mear quietam inveniam in craftinum, ut tum mea biblia finiam :" and the French follows him thus: je m'en vay pour trouver mon repos jufques au lendemain, afin que je finiffe icy ma bible." Our author is a clear plain reafoner. His arguments are very ftrong. On the whole we can fearce refufe our affent to what he fays, that there appears, in the Scotch copy of the letters, a fpirit, and fo happy a turn of phrafe, altogether peculiar to that language, and fo very different from the languor, baldnefs of expreffion, and fervility of both the French and Latin copies, that plainly denotes the firit to be altogether original in every fenfe. To thew this, I fhall take a few phrafes from the first letter only. "A gentleman of the earl of Lennox came and made his commendations to me." This phrafe is ftill used in the Scotch language, to fignify, he prefented his compliments. "This fpeech was of his awin head, without any commitiion." "There is na receipt can ferve againis feir"-A proverb. fhew, that this Scotch copy of the letters, is not only the original of the three copies of the letters' ftill extant, but likewife, that it is not a tranflation at all, but a true original in every fenfe. Yet there is a point which strikes us more than perhaps it ought, as neither of the difputants take any notice of it. The point however is this. It is on all hands agreed, that the Latin veilion is Buchanan's. Now whether we fuppofe the French or Scotch to be the original, it is equally furprifing that. Buchanan, whofe mother tongue was Scotch, and who was perfectly mafter of the French,, fhould cominit the firange abfurd miftakes we fee in the Latin. After having examined the authenticity of the letters, our author endeavours to prove, that the confeflion of Nicholas Hubert is alfo a forgery, and then he prefies his opponent very clofe. "The defect of having fume other impartial and unfufpećted witnefes to have concurred with Morton, as to the difcovery and feizure of the box and letters, and his remarhable fhynefs in interrogating Dalgleifh on this point, have already "He hes almaift flane me with been obferved. Bat it perhaps his braith." "He has ever the tcir in his eye." "Fals race-they hae bene at fchullis togidder." "Ye have fair going to fee feik folk." "He gave me a check in the quick." "Excufe that thing that is fcriblit." Thefe examples of proverbial fentences and phrafes, peculiar to the Scotch language, and to which the French have Lothing similar in their language, are fufficient to will be faid that, at the time of Dalgleith's trial, this was an overight which efcaped even the fagacity and penetrating genius of Morton, and the whole party. The man was. hanged, and he cannot now be called from the grave to alwer queftions. It is to be obferved, however, that, at this very time, December 1565, they hat in their cuftody a very material and living evidence, who had a part in the X 2 letters. "the queen with being acceffary to afterwards adds: “It is in vain at "that criminal enterprise +." He "prefent to feek for improbabili"ties in this confeffion: it was letters. The fecond letter mentions, by name one Paris, or Nicholas Hubert, a Frenchman, fervant of Bothwell, who, it is faid, was the perfon intrufted to carry the letters from the queen to Bothwell. This" certainly a regular judicial pa. man had been kept in close confinement in St. Andrew's during all this time. Now when one fees the remarkable care and attention of the party in collecting every circumftance which they fuppofed could be matter of proof against the queen, in fupport of their accufation, their penury of proof notwithstanding, and the pinching neceffity of fupporting the only evidence they had (that of the letters) by the bare and fingle affirmation of Morton himfelf, the queen's accufer, and moft inveterate enemy; it is impoffible to overlook, without the ftrongeft fufpicion, their omitting, to have produced fo very material an evidence as this Frenchman, in perfon, to have answered to the queftions of Mary, or her commiffioners, before the English council, and to the part affigned to him in the let ters themselves. Mr. Hume, who has omitted nothing that he thought was evidence againft the queen, has been very fenfible of this defect of Murray's, in not calling upon Paris, and he endeavours to fupply it in a pretty extraordinary manner: "ing in the letters, (fays he) Mur"On givray fortified this evidence by "fome teftimonies of correfpond"ing facts; and he added, fome "time after, the dying confeffion "of Hubert, or French Paris, a "fervant of Bothwell, who had "been executed for the king's mur"der, and who directly charged Keith, p. 366. "per, given in regularly and judi"cially, and ought to have been this account Mr. Hume would make "canvaffed at the time." From one believe, that that piece of evidence, Paris's confeffion, had been given by Murray within a few days after the letters, at leaft whilst the conferences