With an examination of the reverend Dr. Robertson's Dissertation, and
Mr. Hume's History, with respect to that evidence [16].
We live in an age, in which there is much talk of independence, of
private judgment, of liberty of thought, and liberty of press. Our
clamorous praises of liberty sufficiently prove that we enjoy it; and
if, by liberty, nothing else be meant, than security from the
persecutions of power, it is so fully possessed by us, that little more
is to be desired, except that one should talk of it less, and use it
better.
But a social being can scarcely rise to complete independence; he that
has any wants, which others can supply, must study the gratification of
them, whose assistance he expects; this is equally true, whether his
wants be wants of nature, or of vanity. The writers of the present time
are not always candidates for preferment, nor often the hirelings of a
patron. They profess to serve no interest, and speak with loud contempt
of sycophants and slaves.
There is, however, a power, from whose influence neither they, nor their
predecessors, have ever been free. Those, who have set greatness at
defiance, have yet been the slaves of fashion. When an opinion has once
become popular, very few are willing to oppose it. Idleness is more
willing to credit than inquire; cowardice is afraid of controversy, and
vanity of answer; and he that writes merely for sale, is tempted to
court purchasers by flattering the prejudices of the publick.
It has now been fashionable, for near half a century, to defame and
vilify the house of Stuart, and to exalt and magnify the reign of
Elizabeth. The Stuarts have found few apologists, for the dead cannot
pay for praise; and who will, without reward, oppose the tide of
popularity? yet there remains, still, among us, not wholly
extinguished, a zeal for truth, a desire of establishing right, in
opposition to fashion. The author, whose work is now before as, has
attempted a vindication of Mary of Scotland, whose name has, for some
years, been generally resigned to infamy, and who has been considered,
as the murderer of her husband, and condemned by her own letters.
Of these letters, the author of this vindication confesses the
importance to be such, that, "if they be genuine, the queen was guilty;
and, if they be spurious, she was innocent." He has, therefore,
undertaken to prove them spurious, and divided his treatise into six
parts.
In the first is contained the history of the letters from their
discovery by the earl of Morton, their being produced against queen
Mary, and their several appearances in England, before queen Elizabeth
and her commissioners, until they were finally delivered back again to
the earl of Morton.
The second contains a short abstract of Mr. Goodall's arguments for
proving the letters to be spurious and forged; and of Dr. Robertson and
Mr. Hume's objections, by way of answer to Mr. Goodall, with critical
observations on these authors.
The third contains an examination of the arguments of Dr. Robertson and
Mr. Hume, in support of the authenticity of the letters.
The fourth contains an examination of the confession of Nicholas Hubert,
commonly called _French Paris_, with observations, showing the same to
be a forgery.
The fifth contains a short recapitulation, or summary, of the arguments
on both sides of the question.
The last is an historical collection of the direct or positive evidence
still on record, tending to show what part the earls of Murray and
Morton, and secretary Lethington, had in the murder of the lord Darnley.
The author apologizes for the length of this book, by observing, that it
necessarily comprises a great number of particulars, which could not
easily be contracted: the same plea may be made for the imperfection of
our extract, which will naturally fall below the force of the book,
because we can only select parts of that evidence, which owes its
strength to its concatenation, and which will be weakened, whenever it
is disjoined.
The account of the seizure of these controverted letters is thus given
by the queen's enemies.
"That in the castell of Edinburgh, thair was left be the erle of
Bothwell, before his fleeing away, and was send for be ane George
Dalgleish, his servand, who was taken be the erle of Mortoun, ane small
gylt coffer, not fully ane fute lang, garnisht in sindrie places with
the roman letter F. under ane king's crowne; wharin were certane
letteris and writings weel knawin, and be aithis to be affirmit to have
been written with the quene of Scottis awn hand to the erle."
The papers in the box were said to be eight letters, in French, some
love-sonnets in French also, and a promise of marriage by the queen to
Bothwell.
To the reality of these letters our author makes some considerable
objections, from the nature of things; but, as such arguments do not
always convince, we will pass to the evidence of facts.
On June 15, 1567, the queen delivered herself to Morton, and his party,
who imprisoned her.
June 20, 1567, Dalgleish was seized, and, six days after, was examined
by Morton; his examination is still extant, and there is no mention of
this fatal box.
Dec. 4, 1567, Murray's secret council published an act, in which is the
first mention of these letters, and in which they are said to be
_written and subscrivit with her awin hand_. Ten days after, Murray's
first parliament met, and passed an act, in which they mention _previe
letters written halelie_ [wholly] _with her awin hand_. The difference
between _written and subscribed_, and _wholly written_, gives the author
just reason to suspect, first, a forgery, and then a variation of the
forgery. It is, indeed, very remarkable, that the first account asserts
more than the second, though the second contains all the truth; for the
letters, whether _written_ by the queen or not, were not _subscribed_.
