Page images
PDF
EPUB

almoft convulfive grafp, fhe drew her bonnet over her face, as if eager to hide the emotion which he was unable to fubdue, and fuddenly left the houfe; while Adeline, ftunned and overwhelmed by the ftriking contraft which Mrs. Pemberton had drawn between her paft and prefent fituation, remained for fome minutes motionless on her feat, a prey to a variety of feelings which fhe dared not venture to analyse." P. 103.

We ought perhaps to apologize for this unufually long extract, but we were interelled in the perufal; and we make no doubt our readers will participate with our feeling, and fanc. tion our approbation.

ART. IX. The Hiftory of Scotland, from the Union of the Crowns, &c.

(Concluded from p. 502.)

WE E have accompanied Mr. Laing step by step through the firft and fecond chapters of his Differtation on the murder of Darnley; and have examined every argument of importance, which thofe chapters contain, to prove the guilt of the Queen, and the innocence of the rebels. We have therefore done enough to put our readers on their guard against the author's mode of reafoning, and as we are not inviting an anfwer to the difputation, we fhall pafs through the remainder of it with greater rapidity.

The third chapter is entitled The Conferences at York and Westminster. To these it has been objected by the friends of Mary, that he was not confronted by her accufers; that the caufe was prejudged by Elizabeth, before the commencement of the conferences; that he was refufed a fight of the letters, &c. upon which the rebels refted their proof of her guilt; and that when Murray was accufed by her of being privy to the murder of Darnley, the conferences were abruptly broken off, and he was fuffered to return to Scotland with his box and letters, which were never more heard of.

To thefe objections Mr. L. makes no reply-at least, none that is entitled to the flighteft regard. He fays indeed, that Elizabeth could not admit Mary into her prefence till the had proved herself innocent of the murder of her husband; and that as fhe had refufed to plead her own caufe against the rebels but in the prefence of Elizabeth herself, and the ambassadors of foreign flates, fhe put it out of the English Queen's power to

confront

confront her with her accufers. But why could not Elizabeth admit Mary into her prefence while the caufe was depending? She fcrupled not to admit Murray into her prefence, though he was accused, and, indeed, notoriously guilty of rebellion and ufurpation; two crimes which might have been as odious and alarming, even to the chafte Elizabeth, as the crimes of which Mary was accufed! Mr. Laing indeed infinuates, that though the Scottish Queen was not admitted into Elizabeth's prefence, fhe was detained a prifoner, because she had claimed, when Queen of France, the crown of England; but as he knows. that Mary had in the most explicit terms renounced that claim during the life of Elizabeth, long before fhe took refuge in England, he builds not much on a circumftance, which a fair enquirer would not have mentioned.

When Murray fent to Elizabeth copies of the letters, fonnets, and contracts, from which he inferred his fovereign's adultery and guilt of murder, that he might learn, before he thould formally accufe her, whether they would be deemed fufficient proofs, it was not his wifh, according to the prefent author, to have the caufe prejudged, but only to have the English Queen's decifion on the relevancy of the indictment! For the propriety of that measure he appeals to the practice of the Scotch criminal courts, with which we are very little acquainted; but there are, to use the words of Bacon, leges legum, which no courts can violate without moral turpitude; and we have no hefitation to fay, that if the practice of the criminal courts of Scotland be fimilar to the conduct of Elizabeth and Murray, that practice is in direct contradiction to thofe fupreme laws; and that we would as foon be tried by the holy inquifition, as by a court where fuch practice prevails.

We ftrongly fufpect, however, that the author has here. mifreprefented the practice of the criminal courts of his country. We have looked into Hume's Criminal Law, and Arnott's Criminal Trials, and find that by a decifion of the court in the relevancy of the indictment, these authors mean, not a fecret decifion of the judge and jury, on the force of the evidence to be afterwards publicly laid before them, but an open decifion of the judge alone, whether the perfon to be tried, if he fhall be convicted of the crime of which he is accufed, will be liable to the punishment, which the public profecutor defires to be inflicted on him. This could not poffibly be the object that Murray had in view when he tranfmitted to Elizabeth copies, as he called them, of Mary's letters to Bothwell. He knew well that Elizabeth had no authority over Mary, and could not, legally, pronounce any fentence upon her, whatever evidence he might produce of her guilt. He could not even reasonably

reafonably expect that Elizabeth, who was herself a Queen, and by difpofition defpotic, would folemnly declare that Mary's fubjects had a right to expel her from her throne, and ufurp the government, merely becaufe they had difcovered proofs of her adultery and murder. He knew, however, that Elizabeth hated Mary, and would co-operate with him in pre venting her return to her own kingdom; but he was not, per haps, perfectly fure that the would approve of the plan which he had formed for depriving the Scottish Queen of the aid of foreign powers, by defaming her character lo as to render it an objeét of univerfal detefiation. All that he wished from the conferences was to retain the fovereign power to himself; and before he ventured to accufe his Queen of the horrid crimes of murder and adultery, he was defirous to know whether the proofs which he had prepared to fupport the accufation, would fatisfy the mind of Elizabeth, and furnifh her with a plaufible pretence for detaining Mary a prifoner in England.

"Because," faid he to Elizabeth's refident at Edinburgh," wee perfave the trial, quhilk the Quenis Majeftie (of England) is myndit te bave taken, is to be ufit with grit ceremonye and folemniteis; we wald be maift laith (moft loth) to enter in accufatioun of the Quene, moder of the king our foverane, and fyne (afterwards) TO ENTER INTO QUALIFICATION WITH HIR: FOR ALL MEN MAY JUDGE, HOW DANGEROUS AND PREJUDICIAL THAT SOLD BE. Alwayis, in cais the Quenis Majeftie will have the accufation directlie to proceid; it were mait reffonabill we UNDERSTUDE WHAT WE SULD LUKE TO FOLLOW THAIR UPON, in cais we preive all that we alledge; utherwayis we fal be als (as) incertane after the caus concludit, as wee are prefentlie (at prefent). And thairfair we pray zow (you) require hir Hienes, IN THIS POINT TO RE

SOLVE US".

