console screen will pop up with the
output:
Integer Constant in our code: 50
Floating point Constant in our code: 9.7
Character Constant in our code: K
● Literal Constants
Literal constant is a constant which is unnamed and used to specify
your desired data. As we know constant can not be changed so we
just have to code its data value in a statement.
Literal constant is the most common form of constant. Here is a
table to show different kind of literal constants.

Values Type
‘C’ Character Literal

7 Numeric Literal 7

C+8 Another Numeric Literal (8)

5.6534 Float Literal

Hello String Literal

1.4 Data Type

A data type defines a set of operations and values that have the
ability to apply on the concerned values. For example, a switch of a
light bulb can be compared to a computer system as it has two
different values; True as On, and False as off. Since the bulb switch
contain just these two values, we can consider its size as two. There
are just two operations that can be done with a bulb switch:
● We can turn it On
 ● We can turn it Off
In a C++ program, functions have their own unique types. Usually, a
function's type is specified by the data it returns. C++ usually
contains five standard data types:
● void (Void)
● Int (Integer)
● char (Character)
● bool (Boolean)
● float (Floating Point)

● void (Void)
In C++, void has no operations or no functions. In simpler words,
both the set of operations and the set of values are empty. It is a
very useful data type in programming although it seem unusual.
Typically, it is a generic data type that can represent any other
standard data types.

● int (Integer)
In C++, integer is a number without having a fraction part, we
usually call it an integral number. Our concerned language supports
three types of integers as its data types:
● short (Short Integer)
● Int (Integer)
● long (Long Integer)
C++ allows us to use an operator “size of”, that may tell us the size
of our data types. Whenever, we are coding in C++, we should keep
this statement in mind:
sizeof (long int) => sizeof (int) => sizeof (short int)
 ● char (Character)

We usually think of characters as the alphabet or numbers, but

programming has its another definition. By this definition a character
can be any number, value or symbol that can be represented by the
machine or computer’s alphabets.
Moreover, we have to remember that C++ usually treat characters
as an integer because it uses memory as an integer i.e. between 0
to 255.

● bool (Boolean - logical data in C++)

Boolean data types has two functions, True and False. Traditionally, a
zero is considered as false and any non-zero part is considered as
true.

● float (Floating Point)

Float data type or floating point is usually a data type having a

fractional part. When coding in float data type, we should always
consider this statement:
sizeof (long double) => sizeof (double) => size of (float)
We may think that the data type, float and data type, integer are the
same, but there are many differences as the “float” is always
declared in a C++ program.

Data Types Implementations

Void void

Integer Unsigned short int, unsigned int,

unsigned long int, short int, int,
 long int

Character char

Floating point float, double, long double

Boolean bool

1.5 Variables

Variable, in C++ are memory locations, having different data types,

such as character or integers. Variables are manipulatable and
changeable because the use a set of different operations.

● Variable Initialization

By using an initializer, we can declare and initialize a variable at the

very same time. Basically, initializer set up the variable’s very first
value. Usually, an identifier is followed by a “=” sign to first initialize
and then define a variable’s initial value, when the function starts.
Simple syntax of initialization is:
Int count = 0
Moving forward, we have to keep in mind that whenever a variable
is defined, it is not automatically initialized. The programmer should
be the one to initialize any variable, when the program starts.

● Variable Declaration
Every variable, in a program, must be defined and declared. In C++,
we use Definition to create different objects and we use Declaration
to name those objects. Whenever a programmer creates a variable,
definition reserves memory for it and definition assigns it a symbolic
name. Variables, when assigned, hold data that is required by the
program to fulfil its task.
In C++, multiple variable of the similar types can be declared in a
single statement. Many programmers use this technique but we
won’t be recommending this as this is not a good programming
technique. This reduces the efficiency of program and the efficiency
for the execution process of compiler.
1.6 Programming Examples

Problem 1

We read about the ASCII character set, print your desired character
ASCII values from A to Z.
Solution :
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
int main ()
{
char a;
cout << "Enter your desired character to print its value: ";
cin >> a;
cout << "According to ASCII character set, value of " << a <<"
is : " << (int)a;
return 0;
}
Output :
When you will execute this program, a console screen will pop up
with this text:
Enter your desired character to print its value:
You simply have to type your desired alphabet to print its value. Let's
say you want to print the value of “G”. Simply type “G” and press
“Enter” key. Your program will print the value of “G” according to
ASCII character set. It will, somehow, look like this:
According to ASCII character set, value of "G" is : 71
Problem 2

Write a program in C++ that uses five output statements to print

the pattern shown below.
A
AA
AAA
AAAA
AAAAA
Solution :
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
cout << "A"<< endl;
cout << "AA"<< endl;
cout << "AAA"<< endl;
cout << "AAAA"<< endl;
cout << "AAAAA";
return 0;
}
Output :
When you execute this code, a console screen will pop us with your
desired pattern, i.e.
A
AA
AAA
AAAA
AAAAA

