was allowed to Dalgleish, and the other fervants of Bothwell? No! as to these last, the experiment had not at all fucceeded. In fpite of torture, they had, with their dying breath, fpoke out the truth, and acquitted the queen*. This man, Paris, was the laft card Murray had to play; a new method, therefore, must be followed with refpect to him. He was fecreted from public view, was carried to an obfcure dungeon in Murray's citadel of St. Andrews; there he was kept hid from all the world, and at last condemned by the earl of Murray himself, in a manner no body knows how and feveral months after his death, a confeffion in his name, taken clandeftinely, without mentioning any person who was prefent when it was made by Paris, is privately fent up to London (and given in to Cecil, but at what period no body can tell) accufing the queen in the blackeft terms, and extolling the earl of Murray to the fkies. And to crown the whole, this precious piece of evidence is kept a profound fecret from the queen and her friends, who, as we shall by and by prove, never once faw or heard of this confeffion." That it was feen by or known to the queen, our author not unfairly concludes from Lesley's defence of Mary, published in 1569, foon after the execution of Paris: " As for him that ye furmife was the bearer of the letters, and whome you have executed of late for the faid murther, he, at the time of his faid execution, took it upon his death, as he should answere before God, that he never carried any fuch letters, nor that the queene was participant, nor of counfayle in the caufe." From the words "the perfon whom ye furmife was the bearer," it is plain, that neither the queen nor Lefly had either feen or heard of this confeffion of Paris, which is made acknowledge this fact, of his being the bearer of the letters, in exprefs terms. Queen Mary's ambaffador thus affirming, in the face of the world, that this man Paris, had, with his dying breath, and in the most folemn manner afferted her innocence, was furely a challenge to her accufers to have refuted the affertion, by producing Paris's confeffion, if genuine and fit to bear the light. They did it not, however, and the only answer made to this vindication *The evidence of this is unquestionable, no less than the affirmation of nineteen of the first peers in the kingdom, eight bishops, and eight abbots, present in Scotland at the very time, viz. "The erlis of Huntlie, Argile, Crawford, Eglington, Caffils, Rothes, Errol. "Lordis, Ogilvie, Feming, Sommerville, Boyd, Levingston, Sanquhar, Zefter, "Herreis, Oliphant, Drummond, Salton, Maxwell. "Bishoppis, Saint-Androis, Dunkeld, Aberdene, Rofs, Galloway, Brechin, Argile, "Inis. 66 Abbotis, Jedburgh, Kinlofs, St. Colme, Glenluce, Fern, New Abbay, Halywood, "Lyndoris.' In the inftructions and articles to queen Mary's commiffioners, figned by the above perfonages at Dunbarton, the 12th day of September 1568, their words are, mentioning the above convicts," As was deponit be thame quaha fufferit deid thair oir; quha "declarit at all times the quene our fovereign to be innocent thairof." Cot. lib. Good, v. 2. P. 359. of 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 published his famous work, entitled, "A detection of the doings of queen Mary;" a work that reflects in gratitude and difhonour upon his name. 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 univerfaily known, that Paris, at his execution, had publickly afferted the queen's innocence *; altho' the letters give only fome fufpicious and dark hints, from which the queen's knowledge of the murder is infer red; whereas Paris's confeffion of the roth of Auguft 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 least 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 altho' 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. In this libel against the queen, Ander. v. 1. preface to the defence o 5 ter his death, are genuine. For as we have already obferved, the plan of every forger, in fuch a cafe, muft always be to ground his work upon fome certain facts that all the world know to be true, and to interlard thefe truths with falfhoods. Let us further examine the authenticity of this confeffion of the 10th of Auguft. The title it bears is in these words: "A San&tandre, le 10 jour d' "Aouft 1569. Nicholas Howbart "dict Paris, a este interrogue fur "les articles & demands qui s' en"fuivent, &c. & premierement." Then followed the questions that are put to him, with his answers, all in French: but by what perfon, or what authority, he was thus queftioned and examined, does not ap pear. From which it is evident, that that examination and confeffion was not judicial. And what is moft furprifing, it does not mention any person 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; likewise 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. bris, 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 t."-- John Hepburn's examination thus: 66 Apud Edinburgum 8 die menfis Decembris, an "Dom. 1567. in prefence of my lord 66 66 66 regent the erle of Athol, the lord "Linfay, the laird of Grange, and "the juftice clerk 4."