ter ; by comparing the three dif- ing in phrases and proverbs peferent copies of them together, he culiar to that language.--Thefe has very ingeniously thewn that are servilely expressed in the Latin, those pretended letters, said to be and sometimes erroneously : and, written in French by queen Mary as often as that happens, the to the earl of Bothwel, must be French always follows these errors spurious. His arguments may be of the Latin. As Mr. Goodall's reduced to this proposition. book is common, I shall not tire

The letters said to be writ my reader with going through his ten in French by the queen, as ingenious remarks : I shall only. now extant, have, by all parties, quote two or three examples from been held for true copies of the the first letter *, and refer to his originals produced by Morton, and book for the rest. liave, down to this time, passed 1. The Scotch says proverbially, uncontested as such.

in letter firit, “ thair's na receipt Buchanan, the confident of Mur (meaning a prescription of physic). ray and Moreton, who attended can serve againis feir." The Lathem both at York and London, tin has, "s nullam adversus timorem had the letters in his custody, and effe medicinam, was so much master of their con And the French is, " qui'l n'y tents, that he was employed by avoit point de remede contre la Murray to how and explain them crainte." to the English commißioners at 2. Scotch, " ze have sair going York, and translated the three first to see feik folk.'? of them into Latin.

verbial saying. If then it can be shewn, that, The Latin translator has here in place of the French being the committed no less than two blunoriginals, the Scotch copies are the ders, he mistook the word fair true originals, and that the French (or sore) for fair, and the word are apparently translations from leik for fic (or fuch) and has tranBuchanan's Latin, the conclufion flated them both erroneoufly in the fairly follows, that these French lat sense: pretended originals are spurious. Bella hujusmodi hominum viThis Mr. Goodall has done. fitatio." And the French copies

By comparing the letters, as him thus ; "voyla une belle visita. they stand in the three different

tion de telle gens.” languages, he has, to a demon. 3. The queen is made to say, stration, shewn, that, in place of that she was going to seek lier rett the Scorch and Latin being trans- till tomorrow, “Quhen (says she) lated from the French originals, I fall end my byhill,in place these last are palbably a version of her tyle (or bill) a word used from the Latin, and the Latin a- commonly at that time for any sort gain a version from the Scotch. of writing. The transcriber, from The Scotch is apparently original: the resemblance of the two words, the thoughts therein are easily and made it bybill; the Latin follows fententiously turned, and abound- him in this absurdity, "ego eo at

Another pro

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

meam quietem inveniam in.crafti- few, that this Scotch copy of the num, ut tum mea biblia finiam ; letters, 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 recos jusques au lendemain, afin a translation at all, but a true orique je finiffe icy ma bible.

ginal in every sense." Ou author is a clear plain rea. Yet there is a point which trikes Toner. His arguments are very us more than perhaps it ought, as strong. On the whole we can scarce neither of the disputants take any refuse our asient to what he says, that notice of it. The point however there appears, in the Scotch copy is this. of the letter, a fpirit, and so happy It is on all hands agreed, that a turn of phrase, altogether pecu- the Latin version is Buchanan's. liar to that language, and so very Now whether we suppose the Frenclı different from the languor, baid or Scotch to be the original, it is ness of expression, and servility of equally surprising that Buchanan, both the French and Latin copies, whose mother tongue was Scotch, that plainly denotes the first to be and who was perfectly master of the altogether original in every sense. French, hould commit the strange To Thew this, I shall take a few abluid mistakes we fee in the phrases from the first letter only.

Latin. " A gentleman of the earl of After having examined the auLennox came and made bis commen- thenticity of the letters, our author dations to me.” This phrase is still endeavours to prove, that the conused in the Scotch language, to fesfion of Nicholas Hubert is also fignify, he presented his compli- a forgery, and then he presses his ments.

opponent very close. " This speech was of his awin * The defect of having fome head, without ony commission." other imparcial and unsuspected wic

“ There is na receipt can serve nesses to have concurred iiih Mora againis feir.".--A proverb.

ton; as to the discovery and seizure “ He has ever the teir in his eye.'

of the box and letters, and his re" Fals race----they hae bene at markable shyneis in interrogaring schullis, togidder.”

Dalglith on this point, have already “ He hes almaist slane me with been observed. But ic perhaps will his braith."

be faid, chat, at the time of DalgYe have fair going to see feik leish's trial, this was an oversighe folk.”

which escaped even the sagacity and He gave me a check in the penetrating genius of Morton, and quick.”

the whole party:

The man was “Excuse that thing that is hanged, and he cannot now be Icriblit.”

called from the grave to answer These examples of proverbial questions. It is to be observed, fentences and phrases, peculiar to however, that, at this very time, the Scotch language, and to which December 1558, they had in their the French have nothing similar in custody a very material and living their language, are sufficient to evidence, who had a part in the


X 2

letters. The second letter mentions, “ the queen with being accessary to by name, one Paris, or Nicholas “that criminal enterprise +." He Hubert, a Frenchman, servant of afterwards adds: “ li is in vain ar Bothwell, who, it is said, was the “present to feek for improbabilities person intruiled to carry the letters “in this confession: it was cerfrom the queen to Bothwell. This “tainly a regular judicial paper, man had been kept in close con “ given in regularly and judicially, finement in St. Andrews during all " and ought to bave been canvaficd this time *. Now when one sees the at the time 1." From this acremarkable care and attention of the count Mr. Hume would make one party in collectingevery circumstance believe, that that piece of evidence, which they suppeted could be mat Paris's confeflion, had been given in ter of proof againit the queen, in by Murray within a few days after support of their accusation, their the letters, at lealt whilst the conpenury of proof notwithftanding, ferences fubfifted ; yet nothing can and the pinching necessity of sup- 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 fingle affirmation of Morton 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 fufpicion, 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 person, But I shall hereafter have occasion to have answered to the questions more particularly to examine this of Mary, or her commissioners, be- pretended confession by itself.” fore the English council, and to the And again : “ The preceding part assigned to him in the letters

account of the several steps of the themselves.

