MAR Y
Q.UEEN OF SCOTS
VINDICATED.
Br JOHN WHITAKER, B. D.
AUTHOR OF THE H.STORY O F MANCHESTER;
AND
RECTOR OF KUAN-LANYHORME, CORNWALL.
IN T HREE VOLUMES.
VOL. II.
-
LONDON:
FOR j. MURRAY , N o
AND W. CREECH, EDINBURGH.
1788.
Df\
7*7
MART A
QJJ EEN OF SCOTS
VINDICATED.
CHAPTER THE FIRST,
I-
HAVING now gone over the EXTERNAL
evidence for the forgery of the Letters,
Contracts, and Sonnets, I addrefs myfelf
to the examination of the INTERNAL.' This I hope
to place equally in fome new points of view. I fhall
be the better able to do fo, by having examined
the other before. I fhall, therefore, prefent my
reader with a copy of the Sonnets, Letters, and
Contracts, in the languages in which they were
originally publifhed. To each of them I fhall
fubjoin a variety of remarks, in order to point out
the numerous fignatures of forgery in the belly of
them. By this mode of inquifition, a new train of
witnefles will appear at the bar before us. Thefe
VOL. ll t B will
2 VINDICATION OF
willdepofe to circumftances, of a very .different
nature from all that we have fecn before. But
they will completely coincide with them. They
will be equally decifive evidences of the forgery,
I think. And they will fuperadd, I truft, a fecond
demonftration to the firft.
I {hall print the Letters and Sonnets from Mr.
Goodall's edition of them. It is a ftandard one
in itfelf. He had confulted the original editions,
in making it*. But I fhall note a few variations
in Mr. Andcrfon's copy, which I think to be of
moment. And, as Mr. Goodall firft formed the
paragraphs in fome of the Letters, and firft num-
bered the divifions in the Sonnets j I {hall fo far
improve upon his plan, as to form paragraphs in
ail the Letters j to break the divifions into ftanzas
in the Sonnets, for the more commodious reading of
them ; and to number the paragraphs in the Let-
ters, for the facility of referring to them. The
laft is peculiarly requifite to be done, in the firft
of the Letters. This runs out into all the length
of one of Richardfon's conventional epiftles. Only
there is an infinite difference between the two, in
every other refpecl. Richardfon's are ftrikingly
charaderiftick ; full of fpirit, and pregnant with
.intelligence. But this carries no light of intelli-
gence within it. This contains no fparks of fpirit in
it. And it is one complete violation of character,
from the beginning to the end of it.
* Goodall, i. 39.
$IL LET-
MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
II.
LETTER THE FIRST(i).
I f 1 the P ]ace q^air
I left my hart (3), it is efie to Be judgtit quh
' was my countenance, fcing that I ms evin ais
It as (4) ane body without ane hart; quhilk
!.- (2) Pofteaquam ab eo loco difceffi, ubi
rehqueram cor meum (3), facilis eft conjeclura
qui meus fuerit vultus, cum plane perinde cflem
atque (4) corpus fine corde: ea fuit caufa cur
:o prandu tempore (5) neque contulerim"
I" (2) Eftant partie du lieu ou j'avoye laiflee
, T" CCeur (3). ft Pem aifement juger quelle
'efto I tmacontenance ) v, UC eque J peut ( q 4)lm
corps fans cceur ; qui a efte caufe que jufques
aladifnee(5)je n 'aypasten ue "
(0 This Letter pretends to be written, with the
"
(2). The Queen left Edinborough on Tan 21
attended by Huntly and BOTHW^. Thtft'p^
went with her to Kalendar, a feat of Lord Living!
* Rebel Journal in App. N o . x .
B 2 fton's
4 VINDICATION OF LET. I.
{ton's near Falkirk. And on Jan. 23 me went on
to Glafgow, while they returned to Edinborough*.
(3) Kalendar, where (he and Bothwell parted
that morning.
(4) This emphatical word " evin," Scotch, is
rendered in Latin by " plane," which carries a dif-
ferent meaning, and in the French by nothing at
all. But the fubfequent words " als mekle as,"
truly rendered in Latin " perinde atque," are
turned in French into " ce que pent. ' This, fays
Dr. Robertfon very juftly, " is by no means a
"tranflation" of the Latin f- A tranflation, how-
ever, it undoubtedly is of the Scotch ; and, as the
translator himfelf afiures us, through the medium
of this or another copy in Latin. Of this it ap-
parently is not. It is, therefore, of fome other.
And this other had rendered the words " als mekle
" as" by quantum potuit, I fuppofe ; interpreting
the words to mean as much as could be, and fo giv-
ing them an import much more emphatical than
" perinde atque."
(5) " Jufques a la difnee," fays Dr. Robertfon,
" is not a tranflation of "' toto prandii tcmpore ;"'
" the Scottifh tranflation " c quhile denner-tyme'"
" exprefies, the fenfe of the French more properly;
" for anciently qubile fignified until as well as
" during J." Dr. Robertfon has here confounded
his own ideas. If qubile " anciently fignified until
" as well as during" then the expreflion " quhile
* Rebel Journal in App. No. x. -f DiiT, 32. t ^Jd.
" denner-
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 5
" denner-tyme" may as properly be rendered
" jufques a la difnee," as " toto prandii tempore ;"
and the Scotch cannot " exprefs the fenfe of the
<f French more properly" than the Latin. This
is plain, from the Doctor's own principles. And
the very reafon adduced by himfelf, turns with
forciblenefs againft him.
But, though quhlle was fometimes ufed by the
Scots formerly for until, as well as during ; yet or-
dinarily it muft have fignified the latter only. It
is merely the Englifli while, and muft therefore
have ordinarily borne the fignifkation of it.
And quhill or qubit, which anfwer to our Englilh
till or until t muft confequently import the fame as
they generally. Yet the Scotch Detection of Bu-
chanan ufes quhill for while in the firft part of it,
quhile for while in the laft, and even quhile for until
in one place f. Ordinarily, however, and with
the natural precifion, quhill or quhil imported until,
and quhile fignified during. So, in the Confefllons
at the end of the Detection, one man fays, (l I
" knew nathing quhill I hard the blaft of powder,
" and efter yis he come hame, lay down in his
tf bed, quhil M. George Haket come J ." So alfo
the Detection itfelf fpeaks of " ane quhyle" " all
" this quhyle" and cc the qubyle\" But the Letters,
as containing Lethington's language probably,
are fteadily and uniformly right. In the prefent,
f P. 4, 7, 12, 23, 35, and 45, qubill for while ; 70, 73, 74,
and 77, quhile for white; and 182, quhile for until. Ander-
fon, ii. % Ibid. ii. 162. l| P. 14 and 31, 16 and 34,
and 63.
Bj the
6 VINDICATION OF LET. I.
the King is faid to deny fomething, " qubill I fchew
" him the verray wordis *." She had worked, Mary
is made to fay, " qubill it was twa houris upon this
" bracelet f." Bothwell " will never be blyth,"
fays Livingfton, "qubill he se zow agane." Mary
vows fidelity to Bothwell " qubill deith," and
fpeaks of fomething that " fall not part furth of
" my bofum, qubill yat mariage of our bodyis be
" maid in public!:." She is likewifc requeiled by
the King, ihe fays, " to remane upon him qubil
" uther morne J." And here (he tells us, with the
requifite diftinftivencfs in the orthography and in
the meaning, that " qubile denncr-tyme" me talk-
ed to nobody.
This afccrtains fufficiently the true import of
the word here. Mary is reprcfented as leaving
Bothwell that morning with a forrowful heart, as
journeying to dinner with a difcontcnted counte-
nance, and even as eating her dinner in fullen
filence. Where fhe dined, does not appear. Kil-
fyth moft probably was the place, about 27 miles
from Kalendar through Stirling, and 15 from
Glafgow. There ihe was fo apparently chagrined
all the time of dinner, that none of the gentlemen
and ladies in the town or neighbourhood would
venture into the room, to pay their rcfpcds of duty
to her while fhe was dining.
This paffage, therefore, overthrows the very
point for which Dr. Robertfon produces it. Qubile
very plainly does not fignify until. The word
* Sea. xi. t Sea. xxiii. j Sett. xxii. and xxiv,
?nd Letter viii. Sea. Hi.
for
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 7
for that, in thefe Letters, is qubill or qubil. Quhile
fignifies here, as while does among ourfelves, only
during. The Latin " toto prandii tempore" is
exactly correfpondent to the Scotch " quhile den-
" ner-tyme." The French " jufqucs a la difnee"
is greatly deviating from it. The French was led
into the miftake by a corrected copy of Bucha-
nan's Latin, which took the word qubile, as Dr.
Robertfon has taken it, for quhil or till; and fo ren-
dered the paffage ufque ad -prandium. And let me
clofe this train of verbal criticifms, into which the
Doctor has drawn me, with a remark that turns
the whole with ftill greater force againft him. All
Jerve to prove the originality of the Scotch copy. The
fimilarity of quhil and quhile has occafioned this
confufion. The original Latin read it quhile. The
corrected Latin read it quhil. The French follow-
ed the latter. And the French, the Latin, the cor-
rected and the original Latin, plainly derived their
variation, mediately or immediately, from a SCOTCH
reading in the common original of all.
" purpois (i) to na body; nor zit (2) durft (3)
*" ony prefent thamefeifis unto me, judging yat"
" fermonem (i) cum quoquam, neque (2) quif-
" quam fe offerre mihi fit aufus (3), ut qui"
" grand propos (i); auffi (2) perfonne ne s'eft
(( voulu (3) avancer, jugeant bien"
(i) The French has interpolated the word
grand," and has materially altered the fenfe by
B 4 it*
g VINDICATION OF LET. I,
it, allowing the Queen to have talked, and fo con-
tradicting the Latin and the Scotch.
