« PreviousContinue »
mearn quietam inveniam in crafti. Thew, that this Scotch copy of the sium, ut tum mea biblia finiam :" Jetters, is not only the original of and the French follows him thus : the three copies of the letters still “ je m'en vay pour trouver mon extant, but likewise, that it is not repos jusques au lendemain, afin a translation at all, but a truc origique je finiffe icy ma bible.”
Teníe. Our author is a clear plain rea- Yet there is a point which strikes foner. His arguments are very us more than .nerhaps it ought, a3 strong. On the whole we can scarce neither of the disputants take any Tefuse our assent to what he says, that notice of it. The point however there appears, in the Scotch copy is this. of the letters, a spirit, and so happy It is on all hands agreed, that a turn of phrase, altogether pecu- the Latin veilion is Buchanan's. liar to that languare, and so very Now whether we suppose the french different from the languor, bald- or Scotch to be the original, it is ness of expreffion, and servility of equally surprising that Buchanan, both the French and Latin copies, whose mother tongue was Scotca, that plainly denotes the firti to be and who was perfectly master of the altogether original in every sense. French, hould connit the strange To Thew this, I shall take a few abfurd mifiales we fue in the phrases from the first letter only. Latin.
“ A gentleman of the earl of After having examined the auLennox came and made his com- thenticity of the letters, our author mendations to me.” This phrase endeavours to prove, that the conis itill used in the Scotch language, fellion of Nicholas Hubert is also to signify, le prelented his com- a forgery, and then he prefie, his pliments.
opponent very close. “ This speech was of his au in 16. The detect of havinr funa head, without
commilion." other impartial and unfi:(pečied wit“ There is na receipt can serve nelles to hare concurred with Mora againis feir" - Aproverb.
ton, as to the discovery ar d feizure “He has ever the tcir in his eye." of the box and letters, and his re
“ Fals race-they hae bene at marhable shyness in interrogatir. schullis togidder.”
Dalslein on this point, have already “ He hes almaist slane me with been observed. But it perhaps his braith.”
will be said that, at the ne of Dal “ Ye have fair going to see seit gleich's trial, this was an overnight folk."
which ef aped even the city and “ He gave me a check in the penetrating genius of Morton, and quick.”
the whole party.
The man 23 “ Excuse that thing that is hanged, and he cannot n v be scriblit."
called from the grave to anter These examples of proverbial questions. It is to be obirse?, sentences and phrases, peculiar to however, that, at this very time, the Scotsh language, and to which December 100s, they iet ta their the French have nothing limilar in custody a very material anl living their language, are funcient to evidence, who had a part in the letters. The second letter men- “ the queen with being accessary to tions, by name one Paris, or Nicho- « that criminal enterprise +." He las Hubert, a Frenchman, servant afterwards adds: “It is in vain at of Bothwell, who, it is sajd, was the “present to seek for improbabitiperson intrusted to carry the letters “ ties in this confeflion : it was froni the queen to Bothwell. This certainly a regular judicial pa. man had been kept in close con- " per, given in regularly and judi. finement in St. Andrew's during all cially, and ought to have been this time *. Now when one fees “ canvassed at the time 1." From the remarkable care and attention of this account Mr. Hume would make the party in collecting every circum- one believe, that that piece of evistance which they supposed could be dence, Paris's confession, had been matter of proof against the queen, given by Murray within a few days in support of their accusation, their after the letters, at leaft whilst the penury of proof notwithstanding, conferences subfifted; yet nothing and the pinching necessity of lup: can be more false. The conferences porting the only evidence they had broke up, and the earl of Murray (that of the letters) by the bare and and his party got licence from queen single affirmation of Moston him. Elizabeth to return home to Scotfelf, the queen's accuser, and most land, in January 1568-9. Paris, inveterate enemy; it is impossible after lying in close prison till August to overlook, without the strongest 1569, was then put to death; at suspicion, their omitting, to have which time it is pretended he made produced so very material an evi. these confessions against the queen. dence as this Frenchman, in per- But I shall hereafter have occasion fon, to have answered to the ques- more particularly to examine this tions of Mary, or her commissioners, pretended confeflion by itself. before the English council, and to And again : “ The preceding the part assigned to him in the let. account of the several steps of the ters themselves.