1.7 Exercise Sets

● Write a C++ Program by using “cout” or output statements to

print the initials of your name in block letters. Program should
not read any alphabet from your keyboard. Each letter should
be formed by using seven columns and five rows, using the
letter itself. For example if your name is “Faheel”, your output
should be something like this:
FFFFFFF
F
FFFF
F
F
● Write a C++ program to read an integer, character and floating
point. Program should print each of these on a separate line.
● Write a program in C++ that allows the user to enter three
numbers and them it prints those numbers vertically (one in a
line), first, in ascending order and then in descending order, as
Shown in below example:
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
had been enriched by her warm-hearted liberality, who had penned
his most polished verses in praise of her distinguished beauty and
virtues, but who, when misfortune fell upon her, sold his venal pen
to her enemies, and clothed in classical Latin the calumnies by which
they hoped to overthrow her cause and establish their own. Now,
students of this period of Scottish history know that Buchanan has
been convicted of calumny in many particulars of Mary's life. This is
beyond controversy, established by official records of the time. The
presumption of calumny, therefore, attaches to his other
accusations, and until these are proved to be true from reliable
sources, they cannot decide anything against her. Furthermore,
Buchanan's "Detectio," which was written to ruin Mary's cause in
England, was prepared at the instigation of her enemies, and
Buchanan's services were engaged only because he was a good
Latinist. "The book was written by him," writes Cecil, "not as of
himself, nor in his own name, but according to the instructions given
him by common conference of the Lords of the Privy Council of
Scotland"--the Moray party. It may also be mentioned that while the
English translation of the "Detectio" was fathered by Cecil, and
dedicated to Queen Elizabeth, the "Defence" of Mary, written by
Bishop Leslie, was suppressed by the authorities at Westminster
immediately it appeared.
So much for presumptive argument; but how explain the
strange series of events after Darnley's murder?
Mary, after the murder of her husband, was like one who does
not know what moment a mine is going to explode under her feet.
She had got an inkling, through reports from London, gathered by
her Ambassador in Paris, of the plot to murder Rizzio, of the
conspiracy against the life of Darnley, and of harm intended to
herself. The two first having been so emphatically verified, had she
not reason to fear that the next would soon be consummated in her
own person? Her support, too, if we except Bothwell, was, at that
critical time, slender indeed. Moray, her Prime Minister who, with
something akin to the wild goose instinct of approaching storms,
always managed to get away whenever any disagreeable work was
ready for execution, had left Edinburgh on the eve of the murder
and remained absent.
It is commonly asserted by Mary's adversaries that Bothwell's
trial was a farce; nor do I deny that it was. But was Mary responsible
for the farce any more than Bothwell's peers who acquitted him?
One reason why the trial proved a farce was, that Bothwell had too
many secrets in his keeping--secrets which, others besides himself,
who perhaps were uttering expressions of pious horror at the crime,
were about as deeply stained with the blood of Darnley as he. I do
not claim that the Queen was perfectly persuaded of Bothwell's
innocence. I say, however, that as matters then stood, there were
various reasons that well might lead her to believe a plot had been
formed against him; some of which were, on the one hand, the
treasonable character of many who were now opposed to him, and,
on the other, Bothwell's strict loyalty. With regard to this celebrated
Earl, it may, I think, be truly said, that whatever his faults or his
vices, besides being the most powerful, he had proved himself one
of the most loyal of the Scottish nobles. James Hepburn (Earl of
Bothwell) had inherited many important offices. He was Lord Admiral
of Scotland, Keeper of Edinburgh Castle and of Hermitage Castle,
Sheriff of the Western Lothians, and Lieutenant of the Border. No
Scottish nobleman of his rank was more sincerely hated by Elizabeth.
As early as 1560, Throckmorton, the English Ambassador to Paris,
referred to the "glorious, boastful, rash and hazardous" Bothwell as
one who should be watched. The sword of Bothwell was never
wanting when the cause of his sovereign required its aid. A
Protestant in religion, he had stood by Mary of Lorraine in her
troubles with the Anglicizing party, and had intercepted a quantity of
Elizabeth's gold that had been sent to the Scottish rebels; he had
supported Mary herself against the Moray faction who revolted after
her marriage with Darnley; and he was one of the first to escape
from Holyrood on the night of Rizzio's murder, and arouse the
country in her defence. In view of these facts, and of the widespread
treachery existing among the nobles, nobody should be surprised if,
at the time of the Kirk O'Field tragedy, Bothwell, considered in his
public character, stood high in the opinion of the Queen and was
regarded as her strongest and surest defence against the dangers by
which she was encompassed.
A week after Bothwell's acquittal, a curious deed was
accomplished which helps to explain the events that immediately
followed. All the influential members except one, who were present
at the Parliament held the same day, signed a document known in
history as the "Ainslie Tavern Band," by which they engaged to do all
in their power to promote a marriage between Bothwell and the
Queen. In addition to this, if we accept the testimony of Claude Nau,
these nobles sent a deputation to Mary, who represented that,
seeing the disturbed condition of the realm, it was necessary that
she should marry, and unanimously pressed her to accept Bothwell
for husband. Mary refused, and reminded them of the report current
about his connection with her late husband's death. The deputies
had a ready reply. Bothwell, they said, had been legally acquitted by
the Council; besides (to quote Nau), "they who made the request to
her do so for the public good of the realm, and as they were the