(2) The energetlck zit" or yet is omitted by
the Latin, but is preferved in the French " auffi"
or moreover. This is another proof of the French
translation not being made from the prefent Latin,
but from a corrected copy of it.
(3) The French " voulu" is foreign to the
fenfe. The Scotch " durft," anfwered in the La-
tin " aufus," required ofe. And the French has
omitted the requifite words au moi, in anfwer to the
Latin " mihi" and the Scotch " unto me."
" it was not gude fa to do (i)."
.<< id non efie ex ufu(i)."
" qu'il n'y faifoit bon ( i )."
(i) " Jugeant bien qu'il n'y faifoit bon," fays
Dr.Robertfon*, is not a tranflation of the Latin
" ut qui judicarent id non efife ex ufu." In this he
has been joined by the Mifcellaneous Remarker,
who affirms that the Latin " is not fenfe, and is
. <c not even confiftsnt with the Scottifh copy f."
I was puzzled, at the firft reading, to know what it
was that occafioned this remark in both. But
neither of them, it feems, was acquainted with
the idiomatical fenfe of the exprefiion " ex ufu."
Such cnticks are they in the Latin language ! And
'P>ff.-3*. t P. 15.
hence
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 9
hence the French became different from the Latin
in one of them, and the Latin proved inconfiftent
with the Scotch in the other.
Thus ends, however, the firft of the three
fentences, that Dr. Robertfon pitched upon in an
unfortunate moment, as the only vifible relicks of
his own imaginary original in French , and as hav-
ing a " fpirit," and an " elegance," which neither
the Latin nor the Scotch have retained*. But
the Doctor has forgotten to fupport his hypothe-
fis, by pointing out either the " fpirit" or the
" elegance" of any particular claufes in it. He
has only taken two of the blunders in it, " jufques
" a la difnee," and " je n'ay pas tenu grand pro-
" pos " and turned them into graces, by produ-
cing them as proofs of a non-tranflation, becaufe
they are deviations from the Latin and the Scotch.
He has then added one of his own, in fancying
" jugeant bien qu'il n'y faifoit bon" to be differ-
ent in fignification from " ut qui judicarent id
" non efle ex ufu." And he has cited the words
" veu ce que peut," as different from the Latin,
becaufe they are more emphatical, and as fuperiour
to the Scotch, when they are plainly derived from
them through the corrected Latin. Nor has he
taken any notice of two other blunders in the
French, in the fubftitution of " voulu" for ofe,
and in the omiflion of au mot entirely. He did
not obferve them. If he had, he would have
turned the deformities again into beauties. They
would have been equally valid arguments, for a
* DUT, 32.
non-
30 VINDICATION OF LET. I.
non-trandation of the French from either the Latin
or the Scotch. And they would have equally ferwd,
to give a " fpirit" and an <c elegance" to the
French, which neither the Scotch nor the Latin
have been able to reach.
Of this, of the " elegance" at leaft, the Mifcel-
laneous Remarker comes forward to prefent us
with one inftance, though the Doctor had furnimed
qs with none. His inftance is a fingular fpecimen
of a fpirit trifling, injudicious, and prejudiced,
'the Latin ufes the word " vultus ;" the French
renders it " contenance." I felect the two words
that he has Italicifcd himfelf. And the French is
very Jerwufy afferted to be " much fuperior in
" elegance and accuracy" to the Latin. . The Re-
marker then proceeds to note another inftance,
not indeed of " fpirit," not indeed of " elegance,"
in the French ; but merely of " accuracy." The
Latin fays " fe offerre," the French " s'avancer."
The Latin is affirmed not to " exprefs the mean-
" ing" of the French, becaufe " the Queen is here
" made to fpeak of what happened on the road
" and before dinner." But this is only a conti-
nuation of Dr. Robcrtibn's miftake. She is fpeak-
ing of her conduct " quhile denner-tyme." And,
even if ihe had not, " s'avancer" might as well
exprefs the advance of a perfon into a room, as the
approach of a perfon upon a road.
On the whole, therefore, this firft fentence of
Dr. Robertfon's original French, gives us no ex-
alted ideas of the original itfelf. The latter may
reft in that Elyfmm into which the Doctor has
transferred it, without raiftng one figh in our bo-
foms
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. II
foms for the lofs. It carries indeed all the figna-
tures with it, of being the very fame with the
French copy yet on earth, and of being as errone-
ous and as abjurd as that. And, what is peculiarly
unfortunate for the Doctor and the Remarker toge-
ther, a fingle fentence only, which has been pick-
ed out by both as a proof of a French copy, fupe-
rionr in fpirit, in elegance, and in accuracy to the
I^atin and the Scotch, has proved upon examina-
tion to have only one fingle grain of fpirit more
than the others, to have not even one more of
elegance, and, as to accuracy, to have actually
one interpolation, one omiiTion, one impropriety,
and one abfurdity, in it.
II. " Four myle ( i ) or I came to thetowne(2),
ec ane gentilman of the Erie of Lennox (3) came
" and maid his commendatiounis unto me (4) ;
II. " Ad quatuor paffunm millia ( i ) antequam
" adoppidum (2) accefliflem, homo honefto loco
tf natus a Comite Levinias (3) ad me venit, atque
" ejus nomine falutavit (4) "
II. " Eftant encor a quatre mille pas (i) de la
" ville (2), vint a moy un gentilhomme envoye
" par le Contc- de Lenos (3), qui me falva en fon
(i) <f Four myle," Scotch, quatuor paffuum
cc millia," Latin, and cc quatre mille pas," French.
The French has here fo fervilely followed the La-
tin,
12 VINDICATION OF LET. I.
tin, as to violate the proprieties of its own lan-
guage. The Romans originally ufed the words
mille paffuum for a mile. But, as was fure to be
the cafe, in time they ufed the greater word, an I
dropt the lefier. Their provincials, of courfe,
adopted the language of their matters. And mille
without paflitum became the familiar term for a
mile, in all the languages of Weftern Europe.
Yet the French tranflator fo little attended to this,
that he followed the Latin implicitly; and, as this
had " quatuor millia paffuum," he fct down " qua-
" tre mille pas," even though the French had for
ages expreffed the general idea, in the fame man-
ner that we have, by the word mile. .
(2) Mr. Anderfon fays, in order to cenfurc
Mary, that " the refidence of the Earl of Lennox
" at that time was near Dunbarton *." Yet the
very papers, then before him, fhew the Earl to
have refided equally at Glafgow f. And at Glaf-
gow did he generally refide; as this city is exprefsly
called by the Privy Council of Scotland, " the
" ordinary place of his abode J."
(3) This was Thomas Cmvford j|, an active and
gallant man in thofe times of confufion, and parti-
larly diftinguilhed by his bold furprize of Dumbar-
ton Cattle for the rebels . But the French copy
here appears to have followed a corrected copy of
the Latin ; the affected " Levinis" of Buchanan,
which is derived from the original orthography of
Anderf. i. Ix. f Ibid, and ii. icr. J Keith, 748.
H Goodall, ii. ztf, 246, and 147. Crawford, 188.
the
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. Ij
the name, Lsvsnox, having been altered into Leno-
#/>, and the French therefore giving us " Lenos."
(4) " Maid his commendatiounis unto me."
Thisphrafe, fays Mr. Tytler *, is fill ufed 'in the Scot-
tijh language to fignify he prefented his compliments.
Yet the Mifcellaneous Remarker obferves f, that
" to fay faites mes recommendations a un tel y is more
" certainly French, than make my commendations is
" Scottilh. Commender, no doubt, may be employed
" abufively in French for recommender j and fo
" perhaps commendatiouns may be employed in the
" Scottifh language for re commendatiouns > but
" there occurs no fmgularity of idiom here ; the
(( phrafe to do commendations is in Ainfworth's Eng-
" lifh and Latin Dictionary, and is explained to
" mean aliquem fahere jubere j and yet it has a
very French air." The captioufnefs and the
feeblenefs of this gentleman's criticifms, are ftrong-
iy exemplified together here. He would make the
idiom a French one, in oppofition to Mr. Tytler.
Yet he proves it an Englifh one, in oppofition to
himfelf. And he concludes, with averting, in oppo-
fition to both, that it has " a very French air."
The fact is, that it is a mode of exprefllon purely
Scotch and Englilh j but that it is fimilar to,
though not the fame with, a mode of exprefllon in
the French language. It was a cuftomary idiom
of compliment in all letters at that period, both in
England and in Scotland J.~But the adherence of
* P. 88. -j- p. 22 , 23. j Goodall, ii. 153,
161, 178, 375, & c . It is derived from " recommendations,"
ufed in Sadler's Letters, 156, which ia 242, 394, and 440, is
" commendations."
the
j^ VINDICATION OF LET. I.
the French to the Latin is very clofe here. Ejus
cc nomine falutavit" is re-echoed in " falva ei^
" fon nom."
" and (i) excufit him (2) that he came not to
" meit me, be reffbun he durft not interpryfe (3)
" the fame, becaufe of the rude wordis that I had
* c fpokin to Cuninghame (4) : and he defyrit that
" hefuld come to .the inquifitioun (5) of ye rhat-
" ter yat I fufpeftit him of (6). This laft fpeik-
" ing (7) was of his awin heid, without ony com-
" miflioun (8)."
" (i) excufavit Comitem (2), quod non ipfe ob-
C viam procefiiffrt, id cnimquo minus auderet(3),
t( in caufa fuifle, quod verbis afperioribus Cuni-
" gamium [Cuningamium] (4) compellaflem.
" Petivit etiam ut inquirerem (5) de fufpicionc
" mea adverfus Comitem (6). Poftrema hzc fcr-
" monis pars (7) zb ipfo, injuflu Comitis, crat
" adjefta(8)."
