(E.) CONTROVERSIAL WORKS.
The general historians who deal with the period—Hume, Robertson, Tytler, Laing, Froude, and Hill Burton—are usually ranked among Queen Mary's opponents. Hume and Froude occupy the most decided position. Among other writers who are definitely against the theory of Mary's innocence, must be reckoned Mignet ("Life of Mary Queen of Scots"), Mr. D. Hay Fleming ("Mary Queen of Scots"), and Mr. T. F. Henderson (articles, "Mary Stuart," "Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley," "James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell," &c., in the Dictionary of National Biography). No one can hope to understand the present position of the controversy without the writings of Mr. Fleming and Mr. Henderson. Among general controversialists on the side of Queen Mary, may be mentioned the works already quoted, by Walter Goodall, George Chalmers, and John Hosack, William Tytler's "Inquiry into the Evidence against Mary Queen of Scots" (1790), Whitaker's "Mary Queen of Scots Vindicated" (1778), Miss Agnes Strickland's "Lives of the Queens of Scotland," Mr. Alex. Walker's "Mary, Queen of Scots," Mr. M'Neel-Caird's "Mary Stuart," and Sir John Skelton's "Impeachment of Mary Stuart," "Maitland of Lethington," and "Life of Mary Stuart." Mr. Swinburne's "Mary Queen of Scots" is one of the most attractive works on the subject. The reader will recollect that the "false Duessa" in Spenser's "Faerie Queen" is the Queen of Scots.
The last few years have seen the publication of many important works dealing with the problem of the Casket Letters, e.g.:—
Bresslau: "Die Kassettenbriefe der Königin Maria Stuart," in the Historisches Taschenbuche, 1882.
Sepp: Die Kassettenbriefe, 1884.
Gerde: "Geschichte der Königin Maria Stuart," 1885.
T. F. Henderson: "Casket Letters, and Mary Queen of Scots." 2nd ed. 1890.
Philippson: "Histoire du Règne de Marie Stuart," 1891-92.
The English reader will find the material in Mr. T. F. Henderson's work ample for his purpose. The preface to Mr. Hay Fleming's "Mary Queen, of Scots" promises a second volume, which will contain the life in captivity, and, of course, deal with the letters. No Marian apologist has, as yet, attempted an answer to the more recent evidence on the other side, and Hosack's great work is now considerably superseded. The foregoing lists are, of course, selected. A full Bibliography is a great task, not yet attempted.