« PreviousContinue »
Paris) at the time of his execution, one of the king's murderers ; fne took it upon his death, as he should undertakes to prove the crirne au ans 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 lo 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 innoasserted in the strongest manner, that cent, and the queen guilty) could the letters were forged by him and have cleared him, and satisfied eve. his faction; and she 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 creditearneft manner, begged to have ed) was the confidant of the whole inspection of. This request was de- intrigue between the queen and nied to her, and, ti cut short the . Bothwell, relating to the king's matter, the earl of Murray and his murder. Could there have happenadherents go off in laste, with their ed a more lucky event than this, to hos and letters, to Scotland 1. Be a man lying under the load of co 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 depart the realm of his fovereign? Let us now lie not abiding to hear the defence of the method Murray takes to wipe her innocence, nor the trial and off this foul aíncrfion, 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 same crimet. To which it was a poor ignorant, friendless creature, answered, that the earl of Murray then in his hands, to inould him to has promife- to return again his purpose. Does he fend him to when te thou'd be called for.” This London to be examined before the wa on the 1 th of January 1568-9, English council, as his other witand within leven months after this, nelles, Crawford and Nelson, had Faris vas hanya d hy Murray at St. been? Does he even venture to proArder's, viz. in August that fame duce him before his own privy y ar 1: 69.
council at Edinburgh, to be interN'w let any impartial person 'rogated there? Or, lastly, does he (infi r well the conduct of Mur brinr him to a public trial, in the Tay i this matter : le himclf is ordinary form, before the high juli ly accused by the queen, as court of justiciary at Edinburgh, as
Aldur. vol. 1. part 2. 7. 10.
^ Vive p. 37.
Vidc p. 39, and 49.
was allowed to Dalgleish, and the That it was seen by or known to other fervants of Bothwell? No! the qucen, our author not unfairly as to these last, the experiment had concludes from Lelly's defence of not at all succeeded. In spite of Mary, published in 1669, loon aftorture, they had, with their dying ter the execution of Paris : “ As breath, spoke out the truth, and for him that ye surmise was the. acquitted the queen*. This man, bearer of the letters, and whom Paris, was the last card Murray had you have executed of late for the to play; a new method, therefore, said murther, he, at the time of his muft be followed with respect to said execution, took it upon his hiin. He was secreted from public death, as he could answere before view, was carried to an obscure God, that he never carried any such dungeon in Murray's citadel of St. letters, nor that the queene was Andrew's; there he was kept hid participant, nor of counsayle in the from all the world, and at lait con- cause.” From the words “the perdemned by the earl of Murray him for whom ye furmife was the self, in a manner nobody knows bearer," it is plain, that neither the how : and several months after his queen nor I eily had either seen or death, a confession in his name, heard of this confeffion of Paris, taken clandeftinely, without men, which is made to acknowled: e this tioning any person who was present fact, of his being the bearer of the when it was made by Paris, is pri- letters, in express terms. Queen vately fent up to London (and given Mary's ambassador thus affirming, in to Cecil, but at what period no in the face of the world, that this body can tell) accusing the queen man Paris, had with his dying in the blackeit ternis, and extoiling breath, and in the most folemn mapthe earl of Murray to the skies, ner, allerted her innocence, was And to crown the whole, this pre- furely a challerge to her accusers cious piece of evidence is kept a to have refuted the affertion, by profound recret from the queen and producing Paris'; confo:1 n, if gue. her friends, who, as we hall bv-and- nuinc and hit to bear thelirht. They by prove, never once saw or heard did it not, however, and the only of this confullion.
answer made to this virciation
* The evidence of this is unquestionable, no less than the affirmation of nine. tecn of the first peers in the kingdom, e.ght bifhops, and eight abbots, present in Scotland at the very time, v.2.
“ The erlis of Biunilie, Argile, Crawford, Eglington, ('aflits, Rothes, Errol.
“ Lordis, Ogilvie, Fleming', commerville, Bove, Leviryfion, Sancuhar, « Zeller, Herreis, Oliphant, Drummond, Saiton, Maxweil.
" Bloppis, Saint-Androis, Duakeld, Aberdene, Rots, Gailoway, Brechia, * Irgin, Dis.
" i biotis, je Iburgh, Kinloss, St. Colme, Glenluce, Fern, New-Abbay, « Halywood, i yndoris."
