of queen Mary, was an order from queen Elizabeth to fupprefs the book altogether, on pretence of its containing fome dangerous points with regard to Mary's title to the crown of England. In 1571, Buchanan publifhed his famous work, entitled, "A detection of the doings of queen Mary;" a work that reflects ingratitude and difhonour upon his name. In this libel againft the queen, published both in the Latin and in the Scotch language, nothing is forgot that could ferve to blacken her. The whole intrigue betwixt her and Bothwell, her amours in France as well as in Scotland, repeated attempts to poifon the king, and his actual murder at laft by her contrivance; all, in fhorr, that malice or calumny could invent to render her odious, is therein fet forth and as a voucher or proof of the whole, the famous letters by her to Bothwell are printed at full length. Nay, that nothing may be neglected to give credit to this book, the pretended confeffions of Dalgleish, Powrie, Hay, and Hepburn, Bothwell's other fervants, are printed along with it; and yet this material confeffion of Paris, tho' later in date and more to their purpofe, is omitted. That fo precious a piece of fcandal might not be confined to Scotland, this book, with the let ters, was at the very fame time printed at London, and difperfed over the kingdoms. But what is moft furprising, altho' Paris is often mentioned therein, as the confidant of the whole fcene between the queen and Bothwell, with refpect to the king's murder; and that bifhop Lefly, in his printed apology for queen Mary, had affirmed in the face of the world as a fact univerfally known, that Paris, at his execution had publickly afferted the queen's innocence t; altho' the letters give only fome fufpicious and dark hints, from which the queen's knowledge of the murder is inferred; whereas, Paris's confeffion of the 10th of August 1569, exprefly charges her as the contriver of it, and is the only evidence that does fo; yet in Buchanan's book there is not the leaft mention made of any fuch confeffion. Buchanan lived many years after this; his detection underwent feveral editions; nay, he wrote his hiftory at large, which was not publifhed for feveral years after this period; and although he there again makes mention both of Paris and the letters, yet not one word is faid of any fuch confeffion made by this perfon, to the prejudice of the queen. The differtator fays further, "that Paris's confeflions are re"markable for their fimplicity and "naiveté.". How can that be, fince the differtator himself owns him to be a foolish talkative fellow? And they abound, continues he, with a number of minute facts and circumftances which could fcarce have entered the imagination of any other man. I fhall very readily grant, that many of thefe facts might really have been true. They do not affect the queen, and might have poffibly been told by Paris. But that can no ways be an argument that the confeffions, as given out in his name feveral months af ⚫ Ander. v. 1. preface to the defence of queen Mary's honour, p. 4. Ander. v. 1. part 2. p. 19. Vide p. 126. ter ter his death, are genuine. For as Let us further examine the authenticity of this confeffion of the 10th of Auguft. The title it bears is in thefe words: "A Santandre, le 10 jour de "Aouft 1569. Nicholas Howbart, nation begins thus: "Apud Edinburgum 26 Junii, an. Dom. 1567. præfentibus comitibus de Mor"toun & Athol, præpofito de Dun"dee, & domino de Grange*."John Hay's examination begins thus: "Apud Edinburgum 13 die menfis Septembris, an. Dom. 1569. in prefence of my lord regent, the erls of Morton and "Athol, the lairds of Lochlevon, and Petarow, Mr. James Magyll, and the juftice clerk +.” John Hepburn's examination thus: "Apud Edinburgum 8 dis "menfis Decembris, an Dom. "1567. in presence of my lord re gent, the erle of Athol, the lord "Linfay, the laird of Grange, and the end of thefe depofitions is the atteftation and fubfcription at large, of Sir John Ballendan, lord juftice clerk, bearing, that the principal depofitions were in the records of the high court of jufticiary §. dict Paris, a efte interrogue fur "les articles & demands qui s'en "fuivent, &c. & premierement.” Then followed the queftions that are put to him, with his anfwers, all in French; but by what perfon, or what authority, he was thus quef" the juftice clerk."And at tioned and examined, does not appear. From which it is evident, that that examination and confef fion was not judicial. And what is most surprising, it does not mention any perfon whatever that was prefent when it was taken. What can we think of fo lame a piece of evidence? This examination could not have been made at Paris's trial, otherwise it must have exprefsly faid fo; likewife it must have mentioned the court of juftice, and the judge, in whofe prefence, and by whofe authority it was taken. Let us next compare this examination with the judicial examinations and confeffions of Dalgleith, Hay, Hepburn, &c. taken before the high