ter; by comparing the three different copies of them together, he has very ingenioufly fhewn that thofe pretended letters, faid to be written in French by queen Mary to the earl of Bothwel, muft be fpurious. His arguments may be reduced to this propofition.

The letters faid to be written in French by the queen, as now extant, have. by all parties, been held for true copies of the originals produced by Morton, and have, down to this time, paffed uncontefted as fuch.

Buchanan, the confident of Mur ray and Moreton, who attended them both at York and London, had the letters in his cuftody, and was fo much mafter of their contents, that he was employed by Murray to how and explain them to the English commiffioners at York, and tranflated the three first of them into Latin.

If then it can be fhewn, that, in place of the French being the originals, the Scotch copies are the true originals, and that the French are apparently tranflations from Buchanan's Latin, the conclufion fairly follows, that thefe French pretended originals are fpurious. This Mr. Goodall has done.

By comparing the letters, as they ftand in the three different languages, he has, to a demonftration, fhewn, that, in place of the Scotch and Latin being tranflated from the French originals, thefe laft are palbably a verfion from the Latin, and the Latin again a verfion from the Scotch. The Scotch is apparently original: the thoughts therein are easily and fententiously turned, and abound

ing in phrafes and proverbs peculiar to that language.-These are fervilely expreffed in the Latin, and fometimes erroneously: and, as often as that happens, the French always follows thefe errors of the Latin. As Mr. Goodall's book is common, I fhall not tire my reader with going through his ingenious remarks: I fhall only quote two or three examples from the first letter*, and refer to his book for the reft."

1. The Scotch fays proverbially, in letter firft, "thair's na receipt (meaning a prefcription of phyfic) can ferve againis feir." The Latin has, " nullam adverfus timorem effe medicinam."

And the French is, "qui'l n'y avoit point de remede contre la crainte."

2. Scotch, "ze have fair going to fee feik folk." Another proverbial faying.

The Latin tranflator has here committed no lefs than two blunders, he mistook the word fair (or fore) for fair, and the word feik for fic (or fuch) and has tranflated them both erroneously in the laft fense:

"Bella hujufmodi hominum vifitatio." And the French copies him thus: "voyla une belle vifitation de telle gens."

66

meam

meam quietem inveniam in craftinum, ut tum mea biblia finiam; and the French follows him thus

je m'en vay pour trouver mon recos jufques au lendemain, afin que je finiffe icy ma bible.”

Ou author is a clear plain reafoner. His arguments are very ftrong. On the whole we can scarce refuse our affent to what he fays, that there appears, in the Scotch copy of the letter, a fpirit, and fo happy a turn of phrafe, altogether peculiar to that language, and fo very different from the languor, baidnefs of expreffion, and fervility of both the French and Latin copies, that plainly denotes the first to be altogether original in every fenfe. To fhew 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 fill nfed in the Scotch language, to fignify, he prefented his compli

fhew, that this Scotch copy of the letters, is not only the original of the three copies of the letters fill extant, but likewife, that it is not a tranflation at all, but a true ori ginal 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 verfion 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 commit the ftrange abfurd miftakes we fe in the Latin.

After having examined the authenticity of the letters, our author endeavours to prove, that the confeffion of Nicholas Hubert is alfo a forgery, and then he preffes his opponent very close.

"The defect of having fome other impartial and unfufpećted wit nefes to have concurred with Mor ton; as to the discovery and seizure of the box and letters, and his remarkable fhynefs in interrogating Dalglith on this point, have already. been obferved: But it perhaps will be faid that, at the time of Dalgleifh's trial, this was an overfight 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 answer queftions. It is to be observed, however, that, at this very time, December 1568, they had in their cuftody a very material and living evidence, who had a part in the X 2

letters.

letters. The fecond letter mentions, by name, one Paris, or Nicholas Hubert, a Frenchman, fervant of Bothwell, who, it is faid, was the "perfon intrusted to carry the letters from the queen to Bothwell. This man had been kept in clofe confinement in St. Andrews 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 most inveterate enemy; it is impoffible to overlook, without the strongest fufpicion, their omitting to have produced fo very material an evidence as this Frenchman, in person, to have answered to the questions of Mary, or her commiffioners, before the English council, and to the part affigned to him in the letters themselves.