highest of the nobility, it would be for them to vindicate a marriage
brought about by their advice and authority."
It is difficult to discover the motives that prompted some of the
nobles to sign this objectionable bond. In this, very probably, as in
many similar instances, indifferentism, self-interest, or fear of
differing from the stronger party, led a number to subscribe. But, if
we read the motives of the prime movers in the light of subsequent
events, we can discover the old design for Mary's overthrow carried
out under a new form. Even James Anthony Froude, one of the last
men in the world from whom we should expect to hear it, suggests
that several at least of the nobles appended their names in
deliberate treachery to the Queen.
But where the treachery? I have already pointed out that the
attempts to overthrow Mary's authority had hitherto failed chiefly
because she was beloved by the people. To succeed against her,
therefore, it was necessary to bring her into disgrace before the
Scottish nation; and how could this be more successfully done than
by drawing her into a marriage with the man who was widely
believed to be the murderer of her husband, and then rising up in
apparent indignation against the union?
In view of the facts I have just indicated, it is not surprising
that, having fallen into the hands of Bothwell, and having been
detained by him, Mary should have made the best of the case by
consenting to marry him. I do not pretend to decide how far her
consent was obtained by persuasion, or how far by force. Both were
used. But it should not be forgotten, that for more than six mouths
after the event, the public records of Scotland refer to the
intercepting of the Queen by Bothwell as a forcible and treasonable
act, and speak of her as having been compelled, through fear and
other unlawful means, to give her promise of marriage; and it was
only when changed circumstances demanded a change of tactics,
that the worthies who had hurled her from the throne began to
assert that what had been done by Bothwell had been done with her
consent. However, leaving aside the question of violence, see what
influence persuasion itself could have had. Bothwell was not without
certain favourable qualities. His sterling loyalty and great power
were invaluable to one in Mary's difficult circumstances. But if these
were insufficient to gain his end, there was the agreement signed by
the nobles. "And when," writes Mary, giving an account of her
marriage to her friends in France, "he saw us like to reject all his suit
and offers, in the end he showed us how far he was proceeded with
our whole nobility and principals of our estate, and what they had
promised him under their handwrits. If we had cause to be
astonished, we remit us to the judgment of the King, the Queen, our
uncle, and others our friends." Could Mary, with her sore experience
of their turbulency, lightly oppose the will of so many of her nobility
as set forth in that celebrated "Band?" She might express doubt as
to the genuineness of their signatures; but Bothwell could point out
that, although she was already in his power nearly twelve days, not
one whose name was subscribed thereto had moved hand or foot to
liberate her.
 If, placed in these circumstances, without any indication that
protracted resistance would result in her rescue, she consented to
marry Bothwell, is there not sufficient reason for her action, without
the theory of an old and ungovernable passion for the "rugged
Border Lord"? It is poor philosophy to invent theories to account for
events of which we already see adequate cause. Mary may, or may
not, have been infatuated with Bothwell; but that she was must be
proved--if proved at all--independently of the fact that she married
him. In the presumption, warranted by law, reason and common
sense, of her innocence, we can account satisfactorily for her
marriage. Why then resort to the presumption, warranted neither by
law, reason nor common sense, of her guilt, in order to explain it?
It may seem strange that, whatever her circumstances were,
she should have married a man who had a wife living. But it must
not be forgotten that the Catholic Archbishop of St. Andrews had
declared Bothwell's former marriage invalid on the ground of
consanguinity within the forbidden degree, from which no
dispensation had been obtained. It is true that at a later date Mary
regarded her marriage with Bothwell as invalid;[#] but it cannot be
inferred that she contracted it in bad faith, for in the meantime
doubts may have arisen as to whether the Archbishop's decision was
founded on fact.--A good deal of uncertainty still hangs over the
value of this decision. Besides, she must have learned, what does
not appear to have occurred to the mind of the Archbishop, that,
owing to the ecclesiastical impediment of raptus, she was incapable,
no matter how earnestly she may have desired it, of contracting
valid matrimony with Bothwell, without having first regained his
liberty.
[#] I do not think it can be any longer doubted that Mary learned in the course of
time to regard her marriage with Bothwell as invalid; and I am surprised that so
eminent and enlightened a writer as Mr. Skelton should argue that her
"subsequent anxiety to obtain a divorce from Bothwell proves that she continued
to believe that the marriage was binding." She was too well versed in Catholic
doctrine and in the history of Henry the Eighth's conflict with Rome to hope for a
divorce from Bothwell, if she believed the marriage was binding. At any rate, her
instructions to Bishop Leslie, whom she sent to Rome in 1575, leave it beyond
doubt that it was not a divorce, but merely a declaration that the marriage was
null from the beginning, that she asked of the Pope. "Take good heed," she said,
"that the Holy Father shall publicly announce that the pretended marriage
contracted between me and Bothwell, without any legality but by a pretended
procedure is of no (force). For although there are many reasons which, as you
know, make it clearly invalid in itself, yet the matter will be much clearer if his
Holiness, acting as the most certain lawyer of the Church, will come forward to
annul it." (Published from a Cottonian MS. by the late Rev. Joseph Stevenson, S.J.,
in notes to his preface to Claude Nau's narrative.)