fubfifted; yet nothing can be more falfe. The conferences broke up, and the earl of Murray and his party got licence from queen Elizabeth to return home to Scotland, in January 1568-9. Paris, after lying in clofe prifon till Auguft 1569, was then put to death; at which time it is pretended he made thefe confeffions against the queen. But I fhall hereafter have occafion more particularly to examine this pretended confeflion by itself. account of the feveral steps of the Hume) or accufation against Mary Hume, vol. 2. p. 497. + Ibid. P. 500. lord lord Herries, and her other com- proofs of her guilt:Murray miffioners, they abfolutely refufed to made no difficulty in producing the return any anfwer; and they ground-proofs of his charge against the ed their filence on very extraordi- reft, fome love letters and fonnets nary reafons: they had orders, they of her's to Bothwell, wrote all in faid, from their miftrefs, if any her own hand, and two promises thing was advanced that might of marriage to him-They containtouch her honour, not to make any ed inconteftible proofs of Mary's defence, as fhe was a fovereign criminal correfpondence with Bothprincefs, and could not be fubject well, of her confent to the king's to any tribunal; and they required, murder, and of her concurrence in that the fhould previously be ad- that rape, which Bothwell pretendmitted to Elizabeth's prefence. ed to commit upon her. Murray They forgot that the conferences fortified this evidence, by fome ter were at firft begun, and were ftill timonies of correfponding facts; and continued, with no other view than he added, fome time after, the dying to clear her from the accufations of confeffion of one Hubert, or French her enemies; that Elizabeth had Paris, a fervant of the earl of Bothever pretended to enter into them well, who had been executed for onlyas her friend,by her own consent, the king's murder, and who directly without affuming any fuperior ju- charged the queen with her being acceffary to that criminal enterrifdiction over her-As the queen of Scots refused to give in any anprifet.' fwer to Murray's charge, the neceflary confequence feemed to be, that there could be no farther proceedings in the trial*." If this was a neceffary confequence of Mary's refufing to-anfwer, (unlefs in perfon, Mr. Hume fhould have added) it may be afked, How came Elizabeth, notwithftanding, to proceed in the trial, in abfence of both Mary and her commiffioners? Was not this the height of partiality, in this pretended friend of Mary, to hear her enemies by themfelves, or to receive any thing from their hands as fufficient proof against her, upon their word only? And when the did fo, ought the not, in common juftice, to have` communicated the fame to Mary? But to go on with this author's account: Elizabeth and her minifters de Would not any one believe from this account, that Hubert had been hanged before the time here spoken of by Mr. Hume, and that his confeffion was produced during the conferences; and yet we have feen that Hubert was alive all the time of the conferences, and no confeffion from him, nor the leaft mention of his name made for ten months after they broke up. And again, "As to the letters, they are afferted to be forged; and that it was notoriously known, that perfons about the queen had often been in the practice of forging letters in her name. They had neither date, addrefs, feal, nor fubfcription. That, as they had only been collated by the queen's accufers, there was no proof that they were of her hand writing. The perfon (fays the bifhop) who was furmifed to be the bearer, (Nicholas Ilubert, or French † Hume, vol. 2. p. 496. Paris) Paris) at the time of his execution, took it upon his death, as he should anfwer before God, that he never carried any fuch letter, nor that the queen was participant, nor of council in the caufe*." The whole transaction of Paris is fo material in this controverfy, that we apprehend our reader will not be forry that we lay before him the material parts of the chapter our author has employed wholly upon this fubject: "Queen Mary, as we have feen, had publickly accufed Murray, and aflerted in the strongest manner, that the letters were forged by hith and his faction; and the undertook to prove this from the letters themfelves, which Mary, in the most earnest manner, begged to have infpection of. This requeft was denied to her, and, to cut fhort the matter, the earl of Murray and his adherents go off in hafte, with their box and letters, to Scotland. Before their departure, queen Mary complains to queen Elizabeth for "allowing them to depart the realm not abiding to hear the defence of her innocence, nor the trial and proof of their detection, which was offered to prove them guilty of the fame crimet.To which it was anfwered, that the earl of Murray has promifedto return again when he thould be called for." This wa on the 17th of January 1568-9, and within feven months after this, Faris was hanged by Murray at St. Ard ev's, viz. in Auguft that fame yar 1. 