--And at the end of thefe depofitions is the atteftation and fubfcription at large, of Sir John Ballendan, lord juftice clerk, bearing, that the principal depofitious were in the records of the high court of jufticiary. What marks then of authenticity are about this paper of Paris? Not the smalleft, 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, attefted by a notary, requires the folemnity of two reputable witneffes to give faith to the notary's attestation. To this paper, however, tho of the greetest importance, there are no witneffes. The whole then depends entirely upon the naked affertion of this noted clerk of Mur ray alone, contradicted, as we have * Ander. v. 2. p. 173. † Ander. v. 2, p. 177. 4 Ibid. v. 2, p. 183. ↑ 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 reason, 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 1 Paris: "It is in vain (fays he) at "present to feek for improbabilities "in Nicholas Hubert's dying con"feffion, and to magnify the fmall"eft difficulties into a contradic"tion. It was certainly a regular "judicial paper, given in regularly "and judicially, and ought to have "been canvafled at the time, if the perfons, whom it concerned, had "been affured of their innocencet." Here we fee a fhort, but very pofitive decifion against all and every objection that poffibly 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 fecondly, That it was regularly and judicially given in; that must be underflood 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 she knew her innocence. * Good. v. I. p. 137. That it was not a judicial confef fion, is evident: The paper itfelf does not bear any fuch mark; nor does it mention that it was taken in prefence of any perfon, or by any authority whatsoever; and, by comparing it with the judicial examinations of Dalgleish, Hay, and Hepburn, in page 146, it is apparent, that it is deftitute of every formality requifite in a judicial evidence: In what dark corner, then, this ftrange production was generated; our author may 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 beencanvaffed by Mary during the conferences; we have already feenthat this likewife is not fact: the conferences broke up in February 1569: Nicholas Hubert was not hanged till Auguft 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 confeffion was judicially given in, and ought to have been at that very time canvaffed by queen Mary and her commiffioners? Such pofitive allertions, apparently contrary to fact, are unworthy the character of an hillorian, and may very juftly render his decifion, with respect to evidences of a higher nature, very dubious, In antwer then to Mr. Hume: As the queen's accufers did dot chufe to produce this material witnefs, Paris, whom they had alive, and in their hands, nor any declaration or confeffion from him at the critical and proper time for having it can affed by the queen, I apprehend our author's conclufion may fairly be used against himself; that Hume, vo'. 2. [. 500, it is in vain at prefent to fupport the improbabilities and abfurdities in a confeffion, taken in a clandeftine way, no body knows how; and produced after Paris's death, by no body knows whom: and from every appearance deftitute of every formaJity requifite and common to fuch fort of evidence: for these reafons, I am under no fort of hefitation to give sentence 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 connections 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 question. 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. Our author, in what we think a masterly manner, brings the feveral facinora of Murray, Moreton, and Lethington, into one point of view, and makes this his conclufion. "Such is the complicated evidence, that appears against the joint confederates, Murray, Morton, and Lethington, preceding lord Darnfey'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 confpiracy, until the very period of the king's murder, that he withdrew himfelf, and foon after left the kingdom, and the management of the fucceeding part of the fcheme to his friendsMorton and Lethington, who, by their rebellion and imprifonment of the queen, fecured for him the regency of the kingdom. It must fill, however, be acknowledged, that all this amounts to no dire& proof of Murray's being an actor in the murder of lord Darnley: but when the whole of his conduct, which we have traced, and detected, is confidered, there appears the ftrongest prefumptive evidence, of his being acceffary to, and in the knowledge of the whole affair. The clofe, fubtle, and deep part which he was to play in the catastrophe, was to place himself. concealed behind the curtain, while the bloody work was a doing, to look through his fingers thairto, and to behold the doings, faying nothing to.. the fame t. How faithfully he kept. to this plan, we have already fhewn. Whoever then fhall confider the whole of Marray'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 himfelf, 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 himself from the fcene, at the precife time always when the decifive events were ready to fall out, muft, for thefe reafons, plainly fee, that the foregoing prefumptive proof against Murray, from circumftances, is the only one which, from the nature of things, can at this day be expected. To this, Vide p. 189. of this enquiry. however |