Had the second account differed from the first only by something added,
the first might have contained truth, though not all the truth; but as
the second corrects the first by diminution, the first cannot be cleared
from falsehood.
In October, 1568, these letters were shown at York to Elisabeth's
commissioners, by the agents of Murray, but not in their publick
character, as commissioners, but by way of private information, and were
not, therefore, exposed to Mary's commissioners. Mary, however, hearing
that some letters were intended to be produced against her, directed her
commissioners to require them for her inspection, and, in the mean time,
to declare them _false and feigned, forged and invented_, observing,
that there were many that could counterfeit her hand.
To counterfeit a name is easy, to counterfeit a hand, through eight
letters very difficult. But it does not appear that the letters were
ever shown to those who would desire to detect them; and, to the English
commissioners, a rude and remote imitation might be sufficient, since
they were not shown as judicial proofs; and why they were not shown as
proofs, no other reason can be given, than they must have then been
examined, and that examination would have detected the forgery.
These letters, thus timorously and suspiciously communicated, were all
the evidence against Mary; for the servants of Bothwell, executed for
the murder of the king, acquitted the queen, at the hour of death. These
letters were so necessary to Murray, that he alleges them, as the reason
of the queen's imprisonment, though he imprisoned her on the 16th, and
pretended not to have intercepted the letters before the 20th of June.
Of these letters, on which the fate of princes and kingdoms was
suspended, the authority should have been put out of doubt; yet that
such letters were ever found, there is no witness but Morton who accused
the queen, and Crawfurd, a dependent on Lennox, another of her accusers.
Dalgleish, the bearer, was hanged without any interrogatories concerning
them; and Hulet, mentioned in them, though then in prison, was never
called to authenticate them, nor was his confession produced against
Mary, till death had left him no power to disown it.
Elizabeth, indeed, was easily satisfied; she declared herself ready to
receive the proofs against Mary, and absolutely refused Mary the liberty
of confronting her accusers, and making her defence. Before such a
judge, a very little proof would be sufficient. She gave the accusers of
Mary leave to go to Scotland, and the box and letters were seen no more.
They have been since lost, and the discovery, which comparison of
writing might have made, is now no longer possible. Hume has, however,
endeavoured to palliate the conduct of Elizabeth, but "his account,"
says our author, "is contradicted, almost in every sentence, by the
records, which, it appears, he has himself perused."
In the next part, the authenticity of the letters is examined; and it
seems to be proved, beyond contradiction, that the French letters,
supposed to have been written by Mary, are translated from the Scotch
copy, and, if originals, which it was so much the interest of such
numbers to preserve, are wanting, it is much more likely that they never
existed, than that they have been lost.
The arguments used by Dr. Robertson, to prove the genuineness of the
letters, are next examined. Robertson makes use, principally, of what he
calls the _internal evidence_, which, amounting, at most, to conjecture,
is opposed by conjecture equally probable.
In examining the confession of Nicholas Hubert, or French Paris, this
new apologist of Mary seems to gain ground upon her accuser. Paris is
mentioned, in the letters, as the bearer of them to Bothwell; when the
rest of Bothwell's servants were executed, clearing the queen in the
last moment, Paris, instead of suffering his trial, with the rest, at
Edinburgh, was conveyed to St. Andrew's, where Murray was absolute; put
into a dungeon of Murray's citadel; and, two years after, condemned by
Murray himself, nobody knew how. Several months after his death, a
confession in his name, without the regular testifications, was sent to
Cecil, at what exact time, nobody can tell.
Of this confession, Leslie, bishop of Ross, openly denied the
genuineness, in a book printed at London, and suppressed by Elizabeth;
and another historian of that time declares, that Paris died without any
confession; and the confession itself was never shown to Mary, or to
Mary's commissioners. The author makes this reflection:
"From the violent presumptions that arise from their carrying this poor
ignorant stranger from Edinburgh, the ordinary seat of justice; their
keeping him hid from all the world, in a remote dungeon, and not
producing him, with their other evidences, so as he might have been
publickly questioned; the positive and direct testimony of the author of
Crawfurd's manuscript, then living, and on the spot at the time; with
the publick affirmation of the bishop of Ross, at the time of Paris's
death, that he had vindicated the queen with his dying breath; the
behaviour of Murray, Morton, Buchanan, and even of Hay, the attester of
this pretended confession, on that occasion; their close and reserved
silence, at the time when they must have had this confession of Paris in
their pocket; and their publishing every other circumstance that could
tend to blacken the queen, and yet omitting this confession, the only
direct evidence of her supposed guilt; all this duly and dispassionately
considered, I think, one may safely conclude, that it was judged not fit
to expose, so soon, to light this piece of evidence against the queen;
which a cloud of witnesses, living, and present at Paris's execution,
would, surely, have given clear testimony against, as a notorious
imposture."