In the struct ons and articles to queen Mary's commiffioners, figne! f the ahove poruna St Lubarton, the l.th day of Sept inber 151, their words are, menon'ng usab yve convicii, “ As was onit be tham anta fattint mi deithiuttoir; quhar'eclar. at all times the quene our fovereign to be onoricent thairof." Cot. lib. Good. v. 2. p. $59..
of queen Mary, was an order from to the king's murder; and that queen Elizabeth to suppress the bishop Lelly, in his printed apology book altogether, on pretence of for queen Mary, had affirmed i its containing fome dangerous the face of the world as a fa&t unipoints with regard to Mary's title versally known, that Paris, at his to the crown of England.
execution had publickly asserted the ' In 1571, Buchanan published queen's innocence +; altho' the his famous work, entitled, “ A letters give only, some fufpicious and dete&ign of the dcings of queen dark hints, from which the queen's Mary ;" a work that reflects in- knowledge of the murder is infergratitude and dishonour upon his red; whereas, Paris's confeffon of name,
the 10th of August 1569, exprefly In this libel against the queen, -charges her as the contriver of it, published both in the Latin and in and is the only evidence that does the Scotch language, nothing is for- so; yet in Buchanan's book there is got that could serve to blacken her. not the least mention made of any
The whole intrigue betwixt her and such confeffion. Buchanan lived - Borhwell, her amours in France as many years after this; his detećtion well as in Scotland, repeated at- underwent several editions ; nay, te tempts to poison the king, and his wrote his history at large, which actual murder at last by her con- was not published for several years trivance; all, in short, that malice after this period ; and although lie or calumny could invent to render there again inakes mention both of her odious, is therein set forth : and Paris and the letters, yet not one as a voucher or proof of the whole, word is said of any such confeffion the famous letters by her to Both- made by this person, to the prejuwell are printed at full length. Nay, dice of the queen. that nothing may be neglected to The differtator says further, give credit to this book, the pre- « that Paris's confeflions are retended confessions of Dalgleish, ." markable for their fimplicity and Powrie, Hay, and Hepburn, Both- “ naiveté,” How can that be, well's other servants, are printed since the dissertator himself owns along with it ; and yet this mate. him to be a foolish talkative felloa. rial confession of Paris, tho'later in And they abound, continues he, date and more to their purpose, is with a number of minute facis and omitted. That so precious a piece circumstances which could scarce of scandal might not be confined to have entered the imagination of Scotland, this book, with the let- any other man. I shall very resters, was at the very same time dily grant, that many of thele facis printed at London, and dispersed might really have been true. They over the hingdoms. But what is do not affect the queen, and might most surprising, altho' Paris is often have possibly been told by Pario. mentioned therein, as the confidant But that can no ways be an arguof the whole scene between the mert that the confeffions, as given queen and Bothwell, with respect out in his name several months a
• Ander. v. 1. preface to the defence of quern Mary's honour, p. 4.
Aner. v. 1. part 2. p. 19. Vide p. 190.
ter his death, are genuine. For as nation begins thus: “ Apud EdinWe have already observed, the plan “ burgum 26 Junii, an.Dom. 1567. of every forger, in such a case, must “. prælentibus comitibus de Mor-, always be to ground his work upon 15 tour & Athol, præpofito de Dun. some certain facts that all the world “dee, & domino de Grange*.”know to be true, and to interlard John Hay's examination begins thefe truths with falfhoods.
thus: " Apud Edinburgum 13 die - Let us further examine the au- * menfis Septembris, an. Dom. thenticity of this confession of the " 1569. in presence of my lord re10th of August. .