" et (t) 1' (i) excufa de ce qu'il ne m'eftoit
" venu au devant, difant, qu'il ne i'avoit ofe en-
" treprendrc (3), a caufe que j'avoye tenfe Cu-
" ningham (4) avec paroles aigres. II me de-
c< mandaaufli que je m'cnquiflc (5) de foup^on
< que j'avoye centre iccluy Conte (6). Cefte
" derniere partie de fon dire (7)avoit efte adjouftee
lc par luy, fans que le Conte toy cuft com-
" mande (8)."
(O f Aid excufit," Scotch; excufavit,"
Latin, without the connecting word -, * excufa,"
French.
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. *f
French, with it. This is another proof, that the
French was not tranflated from the prefent Latin,
but (as I have already ihewn) from another verfion
in Latin, one that had all the eight Letters in it.
(2) "Excufed/X" Scotch; excufavit Cmi-
" tern," -Latin; and /'excufa," French. This is
another proof of the fame point.
(3) " Durft not interpryfe," quo minus au-
" deret," ne 1'avoit ofe entreprendre." This is
another. And the remarkable coincidence in one
word muft be purely cafual, as the French tranfla-
tor was totally ignorant of the Scotch language.
We have an inftance of the like before, in the
Scotch " cquntenance," the Latin " vultus," and
the French " contenance." There are alfo feveral
others afterwards, which are not worth a particular
notice . This one remark will fuffice for all.
(4) This is Robert Cunningham, who appeared
at the trial of Bothwell, and in the Earl of Le-
nox's name protefted againir. the profecution
of it.
(5) Here the turn of the Latin, by which it
has avoided the idiomatick obfcurity of the Scotch,
is clofely copied by the French.
(6) The matter here hinted at is the Queen's
fufpicion of Lenox's concern in the murder of
Rizzio. The Earl," fays Randolph in a letter
dated April 4, 1566, " continueth fick, fore trou-
;c bled in mind -, he ftaith in the Abby," Holy-
rood-houfe ; his fon hath been once with him,
[t and he once with the Queen, fmce flie came to
6 the
16 VINDICATION OF LET. I.
{f the Cattle" of Edinborough *. But this very
allufion proves the forgery. The murder had been
committed in March. The Earl, whom fhe fufpecT:-
ed of concern in it, had been refiding in his apart-
ments within the Palace ever fince, and had even
been to pay his refpects to her fince fhe went from
the Palace to the Cattle. She mutt therefore have
intimated her fufpicion to bim y rather than to his
fervant Cunningham. And in the January follow-
ing it is abfolutely ridiculous to fuppofe, that fhe'
had lately uttered her fufpicion to the fervant, and
that the Earl was now afraid to come and fee her
becaufe of it. He had already feen her, even in
April before. He had feen her at the Palace,
probably. He had feen her in the Cattle, cer-
tainly f .
But the conduft of the three copies here is re-
markable. The Scotch, in its ufual ttile of collo-
quial indiftindtnefs, fpeaks only of " him ;" the
Latin very properly fubftitutes " Comitem ;" and
the French accordingly fpecifies " iceluy Come."
(7) " This laft fpeiking," " poftrema hxc fcr-
" monis pars," " cefte derniere partie de fon dire."
The French is only the Latin repeated.
(8) Here the departure of the Latin from the
language of the originaj, and the adherence of tl\e
French to the Latin, are equally obfervable.
* Robertfon, ii. 359.
f This letter of Randolph's refutes Toiler's from Bemid, ia.
Robertfon, ii. 360.
III.
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
III. ff I anfwerit to him, that thair was na
cc receipt culd ferve aganis feir, and that he wald
" not be afFrayit, in cace he wer not culpabill (i) i
* c and that I anfwerit hot rudely to the doutis yat
" wer in his letteris (2). Summa, I maid him hald
" his tongue (3). The reft wer lang to wryte (4).
" Schir James Hammiltoun met me, quha fchawit,
<c that the uther tyme quhen he [Lenox] hard of
" my"
III. <f Ego refpondi, nullam adverfus timorem
" elTe medicinam j neque, fi extra culpam efTet (i),
<f tarn meticulofum futurum ; neque me, nifi ad
* c dubitationes quse in ejus literis erant, afperius
" refpondiffe (2). In fumma, impofui hoinini filen-
<c tium (3). Longum efTet cetera perfcribere (4).
" D. Jacobus Hamiltonius mihi obviam venit - t is
" oftendit fuperiore tempore, cum de"
III. cc Je refponduy, qu'il n'y avoit point de
Cf remede centre la crainte ; et que, s'il eftoit hors
" de faute (i), il ne feroit pas tant timide ; et que
<c je n'avoye point refpondu afprement finon aux
" doutes, qui eftoient en fes lettres (2). En fomme,
"j'impofay filence au perfonnage (3). II feroit
cc long defcrire tout le reft (4^. Le Seigneur Jaques
Cf Hambleton vint au devant de moy, lequel me
f; declara, qu'auparavant"
(i) ff Si extra culpam effet," Latins " s'il eftoit
tc hors de faute," French.
VOL. II. q (2) la
Of
(2) In the preceding paragraph, Lenox is repre-
fented as fufpected of the murder of Rizzio, and
Mar/ is intimated to have therefore treated Cunning-
ham fharply. The earl, fays Crawford, durft not
wait upon the queen, " becaus of the rude wordis
" that I [Mary] had fpokin to Cuninghame j and
" he [Crawford] defyrit that he [Lenox] fuld come
" to the inquifitioun of ye matter yat I fufpectit
" him of." The fufpicion and the rudenefs are
plainly connected together. The one is hinted to
be the caufe, and the other is infmuated to be the
effect. And common-fcnfe Ihews this to be the
relation between them. Yet in the prefent para-
graph, with that fudden contradictorincfs of which
we fliall meet with other inftances hereafter, the
rudenefs is no longer referred to the fufpicion, but
is attributed to fome doubts exprefled by Lenox in
fome letter or letters of his to Mary. I proceed
however to confidcr another particular.
Mary is faid before to fufpeff Lenox. She here
fays, that ff he wald not be afFrayit in cace he wer
" not culpaHll." She therefore charges him with a
fliare in the murder. But all refentment upon this
account muft have been long over, at prefent. She
had pardoned even Lethington in the Auguft be-
fore*. She had pardoned even Morton in the
December following f. Yet thefe me not merely
fufpected ; (he knew them to have been guilty of
the murder. And would me be ftill perfecting
Lenox mihjitfcicwts, when me had overlooked and
forgiven abjolute certainties ? She undoubtedly would,
* Keith, 345. ,}. Ibid..429. and Prof. xi.
Noc
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 19
Nor did fhe perfecute him at all. This is plain
from a fingle fad. The king forming a defign 3 as
he faid, to leave the kingdom in Auguft or Sep-
tember 1566 , Lenox was fo far from confidering
himfelf as a perfecuted man, that he wrote -her
Majefty a letter, which fhe received on September
the 29th, and entreated her to life her influence
with the king, in diverting him from his refolution.
This was the ad of a man, who was apparently in
fome habits of friendlinefs with the Queen.
But was that the letter, which is here alluded to ?
It certainly was not. There was no epiftolary cor-
refpondence, indeed, carried on ordinarily betwixt
the queen and him. There were only two periods
in this part of their lives, at which they appear to
have correfponded at all ; the prefent, in confe-
quence of the king's intention to go abroad, and a
later one, in confequence of the king's murder. Of
both correfpondences we have a particular account.
Nor were there any <c doutes" expreffed in the
FORMER of them. This is clear from two accounts
of it, written at the time. " The earl of Lenox,"
fays Monfieur Le Groc, the French embaiTadour,
in a letter of October ifth, <f has written a letter to
ff the Queen, fignifying that 'tis not in his power to
{C divert his fon from his intended voyage ; and
fc prays her Majefty to ufe her intereft therein. This
{C letter from the Earl of Lenox, the Queen re-
" ceived on Michaelmas-day in the morning.
" Early next morning the Queen fent for me, and
" for all the Lords and other Counsellors. The
" Bifhop of Rofs, by the Queen's commandment,
" declared to the council the King's intention;
C i "and
$6 VINDICATION OF LET. T.
and that her Majefty's information hereof pro-
" ceeded not from the rumour of the town, but
from a letter written to her by his own father,
" the Earl of Lenox ; which letter ivas likrwife
" read in the Council:' " From Glafgow," adds
the Privy Council in a formal memorial upon the
fubje&, " my Lord Lenox wrote to the Queen,
* f and acquainted her Majefty, that altho* he had
"endeavoured to divert him," the King, from go-
ing abroad, " he neverthelcfs had not the intereft
tc to rr*ke him alter his mind. The Earl of Le-
" nox's letter came to the Queen's hand on St.
" Michael's day, and her Majefty was ^leafed to im-
" fart the fame incontinent to the Lords of her Ccun-
<e cily in order to receive advice thereupon. And
Cf if her Majefty was furprized by this ADVER-
fc TISEMENT from the E-arl of Lenox ; thefe Lords
" were no lefs aftonifhed to underftand, that the
" King (hould entertain any thoughts of depart-
tf ing*." This letter therefore had no dcubts. It
was merely an advertifement of the King's intended
departure.