Mr. Hume, indeed, observes: "It is in vain, at present, to seek for
improbabilities in Nicholas Hubert's dying confession, and to magnify
the smallest difficulties into a contradiction. It was certainly a
regular judicial paper, given in regularly and judicially, and ought to
have been canvassed at the time, if the persons, whom it concerned, had
been assured of their innocence." To which our author makes a reply,
which cannot be shortened without weakening it:
"Upon what does this author ground his sentence? Upon two very plain
reasons, first, that the confession was a judicial one, that is, taken
in presence, 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
presence of Mary's commissioners; at which time she ought to have
canvassed it," says our author, "if she knew her innocence.
"That it was not a judicial confession, is evident: the paper itself
does not bear any such mark; nor does it mention, that it was taken in
presence of any person, or by any authority whatsoever; and, by
comparing it with the judicial examinations of Dalgleish, Hay, and
Hepburn, it is apparent, that it is destitute of every formality,
requisite in a judicial evidence. In what dark corner, then, this
strange production was generated, our author may endeavour to find out,
if he can.
"As to his second assertion, that it was regularly and judicially given
in, and, therefore, ought to have been canvassed, by Mary during the
conferences; we have already seen, that this, likewise, is not fact: the
conferences broke up in February, 1569: Nicholas Hubert was not hanged
till August thereafter, and his dying confession, as Mr. Hume calls it,
is only dated the 10th of that month. How, then, can this gentleman
gravely tell us, that this confession was judicially given in, and ought
to have been, at that very time, canvassed by queen Mary and her
commissioners? Such positive assertions, apparently contrary to fact,
are unworthy the character of an historian, and may, very justly, render
his decision, with respect to evidences of a higher nature, very
dubious. In answer, then, to Mr. Hume: As the queen's accusers did not
choose to produce this material witness, Paris, whom they had alive and
in their hands, nor any declaration or confession, from him, at the
critical and proper time for having it canvassed by the queen, I
apprehend our author's conclusion may fairly be used against himself;
that it is in vain, at present, to support the improbabilities and
absurdities in a confession, taken in a clandestine way, nobody knows
how, and produced, after Paris's death, by nobody knows whom, and, from
every appearance, destitute of every formality, requisite and common to
such sort of evidence: for these reasons, I am under no sort of
hesitation to give sentence against Nicholas Hubert's confession, as a
gross imposture and forgery."
The state of the evidence relating to the letters is this:
Morton affirms, that they were taken in the hands of Dalgleish. Hie
examination of Dalgleish is still extant, and he appears never to have
been once interrogated concerning the letters.
Morton and Murray affirm, that they were written by the queen's hand;
they were carefully concealed from Mary and her commissioners, and were
never collated by one man, who could desire to disprove them.
Several of the incidents mentioned in the letters are confirmed by the
oath of Crawfurd, one of Lennox's defendants, and some of the incidents
are so minute, as that they could scarcely be thought on by a forger.
Crawfurd's testimony is not without suspicion. Whoever practises
forgery, endeavours to make truth the vehicle of falsehood.
Of a prince's life very minute incidents are known; and if any are too
slight to be remarked, they may be safely feigned, for they are,
likewise, too slight to be contradicted. But there are still more
reasons for doubting the genuineness of these letters. They had no date
of time or place, no seal, no direction, no superscription.
The only evidences that could prove their authenticity were Dalgleish
and Paris; of which Dalgleish, at his trial, was never questioned about
them; Paris was never publickly tried, though he was kept alive through
the time of the conference.
The servants of Bothwell, who were put to death for the king's murder,
cleared Mary with their last words.
The letters were first declared to be subscribed, and were then produced
without subscription.
They were shown, during the conferences at York, privately, to the
English commissioners, but were concealed from the commissioners of
Mary.
Mary always solicited the perusal of these letters, and was always
denied it.
She demanded to be heard, in person, by Elizabeth, before the nobles of
England and the ambassadours of other princes, and was refused.
When Mary persisted in demanding copies of the letters, her
commissioners were dismissed with their box to Scotland, and the letters
were seen no more.
The French letters, which, for almost two centuries, have been
considered as originals, by the enemies of Mary's memory, are now
discovered to be forgeries, and acknowledged to be translations, and,
perhaps, French translations of a Latin translation. And the modern
accusers of Mary are forced to infer, from these letters, which now
exist, that other letters existed formerly, which have been lost, in
spite of curiosity, malice, and interest.
The rest of this treatise is employed in an endeavour to prove, that
Mary's accusers were the murderers of Darnly: through this inquiry it is
hot necessary to follow him; only let it be observed, that, if these
letters were forged by them, they may easily be thought capable of other
crimes. That the letters were forged, is now made so probable, that,
perhaps, they will never more be cited as testimonies.