Mr. Hume, who has omitted nothing that he thought was evidence against 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: "On giv"ing in the letters, (fays he) Mur46 ray fortified this evidence by "fome teftimonies of correfpond66 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

66

"the queen with being acceffary to "that criminal enterprise +." He afterwards adds: "It is in vain ar prefent to feek for improbabilities "in this confeffion: it was cer"tainly a regular judicial paper, "given in regularly and judicially, "and ought to have been canvassed "at the time t." From this account Mr. Hume would make one believe, that that piece of evidence, Paris's confeflion, had been given in by Murray within a few days after the letters, at leaft whilft 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. after lying in close prison till August 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 confeffion by itself."

Paris,

And again: "The preceding account of the feveral fteps of the conferences relating to the letters, from the very words of the records themfelves, is fo very different from, and so contradictory to Mr. Hume's relation, in his late history, that I think it incumbent upon me, in juftice to the public, to fet down a fhort abftract of his account, fo that, upon a comparison, the impartial reader may, from his own eyefight, judge, how far that gentleman has been directed by truth, in his representation of this affair.

"When the charge, (fays Mr. Hume) or accusation against Mary was given in, and copies of it tranfmitted to the bifhop of Rofs,

Ibid. p. 500.

lord

lord Herries, and her other commiffioners, they abfolutely refused to return any answer; and they grounded their filence on very extraordinary reafons: they had orders, they faid, from their miftrefs, if any thing was advanced that might touch her honour, not to make any defence, as she was a fovereign princefs, and could not be fubject to any tribunal; and they required, that the fhould previously be admitted to Elizabeth's prefence. They forgot that the conferences were at firft begun, and were still continued, with no other view than to clear her from the accufations of her enemies; that Elizabeth had ever pretended to enter into them only as her friend, by her own confent, without affuming any fuperior jurifdiction over her. As the queen of Scots refufed to give in any anfwer to Murray's charge, the neceffary 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 asked, How came Elizabeth, notwithstanding, 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 themselves, or to receive any thing from their hands as fufficient proof against her, upon their word only? And when he 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 defired to have in their hands the proofs of her guilt: Murray

* Hume, val 2. p. 496.

made no difficulty in producing the proofs of his charge againft the queen of Scots, and, among the reft, fome love letters and fonnets of her's to Bothwell, wrote all in her own hand, and two promifes of marriage to him. They contained inconteftable proofs of Mary's criminal correfpondence with Bothwell, of her confent to the king's murder, and of her concurrence in that rape, which Bothwell pretended to commit upon her. Murray fortified this evidence, by fome teftimonies of correfponding facts; and he added, fome time after, the dying confeffion of one Hubert, or French Paris, a fervant of the earl of Bothwell, who had been executed for the king's murder, and who directly charged the queen with her being acceffary to that criminal en terprizef.

Would not any one believe from this account, that Hubert had been hanged before the time here fpoken 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 Hubert, or French X 3

† Hume, vol. 2. p. 497,

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 cause t."

The whole tranfaction 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 afferted in the strongest manner, that the letters were forged by him 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 short 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 detectioun, which was offerit to prove them guilty of the famen crime. To which it was anfwerit, that the earl of Murray has promifed to return again when he fhould be called for." This was on the 2th of January 1568-9, and within feven months after this, Paris was hanged by Murray at St. Andrews, viz. in Auguft that fame year 569.

1

Now let any impartial perfon confider well the conduct of Murray in this matter: he himself is publickly accufed by the queen, as

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

one of the king's murderers; the 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 so favourable as to throw into his hands, the only person in the world, who, (if Murray was truly innocent, and the queen guilty) could have cleared him, and satisfied every mortal of her guilt. This perfon was French Paris, who (if Murray and his letters are to be credit ed) was the confident 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 so criminal an accufation, as that of being an accomplice in the murder of his fovereign? Let us now see the method Murray takes to wipe off this foul afperfion, and to avoid all fufpicion of practifing, by the force of torture or promises, upon a poor ignorant, friendless 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 witnefles, Crawford, and Nelson, 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 justiciary at Edinburgh, as