What doubts indeed, and of what, could any
letter from Lenox have exprefied to the Queen (it
frefent ? None certainly. Nor had any been ac-
tually exprefied. This is clear from a real letter of
hers, dated only three days before the prdenr,
fpeaking equally of the Earl of Lenox, fpeaking
too in terms of blame againft him; and yet retting
her blame, not upon any doubts exprefled in a letter
or letters to her, not upon any letter whether with
<>r without doubts in it, that had provoked her to
* Keith, 346, and 348.
ufc
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 21
life rude words to the bearer ; but #/>0 his and his
Jon's Speeches find contrivances againji her. " Al-
fc wayis," fays Mary on January the aoth, 1567,
to her embafiadour in France, " we perfave him
" [the King] occupeit and bifly aneuch to haif in-
" quifitioun of our doyngis, quhilkis, God willing,
" fall ay be fie as nane fall haif occafioun to be
" offendit with thame, or to report of us any wayis
" bot honorably; howfoever he, HIS FATHER, and
" thair fautoris, fptik ; quilkis, we knaw, want na
" gude will to make us haif ado, gif thair power
" wer equivalent to thair myndis. But God mo-
" deratis thair forces well aneuch, and takis the
" moyen of executioun of thair pretenfis fra
<c thame," &c. * At this time Mary had plainly
received no letter of doubts from Lenox, and had
been provoked by it to utter no rude words to the
bearer. All the offence which fhe had yet taken at
Lenox, was grounded on his fpeeches, and on his
cabals, againft her. And the writing, which fpeaks
of her having received fuch a letter, and of her
having uttered fuch words in confequence of it, is
proved by the genuine writing to be a FORGERY.
The forgery indeed lies in an anachronijm. The
fabricator has anticipated a fad. He alludes to
fome letter or letters of doubts, which were really
written by Lenox, but which were written fome
weeks pcfteriour\o the pretended date of the prefent,
AJter the murder of the king, Lenox wrote the Queen
more than one letter concerning it, in which the
rebels thought there were fome doubts exprefled by
f Keith, Pref.viii,
C 3 Lenox,
22 VINDICATION OF
Lenox, concerning Mary's fmcerity in bringing the
murderers to trial; as they induced Lenox himfelf
to carry copies of two of his, and the originals of
two of hers, and prefent them in form to the Eng-
lifli cominifiioners, with a charge of murder agamtl
Mary and as they afterwards procured the origi-
nals and copies of all the reft, and lodged them
equally in the hands of Cecil *. Thefe are dated
February 2Oth, aift, and 26th, March ift, iyth,
and 24th, and April the xith. All thefe, however,
cannot be alluded to here, becaufe the allufion is to
cne only, to what was brought at one time and by
one meflenger, and to what the Queen anfwered
with rude words to Cunningham. This therefore
carries us to the/*/ of them, that of April the xith,
the famous letter from Stirling ; in which he, who
had firftdefired her to call a parliament, in order to
bring on the trial ; and who had then defircd her to
haften on the trial before the parliament met, " yis
" matter not beinge ane parliament matter ;" now
requefted her to defer the trial to an indefinite time.
This was actually brought to her by " Cuning-
<f hame," while the others were all brought by we
know not whom f. And this exprefles doubts con-
cerning her very plainly. " For your awin ho-
" nour," fays Lenox in it, " I defire you wauld
" caufs apprehend and put in fuir keiping the
C( fufpedt perfons namit," Both well, &c. " avoyd-
" ing your Majeftie's company of tham ; for ;/ was
<c nevir hard of, bot in the tryall of fie ane odious
<* fa6b, all fufpedtit perfonis vwalxayis apprehendit,
* Anderfon, i. 4049. Contents, lix. and Ix. and Good-
all, ii 208 zog. t Ibid, i, 40, and 45. andii. 106.
" qubat
CHAP. 1. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 2J
" quhat degre Joever thai war of; utherwayls the
" fuJpeft perfonis continewing (till at libertie, being
" gret in court, and about your Majeftie's perfon,
fc comforts and incouragis thame," &c. * On the
receipt of this letter, Mary might pofTibly utter
fome harfh words to the bearer, Cunningham. This
indeed was the only letter, for which fhe could.
And the forger has been wildly inattentive to dates,
in alluding to a letter which was pofteriour to the
very death of the King j and wildly confufed in his
ideas, in (peaking of the Queen's fufpicion of Lenox
for the murder of Rizzio, and in alluding to Le-
nox's doubts of the Queen concerning the murder
of Darnley, at a period BETWIXT both.
The fact was this. When the forger fat' down to
his work of 'competing epiftles for Mary, he had a
void of time before him, which he muft necefTarily
fill up with epiftolary incidents. The letters muft
relate fome things, in order to be letters. They muft
relate fome circumflances of her journey, her recep-
tion, and her converfation, in order to give a greater
air of probability to them. And they muft relate
fome particulars of her prefent conduct, and of hex
future defigns, in order to bear a charge of adultery
and of murder upon them. Thefe incidents, there-
fore, muft all be either picked up by intelligence
from the real events of her vifit, or be created by a
happy exertion-jof the imagination and of the judg-
ment together. But fo to create is no eafy tafk.
The letters are apparently the work of a hafty ef-
fort, ftruck off at once without imagination and
without judgment. They are therefore ftored with
* Anderfon, i. 5254.
C 4 incidents,
24 VINDICATION OF LET. I.
incidents, which intelligence fupplied. This is
plain from the depofitions of Thomas Crawford in
England, who confirmed feveral of the facts related
in this part of the prefent letter particularly *. Yet,
in arranging the articles of this intelligence, the
forger was liable to be abufed by his negligence and
his fituation. He was to take fuch articles only, as
were antecedent to the date of his letters. He was
to reject all that were pofteriour to it. He was to
draw a very precife line betwixt both. And he
was to adhere very rigidly to it. But the hurry of
the torger did not allow him to be confined within
iuch limits. He drew no line, or he overpaft it.
He united prior and pofteriour incidents together.
He combined the future and the paft in his own
point of time. He even went fuch lengths of con-
fufion, as to anticipate an event that happened
NEAR THREE MONTHS AFTERWARDS. The dif-
tance of time at which he was writing, came in to
the aid of his carelefihefs, to conceal the blunder
from him. And he plainly betrayed his forgery to
the eye of the publick by it ; though this eye is now
opened for the firft time to fee it, after an acquief-
cence of two hundred years under it f.
* Goodall, ii. 245246.
f Buchanan has aUb milled himfelf in his Hiftory, by truft-
ing to his memory, and miftaking one event for another. In
xix. 367. he makes Murray to hold a parliament in Auguft
1567, when he adlually held it in December following (Keith,
465.) But then Murray did really hold one in Auguft, theytar
jucceedhg (Anderfon, iv. part i. 125126.) And this his me-
mory afterwards co^ounded with that. So he convenes the
nobles at Stirling in the end of April and beginning of May
1567 -xviii. 356.) W^they aflemblcd there in the begin-
mng of June afterwards.
(30 " Im-
CHAP. T. MARY QJTEEN OF SCOTS. f
(3.) "Impofui homini filentium," Latin, and
"j'impofay filence au perfonnage," French, are as
fimilar to each other as they are different from the
Scotch, I maid him hald his toung."
(4-) " The reft wer lang to wryte." What re-
mainder could there be to write ? She has told us
his fpeech. She has told us her anfwer. And fhe
has told us the refult of both. What elfe could fhe
have to tell us ? Nor let fuch a queftion be thought
more brifk than proper. Thefe letters are written
with fuch continued abfurdity in the whole and in
the parts, and they have been fo little examined hi-
therto with minute attention, that we can hardly be-
too much alive to the progrefs of the narrative in
them, or too ready to queftion and interrogate the
fentences as they arife before us. The French ha.s
added the word cc tout.'*
* dimming, he departit away, and fend Howf-
toun (i) to fchaw him [Sir James] that he wald
" never have belevit that he [Sir James] wald have
" perfewit him [Lenox], nor zit have accompany*
< him [Sir James] with the Hammiltounis. He
' anfwerit (2), that he was only cum bot to fee me
" (3)> and yat he wald nouther accompany Stewart
f nor Hammiltoun, bot be my commandement( 4 ).
He [Lenox] defyrit that he [Sir James] wald
(( cum and fpeik with him [Lenox] ; he [Sir James]
* c refufitit (5)."
" meo adventu audiflet, eum difceffiffe, ac Hufto-
:f num (i) ad fe mififfe, qui diceret, fe nunquam
fuiffe
a VINDICATION OF 1ET. U
fuuTe crediturum, quod aut ipfum perfequeretur,
aut Hamiltoniis fe conjungeret; fe vero refpon-
" diffc (2), fui itineris caufam unam fuiffe, ut me
" videret (3) ; neque cum Stuartisaut Hamiltomis,
", injuffu meo, fe conjundurum (4)-"
ayant entendu ma venue, il s'eftoit retire, et luy
avoit envoye Hufton (i), pour luy dire, qu'il
n'euft jamais creu,ou qu'il 1'euft voulu purfuivre,
ou qu'il fe fut join6t avec les Hambletons ; et
qu'il refpondit (l), qu'il n'y avoit eu qu'une
' caufe de fon voyage, a fcavoir,pour me voir (3) ;
" et qu'il ne fe conjoindroit avec les Stuarts et
** Hambletons fans mon commandement (4)."
(1) This name fliews the fidelity of the French
to the Latin ; " Howftoun," Scotch, being " Huf-
" tonum," Latin, and" Hufton," French.
(2) The Scotch begins a frefh fentence. But
the Latin continues the former. And therefore the,
French continues it too.
(3) The Latin fays, " fui itineris caufam unam
" fuiflfe, ut me videret ; " and the French, " qu'il
" n'y avoit eu qu'une caufe de fon voyage, a fca-
" voir, pour me voirj" both very fimilar and very
diffufe : while the Scotch is at once different and
compact, " that he only cum bot to fee me."