During the nine days that intervened between the times he was
brought back to Edinburgh and the day of her marriage, no effort
was made to stay the proceedings. Craig, the minister of St. Giles, to
whom it fell to publish the marriage banns, courageously declared
his disapproval of the union, adding, however, the significant words
that "the best part of the realm did approve it, either by flattery or
by their silence"--words that show how completely the unfortunate
Queen was left under the control of Bothwell.
 But as soon as Mary's fortunes were identified with Bothwell's
by the bond of marriage, the sound of approaching war was heard.
The Confederate lords rose in arms to avenge the murder of the late
King (so they said), and to liberate the Queen; and many true
friends of Mary's, little suspecting the real purpose of the prime
movers, arrayed themselves under their standard. The two armies
met at Carberry Hill; no battle ensued. The Confederates promised
that if Mary would separate herself from Bothwell and confide in
them, they would respect her as their true sovereign. Mary agreed,
but once in their power her eyes were opened. She was brought
back to Edinburgh, flouted along the way with a banner on which
was depicted the effigy of her murdered husband, and exposed to
the studied insults of a rabble, half frantic from the fierce harangues
of the Knoxonian preachers. The following night she was hurried
away, and placed in the lonely castle of Lochleven, situated on a
rock in a lake of the same name, in the County of Kinross. And that
was how they fulfilled their promises to restore her to her royal
estate,--that was her reward for the confidence she had placed in
their word.
Froude attempts to justify the action of the Confederates on the
ground that Mary, after reaching Edinburgh, refused to give up
Bothwell, and that she wrote him a letter which was intercepted that
same night, declaring her anxiety to be with him at almost any cost.
Of course Froude was not the first to offer this explanation; but no
writer who wishes to be classed among respectable historians would
now embody that unauthenticated gossip in his narrative in the
manner in which Froude has done. Froude evidently relies much on
the gullibility of his readers; and not without reason; for how many
of those who sweep over his dramatic pages, captivated by the
brilliancy of his master style, ever suspect that his statements are
reckless and unwarranted?
But did the Confederate lords imprison the Queen because she
refused to give up Bothwell? We cannot tell. The alleged letter to
Bothwell is the only argument for it, and that letter was never
afterwards produced, although the production of it would have been
of incalculable value to her enemies. The fact is, the lords gave
nobody access to the Queen--not even the English envoy and what
she did, or what she desired, we know only through those whose
interest it was to make out a case against her.

CHAPTER VII.
CAPTIVITY.--ESCAPE.--FLIGHT.

The next step was to force Mary to abdicate in favour of her infant
son. (To use the child against the parent monarch had long been a
favourite policy with the Scottish rebel lords.) A delegation was sent
to her for that purpose, headed by Lord Lindsay, whom Sir Walter
Scott calls "the rudest baron of that rude age"--fit agent for the
tyrranous deed. Moved partly by fear that refusal would lead to a
violent death, and partly by the previous representation of some of
her friends that what she did under constraint could not bind her if
she regained her liberty, Mary signed the cruel document--
 "She wrote the words--She stood erect--a queen
without a crown,"

and although prudence would prevent her from uttering them with
her lips, we may be sure that in her heart she spoke the words
attributed to her by the poet:--

"My lords,--my lords," the captive said, "were I but

once more free,
With ten good knights on yonder shore to aid my
cause and me,
That parchment would I scatter wide to every breeze
that blows,
And once more reign a Stewart queen o'er my
remorseless foes."