court of jufticiary at Edinburgh; we evidently fee there the difference betwixt a judicial teftimony, and this of Paris's, taken in a clandeftine manner, without the authority of a judge, and by no body knows whom. Dalgleith's exami What marks then of authenticity are about this paper of Paris? Not the fmalleft, as far as can be feen at this day, excepting the fingle affertion of Hay, Murray's clerk, who, as a notary, attefts this paper to be a true copy of an original, figned or marked by Paris himself, and read to him. All the world knows, that a copy of any paper, attefied by a notary, requires the folemnity of two reputable witneffes to give faith to the notary's atteftation. To this paper, however, tho' of the greateft importance, there are no witneffes. The whole then depends entirely upon the naked af fertion of this noted clerk of Murray alone, contradicted, as we have Ander. v. 2. p. 173. † Ander. v. 2. p. 177. Ibid. v. s. p. 188. Ibid. v. 2. p. 183. feen feen, in the most public manner, by all the world, and even tacitly difavowed by himself. As for the pretended declaration of the 9th of Auguft, fince that only charges the earl of Bothwell, and not the queen, with any acceffion to the murder, it does not fall within my plan, altho' liable to the fame objections with the above pretended confeffion against the queen; befides, Mr. Goodall has, with very good reafon, fhewn it likewife to be an impofture*. Before we conclude, we must again beg leave to take notice of Mr. Hume's arguments in fupport of this noted piece of evidence of Paris: "It is in vain (fays he) at "prefent, to feck for impoffibilities く in Nicholas Hubert's dying con"feffion, and to magnify the finall"eft difficulties into a contradic"tion. It was certainly a regular judicial paper, given in regularly "and judicially, and ought to have "been canvailed at the time, if the "perfons, whom it concerned, had "been affured of their innocence t." Here we fee a fhort, but very pofitive decifion against all and every objection that pollibly can be brought against Paris's confeffion. But upon what does this author ground his fentence? Upon two very plain reafons, first, That the confeffion was a judicial one, that is, taken in prefence, or by authority, of a judge. And secondly, That it was regularly and judicially given in; that must be understood during the time of the conferences before queen Elizabeth and her council, in prefence of Mary's commiffioners; at which time the ought to have canvaffed it, fays our author, if the knew her innocence. *Good. v. 1. p. 137. That it was not a judicial confer fion, is evident: The paper itself does not bear any fuch marks; nor does it mention that it was taken in prefence of any perfon, or by any authority whatfoever; and, by comparing it with the judical exami nations of Dalgleith, Hay, and Hepburn, in page 146, it is appa. rent, thas it is deftitute of every formality requifite in a judicial evidence. In what dark corner, then, this ftrange production was generated, our author máy endeavour to find out, if he can. As to his fecond affertion, that it was regularly and judicially given in, and therefore ought to have been canvaffed by Mary during the conferences; we have already feen that this likewife is not fact: the conferences broke up in February 1569: Nicholas Hubert was not hanged till August thereafter; and his dying confeffion, as Mr. Hume calls it, is only dated the 10th of that month. How then can this gentleman gravely tell us that this confeflion was judically given in, and ought to have been at that very time canvaffed by queen Mary and her commiffioners? Such pofitive affertions, apparently contrary to fact, are unworthy the character of an hiftorian, and may very jufily render his decifion, with refpect to evidences of a higher, nature, very dubious. In answer then to Mr. Hume: as the queen's accufers did not chufe to produce this material witness, Faris, whom they had alive, and in their hands, nor any deciaration or confeffion from him at the critical and proper time for having it canvailed by the queen, I apprehend our author's conclufion may fairly be ufed against himfeir; that + Hume, vol. 2. p. LOO. it is in vain at prefent to fupport the improbabilities and abfurdities in a confeffion, taken in a clandeftine way, nobody knows how; and produced after Paris's death, by nobody knows whom and from every appearance defiitute of every formality requifite and common to fuch fort of evidence: for these reasons, I am under no fort of heftation to give fentence against Nicholas Hubert's confeffion, as a grofs impofture and forgery. The fifth chapter is a well-drawn fummary of the arguments on both fides, and the fixth is taken up in tracing out the views, defigns, and connexions of Murray, Morton, and Lethington. That the two laft named were the tools and inftruments of Murray's ambition, is apparent. That they were both of them at leaft privy to the murder, is not to be doubted; and as they were, fo