(4.) The \vhole turn of the fentence here, and
particularly the plural termination of Stuart and
Hamilton, (hew the French to be merely from the
Latin. The Stuarts, or the family and depcn-
tfents of the Earl of Lenox, were at this period in a>
ftatc
CHAP. I. MARY QJ7EEN OF SCOTS. %J
ftate of enmity with the Hamiltons, the family and
dependents of the Duke of.Chatelleraut.
(5) A whole fentence in the Scotch is here
omitted by the Latin, and, in confequence of that,
by the French. Such is the variation of the Latin
from the Scotch -, and fuch the clofenefs, with which,
the French comes treading in its fteps ! The 'Scotch,
as we have reafon to think from other inftances
hereafter, had not the fentence in it originally. The
frft and the corrected Latin, therefore, were equally
deprived of the fentence. And for that reafon the
French could not have it. But let us here attend
to the new fact ftated in this paragraph.
Lenox is faid the uther tyme," when he heard
of the Queen's coming to Glafgowj to have " de-
<f partit away." This alludes to fome journey of
the Queen's, which was different from the prefent.
It was the journey of " the uther tyme." It was
fome journey that was ftill well remembered, and
; that had confequently been taken a little before.
And Lenox then departit away" from Glafgow;
when he now ftaid in the city, and fent to excufe his
non-attendance on her upon the road. So plainly
that journey of the Queen's, difcriminated by the
tter from the prefent ! Yet, if we proceed with
I the letter, we Ihall find it confounding what it has al-
| ready difcriminated, and we ffiall fee the journey
to be the very fame with the prefent. It was one,
in which Sir James Hamilton came to pay his
j refpefts to the Queen, equally as he did in this. It
was one, in which the Queen was efcorted by the
Hamiltons, equally as (he is in this *. It was one
* Seft, xxxii,
too,
og. VINDICATION OF LET. I.
too, in which Sir James Hamilton nrmft have then
related to the Queen the anecdote concerning Le-
nox, if the journey had been different from this.
And indeed Sir James makes it one and the fame
with this, by his anfwer to Lenox, as reported in
the letter. " He anfwerit, that he WAS only cum
" bot to fee me, and yat he WALD nouther accom-
f pany Stewart nor Hammiltoun, bot be my com-
** mandement," So plainly was this journey of
the Queen's at once different from, and yet the
very fame with, her prefent ! The circumflances,
the language, and the whole tenour of the flory, all
unite to prove it the fame ; while the departure of
Lenox at it, and the other time afiigned for it, con-
cur to prove it different. And all forms a very
glaring evidence of that abfurdity in the parts of
thefe letters, which I have noticed fo little a while
before.
But, whether we confider the journey ns different
or the fame, either way the mention of it proves
the mentioning letter to be a forgery. This is ex-
traordinary. Yet it is evident.
If we take the journey to be a different one from
the prefent, the Queen is reprefented as going to
Glafgow fome time before the 2jd of January
1567, and Lenox is defcribed as leaving Glafgow
upon the report of her coming. This mud have
been, as I have obferved before, only a little time
previous to her prefent journey. It muft certainly
have been,/w the Queen began to fufpecl: Lenox
of a fhare in the murder of Rizzio,/^ Lenox
Jeft his lodgings in Holyrood-houfe, and fmce he
retired to Glafgow. He wa.s in his lodgings, as I
have
iVC I
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 2O
have previoufly ihewn, on the 4th of ApriJ. But
he was alfo there many days later. That letter,
t "Which (hews he was then refident " in the Abby,"
and had been " once with the Queen fmce fhe came
< to the caftle," ought to be dated much later than
t is. It was not till the fifth of April, that the
Privy Council agreed to ajvife the Queen, if it
might be compatible with her plcafure and health,
to remane in the caftell of Edinburgh till her
Grace be deliverit of hir birth *." She entered
therefore after the 5 th. But fhe alfo entered it
tefore the i 4 th. She kept Eafter-Sunday there,
which was the i 4 th of April in that year f. Yet
fhe had been for fome time in the caftle, when the
letter was written j as Lenox had then been <f once
" with the Queen fmce fhe came to the caftle."
And the letter 'ought pretty certainly to be dated
the 24th, as " it is written to me for certain," fays
the author, by one that on Monday lajt fpoke with
"" the Queen, that fhe is determined that the houfe
" of Lenox (hall be as poor in Scotland as ever it
" was ; " and as the Monday but one after Eafter-
Sunday was the 22d of April. Lenox then conti-
i at Holyrood-houfe to the 2 4 th, and beyond.
The Queen alfo had removed before into the caftle,
and continued there to the time of her delivery, the
1 9th day of June, and to the completion of her
month afterwards^;);. Betwixt the 2 4 th and aSthof
<%, fhe left the caftle for Alloa, a feat of Lord
IT'S, near Stirling fi. From that period to the
292293.
preient,
30 VINDICATION OF- LET. I.
prefent, we have all her motions defcribcd exadljr
by the zeal and hoftility of the rebel diary. And
WE HAVE NO JOURNEY TO GLASGOW IN ANY PART
OF THE WHOLE *. So evidently is this, if con-
fidered as different from the prefent, demonftrated to
be all a forgery !
,Nor is it lefs fo, if confidered as the fame. It
was taken, fays the letter, " the uther tyme." The
flighted diftance of time, that we can ground upon
thefe words, direftly overfcts them. In S. xxiv.
we have words nearly fimilar, and meaning the day
after next, " uther mornc." If therefore we inter-
pret thofe words in the fenfe of thefe, and confider
them as fignifying the day before the laft, which is
the loweft poflible fignification that we can give
them; even then we fhall be carried back to the
sift of January, the very day of Mary's fetting out
for Glafgow. And, as I fhall hereafter mew Mary
not to have known of her own letting out the very
day before, the report of it could not poTibly have
.reached Glafgow the very day of her fetting out.
This carries a dccifivc weight with it. But let us
view the account in another light alfo. The Earl
of Lenox is faid to have left Glafgow, upon the re-
port of the Queen's coming. Yet, as I have al-
ready obferved, he did not leave it. This the tefti-
mony of Thomas Crawford fatisfaftorily (hews, who
was the very man that came to Mary on the roa4 i
in -the name of Lenox, and who depofed before the j
cornmiflioners in England, That " as foon as Lie
" Quene of Scotts had fpoken with the Kir
81 Andcrfon, ii. 269 2-1.
<c mailer^
tHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN Of
matter at Gkfgow from tyme to tyme, he, the
" faid Crawford, was fecretly 'informed by the King
f of all things which had patted betwixt the faid
Quene and the King, to the intent he Jhuld report
the fame to the Earl of Lenox his mafter 5 becaufe
the faid Earle durft not then, for difpleafure of the
'' Quene," occafioned (as appears from her letter
of January 2otb before) by his factious pratings and
faftious cabals, " come abroad*." Our prefent let-
ter alfo confirms the teftimony and the obfervation.
'This day," fays the writer of it, "HIS FATHER
' bled at the mouth and nofe; I have not zit fene
'him, be kelps his chalmer ; the King defyris
" that I fuld give him meit with my awin handis f."
And the grofs and palpable contradidion here, is
the fulleft proof of a forgery. Nature could not
deviate fo wildly from itfelf. Art alone could.
The Queen could not poffibly have afTerted Lenox
to be departed from the town, and yet to be actually
in it. And as this* concurs with the obfervation
before, concerning the" uther tymej" fo both unite
to make the whole pafTage furnifh us, with a fecond,
unnoticed, proof of the general forgery.
* Goodall, ii. 246. f Seft. xvi.
111.
2 2 VINDICATION OF
HI-
LETTER THE FIRST CONTINUED.
IV." The laird of Luffe (i), Howftoun (2),
and Caldwellis fone (3), with XL (4) hors or
" thairabout, came and met me (5). The laird of
Luffe faid, he was chargeit to ane day of law (6)
be the King's Father, quhilk fuld be this day (7),
" aganis his [Lenox's] awin hand-writ, quhilk he
[Luffe] hes (8) : and zit notwithftanding, knaw-
<c ing of my cumming, it is delay it (9). He was in-
" quyrit to cum to him (10) [Lenox], quhilk he
<f refufit (i i), and fweiris that he will indure (12)
<e nathing of him."
IV. " Luffius (i), Huftonus (2), Caldoclli
* c filius (3), comitati quadraginta (4) circiter equis,
" obviam venerunt (5). Luffius dixit, fe a Regis
"patrein eum ipfum diem (7) ut caufam diceret
tf (6) accerfitum, contra quam chirographo pro-
" mififfetj id chirographum penes fe effe (8) : tamen
" cum de meo adventu refcitum effet, diem prola-
<e turn (9) ; fe accerfitum a Comite (10), ire nolle
* c (n)i ac jurat fe nihil unquam ab eo velle (12)."
IV. Luffe ( i ), Hufton ( 2), et le fils de Cauld-
Cf wellis (3), accompagnez d'environ quatre vingts
" (4) chevaux, vindrent au devant de moy (5).
" Luffe did, que ce jour-la mefme (7) il cftoit ad-
c< journe
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. J 7
"journe (6) par le pere du Roy, contre ce qu'il
" avoit promis par fon feing, et que ce feing eftoit
<c par devers luy (8) : mais, que quand on fut ad-
" verty de ma veniie, que le jour avoit efte pro-
longe (9). Et qu'il ne vouloit (n) aller par
"devers le Conte (10), qui 1'avoit appelle; en
"jurant, qu'il ne luy dcmanderoit (12) jamais
" rien."
(1) The Latin translator rendering "the laird
pf Lufle" by Luflius," inftead of Dminus de
Lujfd, the Frenchman was compelled to take up
with " Lufle," here and immediately afterwards.
(2) The French again follows the Latin in the
variation of this name.