The next important visit the helpless Queen received in her prison
was from the Earl of Moray. The cautious Earl had been absent in
France during the troublous times that had elapsed since the murder
of Darnley, but no doubt was well pleased with the success with
which Morton and his associates had been advancing his cause. His
sister was now dethroned, the infant James was crowned King, and
he himself was named Regent. The goal of his ambition seemed
near. He had returned to Scotland in time to receive the honours
prepared for him, and--whatever his motives were--before formally
accepting the Regency, he visited Mary in Lochleven Castle. It is
thought by many that he paid this visit with a view to rendering his
footing more secure, as he probably hoped that the prisoner,
recognizing the helplessness of her condition, would ask him to
accept the office of Regent. Depressed with the gravity of the trials
she had just passed through, the tender-hearted Queen naturally
hoped that her brother's visit would bear some comfort to her lonely
prison. But she was disappointed. Ambition (if nothing more) had
expelled from Moray's breast those feelings of natural tenderness
with which we should presume every man to be moved towards a
humiliated and afflicted sister. Even his friends are slow to commend
his conduct on this occasion. "That visit" (writes Robertson, in the
History of Scotland) "to a sister, and a queen in prison, from which
he had neither any intention to relieve her, nor to mitigate the rigour
of her confinement, may be mentioned among the circumstances
which discover the great want of delicacy and refinement in that
age."
As long as the Queen was confined in Lochleven, her friends in
Scotland were obliged to keep quiet, for it was intimated to them
that if they attempted to liberate her, they would be presented with
her head.
The unhappy Queen, cut off from the world in the bloom and
beauty of her youth, looked out from day to day across the dull
waters that encircled her prison-house, and anxiously surveyed the
neighbouring hills in which, she knew, her faithful friends were
lingering, in hopes of discovering some means of effecting her
deliverance. After various ineffectual attempts, a successful plan of
escape was at length devised by the ingenuity of little Willie
Douglas, a youth in the household of the Laird of Lochleven.
 Sunday, May 2nd, was the day chosen for what proved to be a
successful attempt to escape. Lords Seton, Beton and George
Douglas, with a number of followers, were lingering about the shore,
near the village of Kinross, ready to receive the Queen and convey
her to a place of safety. Within the castle prison all preliminaries
were arranged, but the lowest point of the wall that Mary could
reach was higher than she could venture to leap from, and the keys
of the gate were scrupulously guarded by the Laird. Let us hear Nau
relate how the problem was solved:--
"An hour before supper-time, the Queen retired into her own
chamber. She put on a red kirtle belonging to one of her women,
and over it she covered herself with one of her own mantles. Then
she went into the garden to talk with the old lady whence she could
see the people who were walking on the other side of the loch.
"Everything being now ready, the Queen, who, of set purpose,
had caused the supper to be delayed until that time, now ordered it
to be served. When the supper was finished, the Laird (whose
ordinary custom it was to wait upon her at table), went to sup along
with his wife and the rest of the household, in a hall on the ground
story. A person called Draisdel,[#] who had the chief charge in the
establishment, and who generally remained in the Queen's room to
keep her safe, went out along with the Laird, and amused himself by
playing at hand ball.

[#] When Draisdel--the original, no doubt, of Scott's imperturbable Dryfesdale in

"The Abbott"--was informed by the two young girls that the queen was missing
and had probably escaped, "he was amused at this, and said he would soon find
her; he would give her leave to escape if she could. At one time he whistled, at
another he cut capers." Romance must have been unfair in painting him a
phlegmatic steward.