to gent, the erls of Morton and The title it bears is in these words: “ Athol, the lairds of Lochlevon, : « A Sanctandre, le 10 jour de and Petarow, Mr. James. Ma« Aouft 1569. Nicholas Howbart, « gyll, and the justice clerk 7." * dict Paris, a este interrogue sur -John Hepburn's examination . « les articles & demands qui s'en thus: “ Apud Edinburgum 8 die “ suivent, &c. & premierement:” “ mensis Decembris, an. Dom. Then followed the questions that “ 1567. in presence of my lord reare put to him, with his answers, “ gent, the erle of Athol, the lord all in French; but by what person, « Linsay, the laird of Grange, and or what authority, he was thus ques. « the justice clerk 1.".And at tioned and examined, does not ap. the end of these depositions is the pear. From which it is evident, attestation and fubscription at that that examination and confellarge, of Sir John Ballendan, lord sion was not judicial. And what is justice clerk, bearing, that the most surprising, it does not mention principal depositions were in the any person whatever that was pre- records of the high court of juftisent when it was taken. What can ciary 5. we think of so lame a piece of evi What marks then of authenticity dence? This examination could not are about this paper of Paris ? Not have been made at Paris's trial, the smallest, as far as can be seen otherwise it must have expressly said at this day, excepting the single affo; likewise it must have mentioned fertion of Hay, Murray's clerk, the court of justice, and the judge, who, as a notary, attests this paper in whose presence, and by whose to be a true copy of an original, authority it was taken. * signed or marked by Paris himself,
Let us next compare this exami- and read to him. ` All the world nation with the judicial examina- knows, that a copy of any paper, tions and confessions of Dalgleith, attefied by a notary, requires the Hay, Hepburn, &c. taken before folemnity of two reputable witnesses the high court of justiciary at Edin- , to give faith to the notary's attesiaburgh; we evidently see there the tion. To this paper, however, tho' difference betwixt a judicial testi- of the greatest importance, there are mony, and this of Paris's, taken in 'no witnesses. The whole then dea clandestine manner, without the 'pends entirely upon the naked afauthority of a judge, and by no body fertion of this noted clerk of Murknows whom. Dalgleilh's exami- ray alone, contradi&ted, as we have
• Ander. v. 2. p. 173. $ Ibid. v. 4. p. 188.
† Ander. 1. ?. p. 177.
Ibid. v. 2. p. 183.
feen, in the most public manner, That it was not a judicial conf. by all the world, and even tacitiy fion, is evident: The paper itirlf disavowed by himself.
does not bear any such marks; nor As for the pretended declaration does it mention that it was taken of the 9th of August, fince that on- in presence of any person, or by any ly charges the earl of Bothwell, and authority whatsoever; and, by comnot the queen, with any acceffion to paring it with the judical examie the murder, it does not fall within nations of Dalgleich, Hav, and my plan, altho' liable to the same Hepburn, in page 146, it is asri. objections with the above pretend rent, thas it is deilitute of every tiped confeffion against the queen; be- mality requisite in a judicial evifides, Mr. Goodall has, with very dence. In what dark corner, then, good reason, shewn it likewise to this strange production was gere. be an imposture*.
rated, our author may endeavour Before we conclude, we must a- to find out, if he can. gain beg Icave to take notice of As to his second assertion, that it Mr. Hume's arguments in support waz regularly and judicially given of this noted piece of evidence of in, and therefore ought to have bern Paris: “ it is in vain (says he) at canvaffed by Mary during the are “ present, to seek for impossibilities ferences; we have already feta "in Nicholas Hubert's dying con- that this likewise is not fat: the « feffion, and to magnify the small. conferences broke up in February “est dilliculties into a contradic- 1569: Nicholas Hubert was dit “tion. It was certainly a regular hanged till August thereafter; ard 5c judicial paper, given in regularly his dying confeffion, as Mr. Hurre « and judicially, and ought to have calls it, is only dated the luth. “ been canvased at the time, if the that month. How then can this 6 persons, when it concerned, had gentleman gravely tell us that uis “ been assured of their innocence +.” confefiion was judically given in,
Here we fee a fhort, but very po- and ought to have l'een at that very sitive deciGon arainst all and even time canvassed by queen Mary ard ry obiection that polholy can be her commilitoners? Suca portie brought against Paris's confeffion. aTertions, apparently contrary to But upon what does this author fact, are unworthy the character of ground his fentence? l'pon two an historian, and may very judily very plain rcarons, first, That the concer his decision, with refrecto contention was a judicial one, that evidences of a bigher nature, verv is, taken in prefence, or by autho. dubious. In anlwer then to Mr. rity, of a judge. And secondly, That Hume: as the queen's ar cufers did it was regularly and judicially given not chure to produce this material in; that must be understood during witnefn, Faris, whom they had alive, the time of the conference; before and in their hands, nor any de queen Elizab. th and her council, in ration or continon from him at the presence of Mary's cuinipifioners; critical and proper time for havin: at which time the ought to have it canveiled by the queen, I apprecanvifted it, f1ys our author, if berd o'r author's conclurn nay ine i new her innocence.
fully be used as ainst bimci:; this!
.Good. 1. 1. p. 137.
7 Ilumos 50.!. 2. p. 100.