(3) The French here purfues the correcled La-
tin, which was lefs flourifhing in itfclf, and more
clofe to the Scotch ; retaining the conjunctive par-
ticle, giving the Scotch name juft as it was, but
miftaking the termination for a pan of the name,
and fo making Caldwell" into Caldwcllis "
The Latin being et filius de Caldwelle," the
French read it, " et filius de Caldwelle," and fo
ecame itfelf et le fils de Cauldwellis." This
gentleman was afterwards feized by the rebels, as he
was haftening to affift the Queen juft then efcaped
from prifon *.
_ (4) ff Forty" in Scotch, quadraginta" in La-
tin, and by fome ftrange miftake " quatre vingts"
Or eighty in French.
* Keith, 475.
VOL - " D ( 5 ) Here
34 VINDICATION OF LET. 1 .
(5) Here alfo the French follows a more correft
tranflation into Latin, than the prefent is ; the rela-
tive " me" being omitted in the laft, and yet pre-
frrved in the firft.
(6) " Chargeit to ane day of law," and " ut
" caufam diceret accerfitum," are only anfwered by
" adjourne" in French. The Frenchman did not
imderfland the meaning of the Latin. The laird of
Lufie was fummoned to attend as a juryman at one
of Lenox's courts. Ignorant of this, the French-
man only fays he was fummoned, without fpecify-
ing for what. And this alone mould have fhewn
decifively, that the French was not the original, and
that the Scotch was.
(7) " Quhilk fuld be this day," Scotch ; " in
c eum ipfum diem," Latin ; " ce jour-la mefmc,"
French.
(8) " Aganis his own hand-writ, quhilk he hes,"
Scotch; " contra quam chirographo promififiet, id
" chirographum penes fe eflfe," Latin ; and " centre
" ce qu'il avoit promis par fon feing, et que ce
" feing eftoit par devers luy," French. So tho-
roughly Latinized is the French !
(9) " It is delayit," Scotch; " diem prolatum,"
Latin ; " que le jour avoit cftc prolonge," French ;
another proof of the fame point.
(10) Him," Comitem," le Conte."
(ii)Rcfufit," "nolle," " ne vouloit."
(i 2) " Indure," velle," " demanderoit." Thcie
tliree inftances are three additional proofs of
ftme point.
V. N<
CHAP. I. MARY QJttEEN OF SCOTS.
V.-~ Never ane of that (i) towne came to
' f fpeik to me, quhilk caufis me think that thay ar
' his (2) j and nevertheles (3) he (4) fpeikis gude,
at the leift his (5) fone (6). I'fe na uther gentil-
<f man (7) bot thay of my company."
V. Nemo oppidanorum ( i ) me convenit, qua;
" ITS facit ut eos credam ab illo ftare (a) ; prs-
" terea (3), bene loquuntur (4), fakem de (6)
< filio(5). Nullos prasterea nobiles (7) video prs>
" ter meos comites."
V. Nul des citoyens (i) n'eft venu a moy,
' qui faift que je croy qu'ils font d'avec ceftuy-
f la (2) ; et puis (3) ils ( 4 ) parlent en bien, au
" moins (6) du fils (5). D'avantage je ne voy au-
" cuns de la noblefle (7), autre ceux de ma fuite."
(i) This is one of thofe night and incidental
ftrokes of forgery, which the common eye always
overlooks, but which betray the forgery very figni-
ficantly to a critical one. The letter pretends to be
written from Glaigow. The real Mary, writing
from Glafgow, could not poffibly have called it that
town. She muft have called it the town, as fl*?
does before, or this town. But the forger of the
^ letter, writing at another place, and writing from a
ced combination of ideas, would be apt at times
ftart afide from it. Art would intermit its con-
unng power for a moment. And Nature would
> 2 re-afiert
2 5 VINDICATION OF LET. I*
re-affert her authority, laugh at the mimickries of
her rival, and confound her fantaftical operations.
(2) The Frenchman has made an amazing blun-
der here. His Latinity not carrying him far enough,
to fhew him the meaning of the idiom, " ab illq
"fares" he tranrtated it literally, "font d'avec cef-
tuy-la," and fo gave it a fignirkation direftly die
reverfe of the original. And as qux res facit' 1
runs fo readily into " qui faift," fo it concurs to
fhew how literally he was following the Latin.
(3) The Latin tranflating " nevertheles" By
pneterea," the French renders both by " puis."
And this is the more obfervab'le, as the French, by
prefixing the " et," appears to have been tranflating
from the corrected Latin.
(4) This 'is the region of miftakes to both the
French and the Latin. " Pie fpeikis" is rendered
<( loquuntur" and " ils parlent."
(5) " His" is omitted equally in the Latin and
in the French, though fo neceflary to the fenfe..
(6) The father, fays the Scotch concerning Le-
nox, fpeaks " gude ;" or at leall his fon, the King,
does. Mary is thus made to anticipate in reflec-
tion, what fhe relates in fuccefilon afterwards. Yet
there is a great abfurdity attending one half of the
anticipation. She relates the " gude" fpccchcs of
the fon hereafter. But fhe relates none hereafter
from the father. She alfo relates none before. She
has not yet feen him, .fhe does not fee him at all in
this letter, to hear him fpeak either " gude" or bad.
She tells us exprcfsly, near the end of this long let-
ter,
QHAP I. MARY QJJBEN OF SCOTS. 37
ter, that Die had not even then feen him. f< His
f father," fhe fays, <c keipis his chalmerj I HAVE
<f NOT SENE HIM *." Nor can fhe be excufed, as
alluding to the mefTage which fhe received from
him on the road. This Ihe did not confider as
" gude," becaufe fhe fays fhe made the mefienger
" hald his toung." And this pafTage is therefore
one of thofe many contradictions, which I have al-
ready announced to my reader, fome of which I
have expofed to his view before, and others of
which I fhall be forced to expofe hereafter. This
contradiction the Latin tranflator appears to have
obferved, and to have taken a turn, in order to
avoid it, " Nemo oppidanorum," he fays, " me
" convenit, quas res facit ut eos credam ab illo flare ;
" pr^eterea y bsne loquuntur,Jaltem defiHo" That the
townfmen fpeak well of him, or at leaft of his fon ;
is an additional reafon afligned for believing, that
they are of his fide. This is plainly too regular a
chain of thoughts, to be linked by the hand of acci-
dent. He ftudioufly formed it, to efcape an abfur-
dity. He has efcaped one by it, and has fallen into
another. He now gives the kind fpeeches to the
townfmen of Glafgow. He now fixes the father,
t( or at the leiftjiis fone," to be the object, inftead
of the fpeaker, of them. And he now makes the
townfmen to utter them to Mary, when " never ane
" of that towne came to fpeik to" her at all. I
need hardly add, that the French has taken all the
abfurdity of the Latin. We cannot expect the
mpck-fun to be freer from fpots than the true.
Seft,
P 3 An4
^g VINDICATION OF -LET. f,
And " ils [citoyens] parlent en bien, au moins du
" fils," is juft the reaeftion of " bene loquuntur,
faltem de filio."
(7) " Gentilman" was tranflated before " homo
honefto loco natus," and <f un gentilhomme."
But now, when the Latin abfurdly renders it " no-
" biles," the French, fcorning to be lefs abfurd,
renders it " noblefle."
VI. " The- King fend for Joachim zifternicht
<f (i), and afkit at him, quhy I ludgeit not belyde
tf him ? and that (2) he wald ryfe the foner gif
" that wer (3) : and quhairfoir I come, gif it was
' for gude appointment (4) ?"
VI. Rex arcefiivit Joachimum heri (i), ac
" eum interrogavit, cur non prope fe divcrterem,
" id enim (2) fi feciflem, fe citius furrecl:uriim(3);
" item cur veniflfem? an reconciliationis caufa(4) ?"
VI. (f Le Roy appella hier (i) Joachim, et
" Tinterroga, pourquoy jc n'alloye loger prrs de
' c luy ? et que (2), fi jc le faifoye, il feroit plufloft
" remis fus (3) ; item pourquoy j'eftoy venue, et
" fi c'efloit pour faire une reconciliation (4) ?"
( i ) This is the fijft note of time that has oc-
curred yet. I fhall mark all very carefully, as they
appear before us. And I fhall flop occasionally to
fhew, how fully they unite to prove the forgery.
But I fhall only obfcrvc at prefent, that the Latin
CfcAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 39
tranflating " zifternicht" by " heri" and not bef-
ternd notte, the French was forced to ufe "hier,"
inftead of bier aujoir.
(2) The French " et que," fo different from
the Latin, and fo according with the Scotch, fhews
it to have been taken from the corrected Latin.
(3) " Gif that wer," rendered " id fi feciffem"
and " fi je le faifoye," (hews the French to be only
Latin Frenchified. The words adjoining in all the
copies, " he wald ryfe the foner," " fe citius -fur-
" refturum/' and " il feroit pluftoft remis fus,"
mean that he fhould the fooner be raifed up from
his bed of ficknefs. He kept his bed at pre-
fent *.
(4) " Item cur veniflem," Latin, " item pour-
* f quoy j'eftoye venue," French j and " an reconcU
<c liationis caufa," <c fi c'eftoit pour faire une recon-
ct dilation." But how comes the King to afk this
queftion ? He knew for what purpofe fhe came,
Joachim, no doubt, as her fore-runner, brought a
mefiage from the Queen to the King, indicating
her immediate vifit to him, and the reafons of it.
This muft have been the cafe, whether the Queen
came with friendly or with hoftile intentions. And
it muft peculiarly have been fo, when the Queen
came (as I fhall foon Ihew Ihe did) in confequence
of a mefTage from the king himfelf, in confequence
of his avowed repentance for his previous conduct
to her, and in confequence of his exprefled wifh tq
fee her.
* Sea. x. and xxi.