"In order to free herself from the two young girls who remained with
her, Her Majesty in the meantime went into an upper room, above
her own, occupied by her surgeon, on the plea that she wished to
say her prayers; and, indeed, she did pray very devoutly,
recommending herself to God, who then showed His pity and care
for her. In this room she left her mantle, and, having put on a hood,
such as is worn by the country-women of the district, she made one
of her domestics, who was to accompany her, dress herself in the
same fashion. The other femme-de-chambre remained with the two
young girls to amuse them, for they had become very inquisitive as
to the cause of the Queen's lengthened absence.
"While the laird was at supper, William Douglas, as he was
handing him his drink, secretly removed the key of the great gate,
which lay on the table before him. He promptly gave notice of this to
the Queen, in order that she should come down stairs
instantaneously; and immediately afterwards as he came out of the
door he gave the sign to the young woman who was to accompany
Her Majesty, as she was looking towards the window. This being
understood, the Queen came down forthwith; but as she was at the
bottom of the steps she noticed that several of the servants of the
household were passing backwards and forwards in the court, which
induced her to stand for some time the door of the stairs. At last,
however, in the sight of the whole of them, she crossed the
courtyard, and having gone out by the great gate, William Douglas
locked it with the key and threw it into a cannon placed near at
hand. The Queen and her femme-de-chambre had stood for some
time close to the wall, fearing that they should be seen from the
windows of the house; but at length they got into the vessel, and
the Queen laid herself down under the boatman's seat. She had
been advised to do this, partly to escape notice, partly to escape
being hit, if a cannon shot should be sent after her. Several
washerwomen and other domestics were amusing themselves in a
garden near the loch when Her Majesty got into the boat. One of the
washerwomen even recognized her, and made a sign to William
Douglas that she was aware of it, but William called out to her
aloud, by name, telling her to hold her tongue.
"As the boat was nearing the other side, William saw one of
George's servants, but failed to recognize him, as he was armed.
Apprehending some fraud, he hesitated to come nearer the shore; at
length, however, the servant having spoken, he landed, and then
Her Majesty was met and welcomed by George Douglas and John
Beton, who had broken into the laird's stables and seized his best
horses. Being mounted as best she might, the Queen would not set
off until she had seen William Douglas on horse also--he who had
hazarded so much for her release. She left her femme-de-chambre
behind her, but with direction that she should follow her as soon as
she could have an outfit."
Being joined by her friends on shore, the Queen hurried south,
and, having crossed the Firth at Queen's Ferry, reached Lord Seton's
house at Niddry, about midnight. Thence she proceeded to Hamilton,
where she remained until the 13th of May collecting her forces. The
plan was, to place the Queen in safety in Dunbarton Castle, on the
Clyde, and then muster all her forces for the overthrow of the
Regent. It is not difficult now to see that her friends made a fatal
blunder in not conveying her directly to Dunbarton from Lochleven.
In Dunbarton she would be safe, and her followers could take time
to properly organize. As it was, those who rallied round her standard
during her stay at Hamilton were equal in number to the army under
command of the Regent at Glascow. Her two main supports in the
North, Lord Ogilvy and the powerful Earl of Huntly, had not yet
succeeded in joining her; but the Earls of Argyle, Cassillis, Rothes
and Eglinton, Lords Seton, Borthwick, Somerville, Livingstone, Claud
Hamilton, Herries, Boyd, Yester, Ross and others, were already at
her side. Bravery and chivalry were in her ranks, but organization
and efficient generalship were wanting.
The fact that, notwithstanding the persistent and ingenious
efforts of her enemies to utterly defame her, so many nobles (most
of whom were Protestants), hurried to her support as soon as her
escape was made known, draws the following remarks from her
Protestant biographer, Mr. Hosack--
"That in spite of all the efforts of Moray and his faction, and in
spite of all the violence of the preachers, she--the Catholic Queen of
Scotland, the daughter of the hated house of Guise, the reputed
mortal enemy of their religion--should now, after being maligned as
the most abandoned of her sex, find her best friends among her
Protestant subjects, appears at first sight inexplicable. A
phenomenon so strange admits of only one explanation. If,
throughout her reign, she had not loyally kept her promises of
security and toleration to her Protestant subjects, they assuredly
would not in her hour of need have risked their lives and fortunes in
her defence."
 On their march to Dunbarton the Queen's forces were met by
those of the Regent at Langside, and thrown into confusion.
Attended by three brave nobles--Lords Herries, Fleming and
Livingstone--and little Willie Douglas, she hurried towards the south,
and, after a wearisome journey, reached Dundrennen Abbey, in
Galloway. Here she resolved on a step that was the greatest mistake
of her life. The majority of the Scottish people were loyal to her, and
only needed time to muster, but in spite of the advice, persuasions
and entreaties of Lord Herries and her other attendants, she
determined to cross over to England. Elizabeth's recent expressions
of friendship and promises of help had blinded the Scottish Queen;
and her own generous nature, which would have instantly prompted
her to assist, as far as she could, a sister queen in distress, rendered
her for the time incapable of suspecting that Elizabeth could betray
her in her hour of greatest need. She stepped forth from Scottish
soil, never to set foot on it again, and steered across the Firth to the
shores of England.

CHAPTER VIII.
IN THE HANDS OF ELIZABETH.