letters. + Hume, vol. 2. p. 497.
conferences relating to the letters Mr. Hume, who has omitted no- from the very words of the records thing that he thought was evidence themselves, is so very different from, against the queen, has been very and fo contradictory to, Mr. Hume's fenfible of this defect of Murray's, relation, in his late history, that I in not calling upon Paris, and he think it incumbent upon me, in endeavours to supply it in a pretty justice to the public, to set down extraordinary manner: “On giv- a short abstract of his account, so that, “ing in the letters, (says he) Mur- upon a comparison, the impartial
ray fortified this evidence by reader may, from his own eye« foine testimonies of correspond- fight, judge, how far that gentle.
ing facts; and he added, fome man has been directed by truth, in “ time after, the dying confession his representation of this affair. “ of Hubert, or French Paris, a " When the charge, (says Mr. “ servant of Bothwell, who had Hume) or accusation again Mary
been executed for the king's mur- was given in, and copies of it " der, and who directly charged transmited to the bishop of Rofs,
Kcith, p. 366.
Ibid. p. 500.
lord Herries, and her other com- proofs of her guilt :missioners, they abfólutely refused to made no difficulty in producing the return any answer; and they ground-proofs of his charge against the ed their filence on very extraordi- - test, some love letters and Tonnets nary reasons: they had orders, they of her's to Bothwell, wrote all in said, from their mistress, if any her own hand, and two promises thing was advanced that might 'of marriage to him--They contain. touch her honour, not to make any ed incontestible proofs of Mary's defence, . as she was a fovereign criminal correspondence with Bothprincess, and could not be fubject .well, of her consent to the king's to any tribunal; and they required, murder, and of her concurrence in that she should previously be ad- that rape, which Bothwell pretendmitted to Elizabeth's presence. ed to commit upon her. Murray They forgot that the conferences fortified this evidence, by some tera were at firft begun, and were still timonies of corresponding facts; and continued, with no other view than he added, some time after, the dying to clear her from the accusations of confession of one Hubert, or French her enemies; that Elizabeth had Paris, a servant of the earl of Bothever pretended to enter into them well, who had been executed for onlyas her friend,byherown consent, the king's murder, and who directly without affuming any fuperior ja charged the queen with her being risdiction over het. As the queen accessary to that criminal entera of Scots refused to give in any an- prifet." swer to Murray's charge, the ne- Would not any one believe from cessary consequence seemed to be; this account, that Hubert had been that there could be no farther pro- hanged before the time here spoken ceedings in the trial."
of by Mr. Hume, and that his conIf this was a necessary conse- feffion was produced during the quence of Mary's refusing to-an- conferences ; and yet we have seen swer, (unless in person, Mr. Hume that Hubert was alive all the time hould have added) it may be asked, of the conferences, and no confefHow came Elizabeth, notwithstand- fion from him, nor the least mening, to proceed in the trial, in ab: tion of his name made for ten sence of both Mary and her com- months after they broke up. millioners? Was not this the height And again, “As to the letters, they of partiality, in this pretended are aflerted to be forged; and that it friend of Mary, to hear her enemies was notoriously known, that persons by themselves, or to receive any about the queen had often been in thing from their hands as sufficient the practice of forging letters in her proof againfi her, upon their word name. They had neither date, adonly? And when the did fo, ought drefs, feal, nor fubfcription. That, the not, in common justiee, to have as they had cnly been collated by communicated the fame to Marv? the queen's accusers, there was no But to go on with this author's proof that they were of her hand account :
writing. The person says the biElizabeth and her minifters des lop) who was furmised to be the fired to have in their hands the bearer, Nichola-llubert, or French • Hums, vol. 2. p. 496.