69. confi Jay i Now let any impartial perfon r well the conduct of Murthis matter be himflf is uli ly accufed by the queen, as Ander. vol. 1. part 2. p. 19. one of the king's murderers; fhe undertakes to prove the crime againft him by fair trial: how does he defend himself against this fo public a challenge given him in the face of the world? He denies the charge, but, in the mean time, begs leave to go home. Would innocence have acted in this manner? Let us follow him, however, into Scotland, and trace his behaviour there, where fortune had been fo favourable as to throw into his hands, the only perfon in the world, who (if Murray was truly innocent, and the queen guilty) could have cleared him, and fatisfied every mortal of her guilt. This perfon was French Paris, who) if Murray and his letters are to be credited) was the confidant of the whole intrigue between the queen and Bothwell, relating to the king's murder. Could there have happened a more lucky event than this, to a man lying under the load of fo criminal an accufation, as that of being an accomplice in the murder of his fovereign? Let us now fee the method Murray takes to wipe off this foul afperfion, and to avoid all fufpicion of practifing, by the force of torture or promifes, upon a poor ignorant, friendlefs creature, then in his hands, to mould him to his purpose. Does he fend him to London to be examined before the English council, as his other witnefies, Crawford and Nelfon, had been? Does he even venture to produce him before his own privy 'council at Edinburgh, to be interrogated there? Or, laftly, does he bring him to a public trial, in the ordinary form, before the high court of jufticiary at Edinburgh, as Vide p. 37. Vide p. 39, and 40. Was was allowed to Dalgleish, and the other fervants of Bothwell? as to these laft, the experiment had No! not at all fucceeded. In fpite of torture, they had, with their dying breath, fpoke out the truth, and acquitted the queen*. This man, Paris, was the laft card Murray had to play; a new method, therefore, must be followed with refpect to him. He was fecreted from public view, was carried to an obscure dungeon in Murray's citadel of St. Andrew's; there he was kept hid from all the world, and at lait condemned by the earl of Murray himfelf, in a manner nobody knows how and feveral months after his death, a confeffion in his name, taken clandeftinely, without mentioning any perfon who was prefent when it was made by Paris, is privately fent up to London (and given in to Cecil, but at what period no body can tell) accufing the queen in the blackeit terms, and extoiling the earl of Murray to the fkies. And to crown the whole, this precious piece of evidence is kept a profound fecret from the queen and her friends, who, as we hall by-andby prove, never once faw or heard of this confeffion. That it was feen by or known to concludes from Lefly's defence of the queen, our author not unfairly Mary, publifhed in 1569, foon after the execution of Paris: "As for him that ye furmife was the bearer of the letters, and whom you have executed of late for the faid murther, he, at the time of his faid execution, took it upon his death, as he should anfwere before God, that he never carried any fuch letters, nor that the queene was participant, nor of counfayle in the caufe." From the words "the perfon whom ye furmife was the queen nor I elly had either feen or bearer," it is plain, that neither the heard of this confeffion of Paris, which is made to acknowledge this fact, of his being the bearer of the letters, in exprefs terms. Queen Mary's ambaffador thus affirming, in the face of the world, that this breath, and in the most folemn manman Paris, had with his dying ner, afferted her innocence, was furely a challenge to her accufers producing Paris's confeffion, if geto have refuted the affertion, by nuine and fit to bear the light. They did it not, however, and the only anfwer made to this vindication The evidence of this is unquestionable, no lefs than the affirmation of nineteen of the first peers in the kingdom, eight bishops, and eight abbots, prefent in Scotland at the very time, viz. "The erlis of Huntlie, Argile, Crawford, Eglington, Caffils, Rothes, Errol. "Lordis, Ogilvie, Fleming, Sommerville, Boyd, Levingfion, Sanquhar, "Zefter, Herreis, Oliphant, Drummond, Salton, Maxwell. Bifhoppis, Saint-Androis, Dunkeld, Aberdene, Rois, Galloway, Brechin, Argile, this. Abbotis, Jedburgh, Kinlofs, St. Colme, Glenluce, Fern, New-Abbay, "Halywood, yndoris." In the inftructions and articles to queen Mary's commiffioners, figned by the above perfona zes at Dunbarton, the 12th day of September 1528, their words are, mentioning the above convicts, deid thairfoir; quha declart at all times the quene our fovereign to be uno"As was deponit be thame quha sailerit cent thairof." Cot. lib. Good. v. 2, p. 359. of |