P 4
VINDICATION OF LET. I.
and gif ze wer thair in particular ( i ) and gif I
had maid my eftait (2), gif I had takm Pans
and Gilbert (3) to wryte to me ? and yat I wald
fend Jofeph away. I am abafchit quha hcs fq
him fa far (4); zea, he fpak evin (5) of the mar-
" riage (6) of Baftiane."
* " This berer will tell you
" fumwhat upon this (7)."
ac nomination, an tu hie efies (i) ? an fcmili*
catalogum feciiTem (2) ? an Paridcm et Gilber-
" turn (3) accepiflem qui mihi fcribcrent ? an Jo-
fephum dimiflura eficm ? Miror quis ci tantum
" indicarit (4); ctiam ufque ad nuptias (6) Sebaf-
" tiani fcrmo pervenit (5)."
" fi vous eftiez icy (i) ? et ft j'avoye faift quclque
" rolle de mes domcftiques (2) ? fi j'avois prins
Paris et Gilbert (3), aftn qu'ils m'efcnvifient ? et
" fi je ne vouloye pas liccnticr Jofeph ? Or je
" m'eftonnc qui luy en tant declare (4) i car me fine
" il a tenu propos (5) de Seballian (6)."
(i) This is the firft hint concerning the adultery.
But who the adulterer was, could never be known
from the hint. No one is addreffed by name. No*
one is alluded to by character. No one is point- d
out with the flighted particularity. But the abliir-
dity of all this is greatly heightened, by another
circumftance. Mary went to fee Darnly in his ill-
ncfs at Glafgow, with a real, or with a pretended, re-
gard. Aftinrr under the influence of either, fhe
CHAP. i. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 4I
would not take her adulterer with her. This is ob-
vious. Yet, obvious as it is, the forger has not
feen it. And Darnly is reprefented as enquiring of
her fore-runner, whether the adulterer was with her.
With fuch an evident abfurdity is the letter ma-"
naged !
(2) Maid my eftait," fays the Mifcellaneous
Remarker *, is French, faire un etat, to make up
:ft of the officers of one's houfhold. This letter
ihews it to be equally Scotch. The Latin ac~
cordingly renders it an familise catalogum fecif-
" fern ?" And the French thought fo little of faire
un etat, that it turns the Latin into (f fi j'avoye faifb
" quelque rolle de mes domeftiques." But, in any
fenfe of the words, where is the propriety of them ?
Why Ihould Darnly aflc, whether Ihe had made
" quelque rolle de domeftiques," or familise cata-
'< logum," or a lift of the officers of her houfhold?
Was this the commencement of her royalty ? or had
fhe never formed her houfhold before ? She formed
it, no doubt, when (he firft fettled in Scotland. She
muft have formed it finally, if fhe had not done fo
before, when fhe married Darnly. And the qucftion
is only one of thofe abfurdities, which croud the
letters from end to end, and which are fome of the
ftrongeft marks of forgery in them. When the
imagination is let loofe into the regions of fidion, it
requires a higher degree of judgment than what the
forger was able to exert, in order to keep its excur-
fions within the lines of fobriety ; to guard it agajnft
extravagance, while it is indulging in invention 5 and
P. 2Q.
^j VINDICATION OF LET. I.
to fecure a ftrain of probability, amid the facilities
offalfhood.
(3) This was Gilbert Curie, mentioned in Paris's
fecond confefiion *, and afterwards fecretary to her
in her Englifh confinement.
(4) This is faid in confequence of a peculiar dif-
pofition in the King. He was meanly fufpicious.
He was therefore at work continually, in prying into
all the circumftances of Mary's conduct. And he
was perpetually twilling and turning them, as far
as his little ingenuity would allow him, to the hurt
of her reputation. This appears fufficiently in
Mary's real letter of January the 2oth before. But
I fhall cite fome of the claufes again. <f Alwayis
" we perfave him," Ihe fays, " occupeit and bifiy
<c aneuch, to haif inquifitioun of our doyngis j
" quhilkis, God willing, fall ay be fie as nane fall
<c haif occafioun to be offcndit with thame, or to
<c report of us any way is bot honorably, howfoever
" he, his father, and thair fautoris, fpeik ; quhilkis,
" we knaw, want na gude will to make us haif ado,
" gif thair power wer equivalent to thair myndis f."
By this folly of conduct he was probably the au-
thor or the fpreader of many calumnies, which
the fools of faction ftill believe again ft Mary. I le
certainly was of one, which fome of the loweft are
ftill circulating in convention, though none of
them are weak enough to lend their little fanctioij
to it in print; the pretended amour of Mary with
Kizzio . And in this fictitious letter he is rcpre-
v Goodall, ii. 78. -j- Keith, Pref. viii. j Keith, A rP . 1 24.
11 i.-ntcd,
CHAP, I. MARY QJTEEN OF SCOTS. .43
fented, perhaps not untruly, as carrying his fufpi-
eious curiofity fo far, as to procure information of
every man and woman that fhe took into her
houfhold, and even of every marriage that was
negotiating among them.
(5) Here the French, following another tranfla,
tion in Latin, varies equally from the prefent and
the Scotch ; car" being fubftituted for etiam"
and zea." And it is ufeful to note thefe little
variations from the prefent Latin, becaufe they
anfe from what I have already proved, but which
had never been obferved before, a Latin copy dif-
ferent from the prefent, and having all the eight
letters in it.
(6) The French, having followed the Latin in
lengthening the name of Baftian'e" into " Sebaf-
*< tian," by fome miftake drops all notice of the
marriage.
(7) " This berer will tell you fumwhat upon,
<f this." What then was the bearer, Paris, to tell
Bothwell concerning this ? The King had afked,
whether Mary had taken Paris and Gilbert to be
her private fecretaries. Mary reports this queftion
in a letter to Bothwell. And fhe adds, that Paris
himfelf, who carried the reporting letter, fhould tell
him fome more particulars concerning the queftion.
What then was he to tell ? I cannot poffibly con.
; jedure what. And I therefore confider the whole,
as one of the multiplied abfurdities, that glare upon
us while we read the letters.
" Tfa
^ VINDICATION OF LET. I.
This Paris," fays Buchanan, " was ane young
man borne in France, and had levit certane zeiris
in the houfis of Bothweli and Setoun, and efter-
wart with the Quene*." He appears in the Idler
to be juft now taken into the Queen's fervice. He
accordingly fays, in his fecond mock-confedion,
that he firft entered into credit with her on the
road betwixt Kalendar and Glafgowf ; which was
this very day, January i^d. Yet, though he was fo
lately come into her train, fiie had confidence
enough in him THIS VERY DAY, to make him privy
to the adultery, by giving him a purfe of crowns for
Bothweli J j and even, IN A DAY OR TWO, to make
him privy to the murder itjelf, by fending him with
this letter unjealed. And all this while he was only
" ane young man."
The force of folly, I may fafely affirm, cannot
poflibly go beyond this. But let us attend to an-
other circumftance here.
I have already pointed out a number of varia-
tions in the form and fubflance of the letters.
Here we have one of a new nature. This margi-
nal intimation was not in the letter, as it appeared
at York. The commifTioners there fpeak thus of
the bearer : " Item, in the credit gifin to the berer,
" quhome WE UNDERSTAND was Pareis $." But
they could not have fpoken in thefe terms, if the
intimation had been then in the letter. They could
not have faid they underftood Paris to be the bearer,
if he was exprefsly ftiled fo by a reference to the
Deteftion, 21. f Goodall, ii. 76. J Ibid, ibid,
A. N vii.
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 45
fide of the page. And they could not have attri-
buted their knowledge of the point to the informa-
tion of the rebels, if the letter itfelf informed them
of it explicitly. This note therefore, of Paris
being the bearer of the letter, was not in the origi-
nal {hewn to the commiflioners at York. Yet it
was in that exhibited at Weftminfter. Hence it
appeared in the Englifh edition of the letters 1571,
and appears in the prefent. But hence alfo it does
not occur in the Latin, in the French, or in th'e
Scottifli edition of 1 57 2. The Latin verfion, as I
have fhewn already, was made before the exhibition
of the letters at Weftminfter, and in order to the
i exhibition of them in French there. Accordingly
it omitted the .prefent paffage, as the original had
not yet got it. The French equally omitted it,
: becaufe the Latin had. And the Scotch edition of
| 1572 omitted it equally with -both, becaufe this
profeffed itfelf to be merely a tranflation from the
j Latin, when in the letters it is evidently nothing
i more than a copy of the Englifh. No tranflation
from the Latin, or any other language, could pof-
fibly have made the Englifli and the Scotch editions'
of the letters to coincide regularly, word for word,
from the beginning to the end. Nothing but tran-
fcription could do this. And, what is ftill more,-
the Scotch edition had all the eight letters of the
Englifh, when the Latin had only three of them
;| The Scotch edition of the letters, then, was only a
\ tranfcript of the Englifh. Yet in the title-page the
whole work, the letters as well as the Detection it-
felf, were faid to have been tranflatit out of the
" Latine, quhilk was written be M. G. B.", Mr.
George
i
>fi VINDICATION OF LET. I,
George Buchanan. And for this reafon the Scotch
editor was obliged to throw out the note, though it
was in the very edition which he was copying at
the time *.
We have alfo feen a fa<5t before, that is nearly
fimilar to this. At the end of Seftion the 3d, is a
whole fentence in the Englifh edition, which does
not appear in either the French or the Latin. It
was therefore, as we may prefume from the prefent
inftance, not in the York original of the letter,
though it muft have been in the Weftminfter. But
it differs from the prefent, in appearing upon the
pages of the Scotch edition. And this, the only
difference between them, may be eafily accounted
for, from that being a note on die margin of the
page, and this being a fentence in the body of it ;
from that necefiarily engaging the notice of the
pretended translator, and ib being omitted in con-
formity to his pretenfions ; and from this very na-
turally efcaping his notice, and fo running readily
into his copy.