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 so 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 a extraordinary manner: On giv- hort abftract 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“ some testimonies of correspond- fight, judge, how far that gentlesing facts; and he added, some 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 against Mary “ been executed for the king's mur was given in, and copies of it “ der, and who directly charged transmitted to the bishop of Ross,


• Keith, p. 366.

+ Hume, vol. 2. p. 497.

1 Ibid. p. goo.

lord Herries, and her other com- made no difficulty in producing the miffioners, they absolutely refused to prodfs of his charge against the return any answer; and they ground. queen of Scots, and, among the reft, ed their filence on very extraordi- fome love letters and fonnets of nary reasons: they had orders, they her's to Bothwell, wrote all in her faid, from their mistress, if any own hand, and cwo promises of thing was advanced that might marriage to him. — They contained touch her honour, not to make any inconteitable proofs of Mary's crimia defence, as the was a sovereign nal correspondence with Bothwell, princess, and could not be subject of her consent to the king's murto any tribunal"; and they'requir- der, and of her concurrence in that ed, that the should previously be rape, which Bothwell pretended to admitted to Elizabeth's presence. commit upon her. Murray fortified They forgot that the conferences this evidence, by some testimonies were at first begun, and were still of corresponding facts; and he addcontinued, with no other view than ed, some time after, the dying conto clear her from the accusations of fefsion 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 only as her friend, by her own consent, the king's murder, and who diwithout affuming any fuperior jurif- rectly charged the queen with her diction over her. As the queen being accessary to that criminal en of Scots refused to give in any an- terprizef. fwer to Murray's charge, the neces Would not any one believe fary consequence seemed to be, from this account, that Hubert had that there could be no farther pro- : been hanged before the time here ceedings in the trial*.

spoken of by Mr. Hume, and that If this was a necessary conse. his confession was produced during quence of Mary's refusing to an- the conferences; and yet we have fwer, (unless in person, Mr. Hume seen that Hubert was alive all the should have added) it may be asked, time of the conferences, and no How came Elizabeth, notwithstand. confeffion from him, nor the least ing, to proceed in the trial, in ab- mention of his name made for ten fence of both Mary and her com- months after they broke up." missioners? Was not this the height And again,“ As to the letters, they of partiality, in this pretended friend are asserted to be forged; and that it of Mary, to hear her enemies by was notoriously known, that persons themselves, or to receive any thing about the queen had often been in from their hands as fufficient proof the practice of forging lecters in her again't her, upon their word only? name. They had neither date, adAnd when the did so, ought the dress, seal, nor subscription. That, not,' in comunion juitice, to have as they had only been collated by communicated the fame to Mary? 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 (lays the bi** Elizabeth and her ministers de- shop) who was surmised to be the fired to have in their hands the bearer, (Nicholas Hubert, or French proofs of her guilt: Murray X 3


[blocks in formation]

Paris) at the time of his execution, one of the king's murderers; fhe took it upon his death, as he should undertakes to prove the crime a. answer before God, that he never gainst him by fair trial : how does carried any such letter, nor that he defend himself against this so the queen was participant, nor of public a challenge given him in the council in the cause t."

face of the world. He denies the The whole transaction of Paris is 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 the 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 so 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 me undertook to ry mortal of her guilt. This per. prove this from the letters them- son was French Paris, who (if Mur-, selves, which. Mary, in the most ray and his letters are to be credite carneft manner, begged to have ed) was the confident of the whole inspection of. This request was de intrigue, 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 happen.. adherents, go off in hafte, with their ed a more lucky event than this, to box and letters to Scotland*. Before a man lying under the load of so their departure, queen Mary.com criminal an accusation, as that of plains to queen Elizabeth for “ al. being an accomplice in the murder lowing them to depart the realm not of his sovereign? Let us now see abiding to hear the defence of her the method Murray takes to wipe innocence, nor the trial and proof off this foul afperfion, and to avoid of their detectioun, which was offer- all suspicion of practising, by the it to prove them guilty of the fa- force of torture or promises, upon a men crime.t-To which it was an poor ignorant, friendless creature, fwerit, that the earl of Murray has then in his hands, to mould him to promised to return again when his purpose. Does he send him to he should be called for." This was London to be examined before the on the i 2th of January 1563-9, and Englih council, as his other witwithin seven months after this, nelles, Crawford, and Nelson, had Paris was hanged by Murray at St. been ? Does he even venture to proAndrews, viz. in Auguit that same duce him before his own privy year 569.

council at Edinburgh, to be interNow let any impartial person rogated there ? Or, lastly, does he consider well the conduct of Mur- bring him to a public trial, in the ray in this matter : he himself is ordinary form, before the high publickly accused by the queen, as court of justiciary at Edinburgh, as

+ Ander, vol. 1. part 2. p. 19.

* Vide page 37. Vide page 39 and 40.


« 前へ次へ »