« PreviousContinue »
queen Mary, was an order from to the king's murder; and that queen Elizabeth to suppress the bilhop 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& 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 fome fufpicious and detection 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 confeffion of
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- fo; 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 confession. Buchanan lived · Bothwell, her amours in France as many years after this ; his detection 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 sborr, that malice after this period; and although he 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 perfon, to the prejuwell are printed at full length. Nay, dire of the queen. that nothing may be neglected to
The differtator fays further, give credit to this book, the pre- " that Paris's confeflions are retended confessions of Dalgleith, “ 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 confeflion 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 viher man. I shall very reaters, 'was at the very fame time dily grant, that many of these facis printed at London, and disperfed might really have been true. They over the kingdoms. But what is do not affect the queen, and might most surprising, altho' Paris is often have possibly beea told by Paris. mentioned therein, as the confidant But that can no ways be an arguof the whole scene between the mert that the confessions, as given queen and Bothwell, with respect out in his name several months st.
• Ander. v. 1. preface to the defence of quern Mary's honour, p. 4.
Ander. v. I. part 2. p. 19. Vide p. 120.
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, mult ". prælentibus comitibus de Mor-, always be to ground his work upon * toún & Athol, præposito de Dunfome 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 Edinburgun 13 die
Let us further examine the au- * mensis Septembris, an. Dom. thenticity of this confeffion of the “ 1569. in presence of my lord re10th of August.
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« Aoust 1569. Nicholas Howbart, * gyll, and the justice clerk +.” * dict Paris, a este interrogue fut -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
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 clerkt."- 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 confel- large, of Sir John Ballendan, lord sion was not judicial. And what is justice clerk, bearing, that the most furprising, 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 fo 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 confeffions of Dalgleith, attefied by a notary, requires the Hay, Hepburn, &c. taken before solemnity of two reputable witnesses the high court of justiciary at Edin to give faith to the notary's attefiaburgh; we evidently see there the tion. To this paper, however, tho' difference betřixt a judicial testi- of the greatest importance, there are mony, and this of Paris's, taken in ' no wirnelles. The whole then dea clandestine manner, without the 'pends entirely upon the naked arauthority of a judge, and by no body fertion of this noted clerk of Murknows whom. Dalgleil's exami- ray alone, contradi&ted, as we have seen, in the most public manner, That it was not a judicial conferi by all the world, and even tacitly fion, is evident: The paper itself disavowed by himself.
Ander. v. 2. p. 173. + Ander. v. 2. p. 177. Ibid. v. 2. p. 183. $ Ibid. v. S. p. 188.
does not bear any such marks; nor As for the pretended declaration does it mention that it was taken of the 9th of August, since 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 examithe murder, it does not fall within nations of Dalgleish, Hay, and my' plan, altho' liable to the fame Hepburn, in page 146, it is appaobjections with the above prerend rent, thas it is destitute of every fored confeflion against the queen; be- mality requisite in a judicial evifides, Mr. Goodall has, with very dence. In what dark corner, then, good reason, thewn it likewise to this ftrange production was gene. be an impofture*.
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 was regularly and judicially given of this noted piece of evidence of in, and therefore ought to have been Paris: “it is in vain (says he) at canvassed by Mary during the con" present, to fock for impossibilities ferences; we have already seen " in Nicholas Hubert's dying con- that this likewise is not fait: the * fefsion, and to magnify the finall- conferences broke up in February “ eft dilliculties into a contradic- 1569: Nicholas Hubert was not “ tion. It was certainly a regular hanged till August thereafter; and “ judicial paper, given in regularly bis dying confeffion, as Mr. Hume “ and judicially, and ought to have calls it, is only dated the 10th of “ been canvailed at the time, if the that month. How then can this “ persons, whem it concerned, had gentleman gravely - tell us that this “ been assured of their innocencet.” confefiion was judically given in,
Here we see a fhort, but very po- and ought to have been at that very fitive decision against all and eve- time canvassed by queen Mary and ryobjection that posibly can be her commisioners' Suca pofitive brought against Paris's confeffion. allertions, 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 jufily very plain reasons, first, That the render his decifion, with respect to confeition was a judicial one, that evidences of a higher, nature, very is, taken in pretince, or by autho- dubious. In answer then to Vr. rity, of a judge. And secondly, That Hume: as the queen's accufers did it was regularly and judicially given not chuse to produce this material in; that must be under tood during witness, Faris, whom they had alive, the time of the conferences before and in their hands, ndo any deciaqueen Elizabeth and her council, in ration or cortesfion from him at the presence of Mary's commissioners; critical and proper time for having at which time the ought to have it canvsiled by the queen, I apprecanvaled it, says our author, if hend our author's conclufion may the knew her innocence.
fairly be used against himleit; thal
It is in vain at present to support the and the management of the furimprobabilities and absurdities in a ceeding part of the fcheme to lis confeflion, taken in a clandestine friends Morton and Lethington,who, way, nobody knows how ; and pro- by their rebellion and imprisonment duced after Paris’s death, by nobo. of the queen, secuired for him the dy knows whım: an.! from every , regency of the kingdom. appearance deftitute of every forma- It must still, however, be aclity requisite and common to fuch knowled red, that all this annount: fort of evidence: for these reasons, to no dire& proof of Murray's he- , I am under no fort of heli ation to ing an actor in the murder of lord give fentence avainst Nicholas Ilu- Darnley : but when the whole of bert's confellion, as a gross impof- his condu 1, which we have traced, ture and forgery.