Having landed in England, the Scottish Queen was, by order of

Elizabeth, conveyed to Carlisle Castle, and there placed in custody of
Sir Francis Knollys. She hastened to send Lord Herries to the English
court, to request that Elizabeth, according to her promise, would
help restore her to her throne; or at least would give her liberty to
pass out of the kingdom and seek help elsewhere. Elizabeth could
have pursued either course with honour, but she pursued neither;
and as long as right is right and wrong is wrong--as long as justice is
not synonymous with temporal advantage--so long will it remain
impossible to frame a defence for Elizabeth Tudor in her conduct
toward Mary Stewart. Her hostility to Mary, and her support of
Mary's enemies, veil them as she would, were evident throughout
the subsequent proceedings.
Mary's friends in Scotland were rising in large numbers and
preparing to take the field against the Regent. Elizabeth, leading
Mary to believe that she would reinstate her, prevailed on her to
request her partizans to desist from warfare; the Regent in the
meantime continued his work of destruction against those who had
fought for the Queen. Elizabeth offered to act as umpire between
the Regent's party and Mary. The whole affair, so Mary was given to
understand, would turn out to her profit. Thomas Howard, Duke of
Norfolk; Thomas Ratcliff, Earl of Sussex, and Sir Ralph Sadler, were
nominated commissioners by Elizabeth to hear the charge of political
misgovernment which the Regent would bring against Mary. No
charge affecting Mary's personal honour was to be admitted.
The conference opened at York, in October, 1568. Of course it
was mere fiction to speak of Mary's misgovernment. But would Cecil
and Elizabeth lose their opportunity of disgracing, as far as they
could, the Scottish Queen, in the eyes of the English people, and of
rendering a compromise with her enemies in Scotland impossible?
Such could hardly be expected. The Conference was transferred to
Westminster, and, contrary to the conditions on which Mary had
permitted her case to be referred to a commission, Moray was
assured that he might bring forward accusations against her honour-
-in fact he was urged or encouraged to do so. He then accused her
of being the author, with Bothwell, of her late husband's murder, and
of having intended a like fate for her infant son; and in support of
his charge he produced the celebrated documents known as the
Casket Letters, consisting of letters and sonnets which, he claimed,
had been written by Mary to Bothwell, and had fallen into the hands
of the Earl of Morton, shortly after the surrender at Carberry Hill.
Mary's commissioners protested against this violation of the
conditions on which the conference had been opened, and
demanded that, as Moray had been admitted to Elizabeth's
presence, so should their Queen. Otherwise, they maintained, the
conference was closed. Cecil disregarded their protests, and the
Regent placed his accusations and papers before the commissioners
and Lords of the Privy Council. Mary, hearing this, instructed her
commissioners to declare that Moray himself and his faction were
guilty of Darnley's murder, and that if she were furnished with the
originals or even with copies of the Casket Letters, and admitted to
the presence of Elizabeth as her accusers had been, she should
prove them to be liars, and should convict certain persons of their
number as the real murderers. But she was refused admittance to
Queen Elizabeth. As soon as she was informed of the refusal, she
directed her commissioners to resume the conference, and to throw
back the charge of murder on Moray and his associates. But the
conference was not resumed, nor was Mary furnished with the
originals of the letters that had been brought forward as evidence
against her honour. Elizabeth, Cecil and Moray shrank from a fair
investigation of the case; and Moray, with his "Casket" and
"Originals," and with £5,000 of Elizabeth's gold in his pocket, was
hurried back to Scotland. Mary, however, was left as before--a
prisoner whom Elizabeth would neither help to regain her throne,
nor permit to pass out of the realm. Matters now seemed to stand in
the condition in which Elizabeth had hoped to place them. The
breach between Mary and the Regent's party had been rendered
irreparable; and the English nation--in which she had had so many
adherents--had been taught (so at least her enemies hoped), to
regard the Scottish Queen as a criminal and abandoned woman.
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?
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.
Sixth. The Casket Letter number two, commonly known as the
Glascow letter (because it was supposed to have been written to
Bothwell from Glasgow while Mary was visiting her sick husband
there) contains a report of a conversation between Mary and
Darnley which corresponds so closely with another document
adduced eighteen months later in evidence against the Queen, that
the one must have been copied from the other. A brief explanation is
necessary to make the importance of this circumstance clear. A
certain Robert Crawfurd was in attendance on Darnley at Glasgow
when Mary went thither to comfort him. At the request of the Earl of
Lennox, Darnley's father, Crawfurd (so he states), noted down the
conversations that passed between the royal couple; but, not being
present at them, he learned what had been said only from the
account which Darnley afterwards gave him. Also in the letter
number two is recounted one of Darnley's plaintive discourses. It is
clear, therefore, that if it could be shown that the conversation
embodied in this letter was really held, something would be done to
give an air of genuineness to the whole document. Hence, Crawfurd
was called upon for an account of what had passed between Mary
and Darnley, and his deposition was brought forward by the Regent
and his associates before the English commissioners. Now, it turns
out that Crawfurd's deposition and the portion of the Casket Letter
that covers the same ground, agree almost verbally--agree, in fact,
so wonderfully that, all the circumstances considered, it is impossible
to resist the conclusion that either one must have been copied from
the other, and that a fraud was practised somewhere, for both
documents were represented as original. I have said, "all the
circumstances considered." We must remember that reporters,
especially if they are not skilled stenographers, recording a speech,
even, while it is being delivered, exhibit a considerable divergence of
vocabulary and phraseology in their respective reports. But here
both Crawfurd and Mary reported from memory; in fact, Crawfurd
had to struggle against the vagaries of two memories--his own and
Darnley's. This is what makes the agreement suspiciously strange.
More than that; Crawfurd's deposition was written in Scots, while the
Casket letter was written in French, and afterwards translated into
Scots; and it is these two documents which, in spite of so many
causes why they should widely differ, are found to agree so closely.
Here are the passages in question:--