In that point, as we learn both from Cecil and from the commiffioners, before whom the conferences were carried on at York, Elizabeth did refolve Murray and his affociates; and had the clandeftine proceedings between her and them flopped there, her refolution would indeed have borne fome diftant refemblance to what our author calls a decifion on the relevancy of the indictment. But,

"Further," continues Murray," it may be that fic (fuch) letteris as we heif of the Quene, our Soverane Lordis moder, that fufficientlie in our opinion preivis hir confenting to the murthure of the king hir lauchfull husband; SALL BE CALLIT IN DOUBT BE THE JUGES, to be conftitute for examinatioun and trial of the caus, whether THEY MAY STAND OR FALL, PRUIF OR NOT; theirfoir, fen our fervand Mr. Jhone Wede has the copies of the famin letteris tranflatit in our arguage, we wold earnestly defyre that the SAIDIS COPIES MAY BE CONSIDERIT BE THE JUCES; that they may refolve us this far,

YN CAIS THE PRINCIPAL AGRET WITH THE COPIE, THAT THEN WE PRUIF THE CAUS INDEED: for when we have manifested and fchowin all, and zet (yet) fall haif NA ASSURANGE THAT IT WE

SEND SALL SATISFIE FOR PROBATIOUN, FOR QUHAT PURPOIS SALL WE OTHER ACCUSE OR TAKE CARE HOW TO PRUIF.'

As Murray brought forward his accufation, there can be no doubt that Elizabeth refolved him in this point likewife, by making him certain of the iffue of the trial before its commencement. It is not indeed probable that he gave him any affurance that his letters fhould not be called in doubt by the judges; for that was more than even Elizabeth could promife: but the certainly fet his mind at eafe refpecting the dangerous confequences which he apprehended from entering into qualification with Mary!

That Mary never faw the original letters and fonnets from which her guilt was inferred, is not denied by our author; but this he feems to think a matter of no confequence, because fhe had COPIES of them all, written by Lethington's wife in one night! But does Mr. Laing really fuppofe that he is able to perfuade any man that forgery may be as eafily detected by infpecting a profeffed copy, as by examining the pretended original? He will not furely fay, that in Scotland when a man refufes to pay a fum of money for which another affirms that he has his bill, it is the practice of the courts of law to order payment to be made, unlefs he, in whofe name the bill is drawn, prove it a forgery from a copy that is thown to him! That Lethington's wife was fo ready a writer, that in one night fhe could copy all the letters, is in the highest degree incrediblet; and Mr. L.'s confufed appeal to Murdin and the State Trials, for the truth of this extraordinary fact, will not have much weight with thofe, who have carefully attended to his mode of quotation: with them it will ferve to frengthen the evidence produced by Whitaker, to prove that the prejudged Queen was even refufed copies of the letters.

But the letters muft undoubtedly have been genuine, fays the author, because, "Leflie tacitly acknowledged their au thenticity; and propofed a device of Lethington's, that the Queen fhould ratify her former refignation of the crown. (P. 151.)

This is a very extraordinary affertion. We have carefully confulted Leslie, and find in him nothing that even the most perverse ingenuity can conftrue into a tacit acknowledgment of

[merged small][ocr errors]

the authenticity of the letters. We find him, indeed, when it was propofed to him that Mary fhould refign the crown to her infant fon, and continue in England with the title and appointments of a Queen, replying, that "fcho wold NEVER CONDISCEND TO DIMIT HER CROWN, and had given him SPECIAL COMMAND to declare the famin, in cais it were propofit to him".*

The letters, however, were undoubtedly genuine, because, fays the prefent author,

"They were collected in the most unexceptionable manner, without any particular felection or unfair arrangement; and the time beftowed on the fubject was fuficient certainly for a jury to determine a plain fact; that when duly compared for the manner of hand writing, and fashion of orthography, with others her former letters, in the collection thereof no difference was to be found. . The commiffioners at York in particular, who had examined the letters thrice, had the ftrongest inducement to afcertain their authenticity, when they declared in the beginning, that "they difcourfe of fome things unknown to any other than the Queen and Bothwell, and as it is hard to counterfeit fo many, fo the matter contained in them was fuch as could bardly be invented ar devifed by any other than herself." P. 171, 173.

We may furely afk Mr. Laing by whom and in whofe prefence this collation was made? Was it made in the presence of Mary, or even of her commiffioners? No, it was made by Elizabeth's commiffioners, and in the prefence only of Murray, Morton, and the reft of the unfortunate Queen's accufers; and does he really think that any man under the protection of the equal laws of England, will admit that fuch à collation was made in the MOST UNEXCEPTIONABLE MANNER? How could the commiffioners at York presume to affirm, that fuch things were real, as by their own confeffion were known only to the Queen and Bothwell? Such an affertion contradicts itself.

Mary's commiffioners affirmed, that the letters were forgeries, and that there were in Murray's faction more perfons than one who could counterfeit her hand fo exactly, that the fpurious could hardly be diftinguished from the genuine writing. This, fays our author, is impoffible; and yet in the former edition of his Hiftory, when he wifhed to controvert the account of the confpiracy of Gowrie, which is now generally received, he talks of one Sprott long practised and expert

*Whitaker, vol. i. p. 139. We quote this author rather than the original, because his work is in the hands of every body; and we can affure the reader that the extract is fairly made.

« PreviousContinue »