and deteted, is considered, there The fifth chapter is a well-drawn appears the strongest presumptive summary of the arguments on both evidence, of his being acceffary to, fides, and the fixth is taken up in and in the knowledge of, the whole tracing out the views, designs, and aflair. The clofe, subtile, and deep connexions of Murray, Morton, and part which he waz to play in the Lethington. That the two last catastrophe, was to place him elf named were the tools and instru- conceale i behind the curtain, while ments of Murray's ambition, is ap- the bloody work was a doing, to parent. That they were both of lool through his fingers thairto, and them atkalt privy to the murder, is to beholdthedoings saying nothing not to be doubted; and as they were, to the same.* How iaitlfully he fo it is not ealy to fuppofe Murray kept to this plan, we have already their principal could be ignorant of thewn. Whoever then thall consider it. But that Bothwell was guilty, is the whole of Murray's conduct, his not a question. Whether the queen rebellions, plots, and conspiracies, was altorether innocent, every man and that by a constant andinvariable will after all julge for himself. prosecution of this piar, he at length That her marriage with Bothwell obtained the full completion of his was impru.lent, no one can doubt. fchame, by dethroning his sovereign, Our author, in what we think a poffeting himself of the reins of mafierly manner, brings the several government, and by that means facinoru of Murray, Morton, and having it in his power to imother Lethington, into one point of view, and put out of the way all proof or and makes this lis conclusion. evidence that might tend to discover
“Such is the couplicated evi- his own guilt, with the reinarkable dene.', that appears against the point caution observed by him, in taking confederates, Murray, Morton, and care to withdraw limtelf from the Lethington, preceding lord Dam, scene, at the precise tiine always ley's murder, in which the earl of when the decisive events were ready Murray is plainly pointed out to to fall out, mult, for these reasons, have been at the read, and in the plainly see that the foregoing predirection of the whole conipire", fumptive proof a rainst Murray, front until the very period of the king's circuntances, is the only one which, murder, that he witheruw liimals, from the nature of things, can at and soon after left the kingdoma, this day be expected. To this, Vide p. 159. of this enquiry,
however, we may add a direct proof That as it is proved, that the of his using falle evidence againft confederates, for taking away the the queen, in the case of Nicholas king's life, were Morton and LeHubert, or French Paris’s confef- thington, the very persons who affion*, which we have demonstrated terwards brought an accusation to be false, and that the same came against queen Mary for that very directly from the hand of Murray. crime; therefore she herself could
The evidence is much stronger, not have been in that confederacy, however, with regard to his two nor guilty of that crime. associates, Morton and Lethington: 2dly. As it is proved that Murthe same presumptive proof as against ray, Morton, and Lethington, had Murray not only appears against been, from the queen's coming to them, but we have likewise a pofi- Scotland, joint confederates in a tive proof joined to it, against each series of plots, conspiracies, and reof these associates, viz. The mu- bellions, against her and her hustual retoited accusation of each of band, unto the very eve of the them against the other, joined to the king's murder: as they had with act of forleiture against Lethingtoŋ, one voice publickly accused the by the regent Lennox, and the in- queen, of that very crime, of which dictment, verdi&i, and fentence, påst it is proved, that, at least, Morton by the peers of the kingdom against and Lethington were themselves acMorton, as an accomplice in the complices: and, as in support of king's murder, together with his their accusation, this triumvirate own confeflion (as given us by his had produced fpurious and forged particular friends in the manner they writings; and by all these means chose themselves) that he was in the had dethroned their sovereign, and knowledge of the murder. So full pofTefled themselves of the goverand direct is the proof of their guilt. ment: for these reafons, therefore,
From all which, it is submitted the three confederates, Murray, to the judgment of the reader, Morton, and Lethington, must be whethei the conclusions in the two held, one and all of them, as socii propofitions, mentioned in the be- criminis, guiltyof the crime ofwhich ginning of this chapter, do not na- they had unjustly accused queen turally follow, viz.
Mary. We have already seen that Murray was at St. Andrew's at Paris's condernnation and execution ; and that the only copy of this spurious confession is subscribed by Hay, clerk of Murray's council; and we have still extant the , in forutions toy Nurray himseli to the abbot of Dunferinline, his envoy to the Luglish court, 1 3rd of October 1569, in these words: “ And if further proof he required, we have fent wiih you the depositions of Nicholas Hubert, alias Paris, a i'renchmen, one who was present at the committing of the taid murder, anil of late execute to the death for the same.” Good. v. 2. p. 58.
We may now judge with what justice Mr. Hume has given sentence in the cale of Murray. “That there is not the lcast presumption to lead us to suspect him as an acconiplice in the murder." We need not wonder, therefore, that this lame judge, who has accquitted Murray of evey prefumption of guilt, thould give as positive a tentence against the queen.