it is not eafy to fuppofe Murray their principal could be ignorant of it. But that Bothwell was guilty, is not a queftion. Whether the queen was altogether innocent, every man will after all judge for himfelf. That her marriage with Bothwell was imprudent, no one can doubt. Gur author, in what we think a masterly manner, brings the feveral facinora of Murray, Morton, and Lethington, into one point of view, and makes this his conclufion. and the management of the fuc- It muft ftill, however, be ac- How iaithfully he kept to this plan, we have already fhewn. Whoever then fhall confider the whole of Murray's conduct, his rebellions, plots, and confpiracies, and that by a conftant and invariable profecution of this plan, he at length obtained the full completion of his fcheme, by dethroning his fovereign, poffeffing himself of the reins of government, and by that means having it in his power to fmother and put out of the way all proof or evidence that might tend to difcover his own guilt, with the remarkable caution obferved by him, in taking care to withdraw limfelf from the fcene, at the precife time always dy when the decifive events were read to fall out, muft, for thefe reafons, plainly fee that the foregoing prefumptive proof a gainft Murray, from circumftances, is the only one which, from the nature of things, can at this day be expected. To this, p. 159. of this enquiry, "Such is the complicated evidence, that appears against the joint confederates, Murray, Morton, and Lethington, preceding lord Darnley's murder, in which the earl of Murray is plainly pointed out to have been at the head, and in the direction of the whole conípiry, until the very period of the king's murder, that he withdrew himfelf, and foon after left the Kingdora, * Vide however, however, we may add a direct proof of his ufing falfe evidence against the queen, in the cafe of Nicholas Hubert, or French Paris's confeffion*, which we have demonftrated to be falfe, and that the fame came directly from the hand of Murray. The evidence is much stronger, however, with regard to his two affociates, Morton and Lethington: the fame prefumptive proof as againft Murray not only appears against them, but we have likewife a pofitive proof joined to it, against each of these affociates, viz. The mutual retorted accufation of each of them against the other, joined to the act of forfeiture against Lethington, by the regent Lennox, and the indictment, verdict, and fentence, påft by the peers of the kingdom againft Morton, as an accomplice in the king's murder, together with his own confeffion (as given us by his particular friends in the manner they chofe themfelves) that he was in the knowledge of the murder. So full and direct is the proof of their guilt. From all which, it is fubmitted to the judgment of the reader, whether the conclufions in the two propofitions, mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, do not naturally follow, viz. That as it is proved, that the confederates, for taking away the king's life, were Morton and Lethington, the very perfons who afterwards brought an accufation against queen Mary for that very crime; therefore the herself could not have been in that confederacy, nor guilty of that crime. 2dly. As it is proved that Murray, Morton, and Lethington, had been, from the queen's coming to Scotland, joint confederates in a feries of plots, confpiracies, and rebellions, against her and her hufband, unto the very eve of the king's murder: as they had with one voice publickly accused the queen, of that very crime, of which it is proved, that, at leaft, Morton and Lethington were themselves accomplices: and, as in fupport of their accufation, this triumvirate had produced fpurious and forged writings; and by all thefe means had dethroned their fovereign, and poffeffed themfelves of the government: for thefe reafons, therefore, the three confederates, Murray, Morton, and Lethington, muft be held, one and all of them, as socii criminis, guilty of the crime of which they had unjustly accufed queen Mary. We have already feen that Murray was at St. Andrew's at Paris's condemnation and execution; and that the only copy of this fpurious confeffion is fubfcribed by Hay, clerk of Murray's council; and we have ftill extant the infractions by Murray himfel to the abbot of Dunfermline, his envoy to the English court, 15th of October 1569, in these words: "And if further proof be required, we have fent with you the depofitions of Nicholas Hubert, alias Paris, a Frenchman, one who was prefent at the committing of the faid murder, and of late execute to the death for the fame." Good. v. 2. p. 58. We may now judge with what juftice Mr. Hume has given fentence in the cafe of Murray. "That there is not the leaft prefumption to lead us to fufpect him as an acconíplice in the murder.”__We need not wonder, therefore, that this fame judge, who has accquitted Murray of every prefumption of guilt, fhould give as pofitive a fentence against the queen. CON |