+ Hume, vol. 2. p. 496. X 3
Paris) at the time of his execution, one of the king's murderers ; fine took it upon his death, as he should undertakes to prove the crime a. anf ver before God, that he never gainst him by fair trial : how does carried any such letter, nor that he defend himself against this ro the queen was participant, nor of public a challenge given him in council in the cause*.”
the face of the world? He denies The whole transaction of Paris is the charge, but, in the mean time, so material in this controversy, that begs leave to go home. Would inwe apprehend our reader will not nocence have acted in this manner? be sorry that we lay before him thé Let us follow him, however, into material parts of the chapter our Scotland, and trace his behaviour author has employed wholly upon there, where fortune had been fo this subject :
favourable as to throw into his “ Queen Mary, as we have seen, hands, the only person in the world, had publickly accused Murray, and who if Murray was truly innoallerted in the strongest manner, that cent, and the queen guilty) could the letters were forged by hiin and have cleared him, and satisfied eve. his faction; and the undertook to ry mortal of her guilt. This perprove this from the letters them- fon was French Paris, who) if Murselves, which Mary, in the most ray and his letters are to be creditearnest manner, begged to have ed) was the confidant of the whole inspection of. This request was de- intrigire between the queen and nied to her, and, to cut short the . Bothwell, relating to the king's matter, the earl of Murray and his murder. Could there have happenadherents
off in liaíle, with their ed a more lucky event than this, to hox and letters, to Scotland 1. Be- a man lying under the load of ļo fore their departure, queen Mary criminal an accusation, as that of complains to queen Elizabeth for being an accomplice in the murder “allowing them to da part the realm of his sovereign? Let us now sie not abiding to hear the defence of the method Murray takes to wipe her innocence, nor the trial and off this foul afperfion, and to avoid proof of their detection, which was all fufpicion of practising, by the offered to prove them guilty of the 'force of torture or promises, upon fame criniet.-To which it was a poor ignorant, friendless creature, answered, that the earl of Murray then in his hands, to mould him to bas promife:- --to return again his purpose. Does he send him to when lehou'd be called for.” This London to be examined before the **"on the 1. th of January 1368-9, Englibh council, as his other witand within feven months after this, nefles, Crawford and Nelson, had Faris vas han di hy Murray at St. been? Does he even venture to proAlder's, vic. in August that fame duce him before his own privy
council at Edinburgh, to be interN w let any impartial person 'rogated there? Or, lastly, does he
well the conduct of Mur- bring him to a public trial, in the vay i this matter: !'e him!f is ordinary form,' before the high juli ly accused by the quern, as court of justiciary at Edinburgh, as
y ar 1. 69.
hudur. vol. 1. part 2. p. 10:
* Vive p. 37.
# Vide p. 39, and 49.
was allowed to Dalgleith, and the That it was seen by or known to
answer made to this virciation
The evidence of this is unquestionable, no less than the afirmation of ninetecn of the first peers in the kingdom, eight bifhops, and eight abbots, present in Scotland at the very tiine, viz.
“ The erlis of Huntlie, Argile, Crawford, Eglington, ('affils, Rothes, Errol.
“ Lordis, Ogilvie, Fleming, Sonumerville, Bovd, Levirglion, Sanquhar, “ Zefter, Herreis, Oliphant, Drummoni, Salton, Maxweil.
Bifhoppis, Sainct-Androis, Duakeld, Aberdene, Rois, Galloway, Brechin, “ Argile, this.
“ Abbotis, Jeiburgh, Kinloss, St. Colme, Glenluce, Fern, New-Abbay, “ Halywood, Lydoris.'
In the intruct ons and articles to queen Mary's commissioners, ligne:lly the above porfona ('s at Dunbarton, the 14th day of September ibid, their words are', mentioning the above convicts, “ As was chosonit hc thiun qua fittorit e dei thartoir; quhu declar t at all times the quene our fovereign to be onopicent thairof." Cot. lib. Good. v. 2, p. 359.