Deposition of Crawfurd.
"Ye asked me what I ment by the crueltye specified in my lettres;
yat proceedethe of you onelye, that wille not accept mye offres and
repentance. I confess that I have failed in som thingis, and yet
greater faultes have bin made to you sundrye tymes, which ye have
forgiven. I am but yonge, and ye will saye ye have forgiven me
diverse tymes. Maye not a man of mye age, for lack of counselle, of
which I am very destitute, falle twise or thrise, and yet repent, and
be chastised bye experience? If I have made any faile that ye wul
think a faile, howsoever its be, I crave your pardone, and protest
that I shall never faile againe. I desire no other thinge but that we
may be together as husband and wife. And if ye will not consent
hereto, I desire never to ris futhe from this bed. Therefore I pray
yow, give me an answer hereunto. God knoweth how I am punished
for making mye god of yow, and for having no other thought but on
yow. And if at ainie tyme I offend yow, ye are the cause; for that
when anie offendethe me, if for mye refuge I might open mye minde
to you, I would speak to no other; but when ainie thing is spoken to
me, and ye and I not beinge as husband and wife ought to be,
necessitee compelleth me to kepe it in my brest," etc.

Alleged Letter of Mary's.

(Translated from French into Scots.)

"Ye ask me quhat I mene be the crueltie conteint in my letter; it is of

you alone, that will not accept my offeris and repentance. I confess
that I have faillit but not into that quihilk I ever denyit; and sicklyke
hes faillit to sindrie of your subjeetis, quhilk ye have forgiven. I am
young. Ye will say that ye have forgiven me ofttymes, and yit yat I
return to my faultis. May not ane man of my age, for lack of
counsell, fall twyse or thryse, or in lack of his promeis, and at last
repent himself, and be chastisit be experience? If I may obtain
pardoun, I proteste I shall never make faulte agane. And I craif na
uther thing bot yat we may be at bed and buird togidder as husband
and wyfe; and gif ye will not consent heirunto I sail nevir ryse out of
yis bed. I pray yow tell me yoor resolution. God knawis how I am
punischit for making my god of yow, and for having na uther thoucht
bot on yow; and gif at ony tyme I offend yow, ye are the caus;
because when ony offendis me, gif for my refuge I micht playne
unto yow, I would speike it unto na uther body; but quhen I heir ony
thing, not being familiar with you, necessitie constraine me to keip it
in my briest," etc.

It will be noticed that, not only are the words the same (the
differences of spelling do not affect the case), but the clauses and
phrases occupy the same relative positions in both documents. And
yet we are asked to believe that these are independent reports of
the same discourse, written down from memory.
A distinguished Scottish writer has summed up the question
thus: "That Mary and Darnley should have held a long private
conversation on many topics of no particular importance; that after
Mary was gone Darnley should have repeated the whole
conversation to Crawfurd; that Crawfurd either then or eighteen
months later should have written out a report in Scots of what
Darnley had said; that Mary should have written within twenty-four
hours a letter in French in which she also reported the conversation;
that Mary's letter should have been afterwards translated into Scots;
and that the Scots translation of Mary's letter should have been
found to agree, word for word, with Crawfurd's report,--this series of
marvels is more than the most devout credulity can stomach." (John
Skelton, C.B., LL.D.)
Seventh. The history of these letters makes it tolerably clear
that it was many months after they were said to have been
discovered by Morton, before they took definite form; in other
words, that they were being concocted, at least, to use the words of
the loyal nobility, "in some principal and substantial clauses." Even as
late as the month of August, 1567, the rebel lords reiterated that
Bothwell had laid violent hands on the Queen, and that they had
risen up to rescue her from his thraldom. But on December 4th, the
same lords declared, as we read in the Act of the Secret Counsel,
that they had taken arms against her because she was an
accomplice of Bothwell's in the murder of her husband, as shown
"be divers hir previe lettres written and subscrivit with hir awen
hand, and sent by hir to James Erll Boithwell." This flat contradiction
between the statements of the same parties arouses the strongest
suspicion of treachery. Nor will it avail to say that in their excessive
charity, they had for a time chosen to make liars of themselves
rather than unnecessarily reveal the vices of their former Queen; for,
according to the deposition of Morton, at least according to what
Mary's adversaries claim to be Morton's deposition, the Casket
containing the incriminating documents was taken from a servant of
Bothwell's on June 20th--nearly two weeks after the Confederate
lords had taken up arms. Again, the minutes of the Secret Counsel
describe the letters as "written and subscrit with hir (Mary's) awen
hand, and sent by hir to James Erll Boithwell." Yet the letters
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

textbookfull.com