All ferves however to fhew us very fatisfaftorily,
the reafon of thefe two omiflions in the different
editions of the prefent letter. But it alfo refolves,
a point of much more confequence to us. It proves
a plain variation in the York and Weftminfter ori-
ginals of the letter. As (hewn at York, the letter
certainly had not the fide-note attached to it, and
p-obably had not die whole fentence incorporated
with it. But, as {hewn at Weftminfter, it had cer-
tainly the one, and it probably had the other. Mary
thus appeared at one time to have penned the
* See Anderfon, ii. title page, and 133.
letter'
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN Of SCOTS. 4^
letter in her own hand without the paffages ; and aC
another to have penned it with them. And we thus
add one more demonftration to the many that we
have feen already, of the obvious and apparent
forgery of all the letters, and of the ever-reftleft
fluctuation of the fpirit of knavery under it.
VII." I inquyrit him of his letteris, quhairintil
" he plenzeit of the crueltie of fum (i) ; anfweric
" that he was aftonifchit (2), and that he was fa
" glaid to fe me, that he belevit to die for glaid-
ft nes (3). He fand greit"
VII. Cf Ego eum de fuis literis rogavi, in quibus
e< queftus erat de quorundam crudelitate (i) , re-
" fpondit, fe nonnihil (2) efie attonitum, meumque
" ei confpe&um tarn jucundum, ut putaret fy
<f tetitia moriturum (3). OrTendebatur"
VII. J e 1'ay enquis de fes lettres, ou il s'eftoit
" plaint de la cruaute d'aucuns (i). II refpondit,
" qu'il eftoit aucunement (2) ctonne, et qu'il fe
<c trouvoit fi joyeux de me voir, qu'il penfoit mou-
tf rir de joye (3}"
(i) The letters, as here called, or the letter, 35
more properly called in the next paragraph, was
one which Darnly wrote to Mary from Stirling, a
few days after his abrupt departure from her at
Holyrood-houfe, on September the joth 1566.
But we have already feen, that it is dangerous for
forgers to meddle with hiilory. And this paflage
furnilhes
4 VINDICATION OF LET. I.
furnifhes us with another proof of the important
truth.
Mary immediately anfwered that letter of 1
ly's very fully*. Yet nearly FOUR MONTHS AF-
TERWARDS flic is made to aik him, what he meant
by one point in it. She is even made to afk him,
in the firft moments of her vifit to him upon his
illnefs. And ihc is even made to notice the inti-
mated cruelty of fome in it, when it intimated no
fuch thing. His grounds of complaint were not
general and vague. They were fpecifick. He com-
plained, that he was not trufted with power or
advanced in honour by her, and that he was with-
out any attendance from the nobility f. And
Mary, in her anfwer, reminded him of the honour
and power, which fhehad given to him, and which
he had turned againft her ; recalled to his memory
her uniform offers, of making her fcrvants to attend
him j and fuggefted to him the difguft, which he
had excited in the nobles, by the ftatelinefs of his
conduit towards them J. There was no complaint
therefore concerning the cruelty of fome, in Darnly.
Nor could there be any enquiries concerning it, in
Mary.
But indeed all remembrance of fuch a letter
muft have been long effaced from the minds of
both, by the fcenes that had pafled before them
fmce. Mary had been ill of a violent fever. The
illnefs continued eleven days. Her life was in the
utmoft danger for a part of the time. Her council
actually iffued a proclamation for fecuring the
* Keith, 349350. | Ibid. ibid. j Ibid. ibid.
peace,
I CHAP. I. MARY CLUEEN OF SCOTS. 49
peace, in full apprehenfion of the worft. Mary
fully expefted that worft. And on the 2fth of
Odober fhe lay to all appearance dead *. In all
this danger the King, though formally apprized of
it, with a grofs unfeelingnefs and a ftupid barba-
| rity of foul, had never come near her. He came
not till fhe was out of danger f. And all this muft
; have formed an objeft to the minds of both, much
i more important in itfelf, and much furer to engage
their converfation when they met, than the letter
before. She particularly was fo affecled by it, that
fhe was often heard to wifli for that laft flicker
; of over-burdened nature, the grave J.
The baptifm of the young prince had taken
place in the December afterwards, at Stirling. At
-this very period the King, with a fullen abfurdity
of fpirit, thought proper to take up his refidence at
^Stirling, never to come near the Queen, never to
appear in the entertainments, and fo to publifh his
|own folly and their common unhappinefs to all the
Iworld. Mary felt this infult fo fenfibly, that Hie
Lwas obliged at times to retire from the gaieties
Before her, and give vent to the fulnefs of her heart
m fecret ||. And this was furely a fubjeft, that
I would have much "more demanded the attention of
j Mary, at her firft conference with the King after-
wards j than a flight letter, with flight complaints
n it, written about three months before.
But another event had alfo happened in this in-
| erval. On December the 27th, the King left
* Keith, Hift. 352 353 , aml App> , 33 _, 3 6. f Jbid>
hPP- 35- I Ibid. Pref. viii. || Ibid, ibid
VoL ' E Stirling,
p VINDFC AT ION OF LET, I,
Stirling, and retired to Glafgow, without taking
the lead notice of the Queen *. He was imme-
diately feized with a dangerous illnefs. He was.
racked with violent pains. He was covered with
puftules of a black and putrid nature. And his.
life was in the utmoft danger f- This furely, from-
its recentnefs, its continuance, and its importance,,
would have given a topick to the King and Queen;
at their, meeting, infinitely more attractive than a.
petty letter, written nearly four months before..
And all theie events together would have fo totally
fuperfeded the memory of fuch a letter, that it
could not poflibly have been the FIRST point of"
their conversation, that it could hardly have been< ;
any at all..
(2) The I^atin having, by fome wild miftakeJ
inferted " nonnihil" into the text, the French adopts-
the miftake, and fubftitutes " aucuncment" for the-
word.
(3) Dr. Robertfoa acknowledges, that Mary
(hewed great kindnefs to Darnly in this vifit ; thoV
with the true fpirit of faction, he endeavours to
. turn all into artifice J. Yet in tbeje letters flic
appears not to have (hewed any kindnefs at all..
He (hews much to her, butjbe none to him. And
this is fuch a plain proof of the forgery, that the
Doftor (hould in common candour have pointed"
tp it.
* Keith, Pref. vji. and Hift. 364. f Detefli-
Anderfon, ii.. and 242. jebb, i. \ \, 396.
HAP. I. MARY QJL T Pf OF S C O T &.
cc greit fault that I was penfive f i)."
" eo quod tarn cogitabunda eflem (i)."
t{ cependant il eftoit offenfe de ce que j'eftois ainfi
"penfive (i)."
( i ) Fand greit fault," offendebatur," eftoit
Cf offenfe 3" and " that," eo quod," dece que/*
Both fhew the exaftnefs of the French in copying
the Latin. And the addition of cependant" in
the French, fhews the copier there to have been
more attentive to connection than fidelity. But
the whole furnlOics us with another proof of the
forgery. That the Queen fhould be " penfive,"
is abfurd. If flie took the journey from a real re-
gard, her fenfibilities would break from her in a
full tide of afFeftionate tendernefs. If {he went
from z pretended one, fhe would endeavour to imi-
te the affeftioriatenefs that fhe did not feel, would
tamly carry on the hypocrify of tendernefs for a
while, and could not poflibly have been penfive at
the VERY FIRST encounter.
Dr. Robertfon fays thus concerning Mary's vifit
to Glafgow at this period : Notwithftanding the
King's danger, fhe amufed 'herfelf with excurfions
ffbrent parts of the country, and fufFered near
a month to elapfe before fhe vifited him at Glaf-
" But furely the Doclor fhould in bonejly
^ * have
ow
2, VINDICATION OF
have fhewn that fhe knew of the illnefs, before
he adduced this heavy charge againft her. He
Jhould certainly in policy not have referred to a let-
ter, as he does immediately afterwards, \vhich proves
fhe did not know of it. In the very next page he
fpeaks of " a; letter written with her own hand to
" her ambaffadour in France, jufl before fhe fet out
" for Glafgow." And this proves decifively, that
Jhe knew nothing of the illnefs till Jhe attiiallyjet out.
It is the letter which I have noticed before, as dated
the 2Cth of January, only the very day before jhe
Jet out. In it fhe fpeaks of -the King particularly.
She mentions " with fome bitterne^," fays Dr. Ro-
bertfon, "the King's ingratitude, the jealoufy v.;;h
" which he obfervcd her actions, and the incliiu-
" tion he difcovered to difturb her government ;
" and at the fame rime talks of all his attempts
" with theutmoftfborn." YET SHE SAYS NOTHING
OF HIS ILLNESS. Dr. Robertfon indeed has much
aggravated the manner, in which me mentions the
King. Thefe are the words : " For the King our
" hufband," fhe fays, " God knawis alwayis OUT
" part towards him ; and his behaviour and thank,-
<c fulnes to us is femblablement well knawin to ( iul
" and the warld. Specialie our awin indifferent
" fubjeftis feis it, and in thair hartis, we doubt not,
" condemnis the famyne. Alwayis we perfave him
" occupeit and biffy fcneuch to haif inquifitioun of
<c our doyngis, quhilkis, God willing, fall ay be fie
" as nane fall haif occafioun to be offcndit with
" thame, or to report of us any wayis bot honora-
" bly, .howfocver he, his father, and thair fautoris,..
" fpeik ; quhilkis, we knaw, want iu gudc will
CHAP. I. MARY QJJZEN OF SCOTS, $3
* mak us half ado, gif thair power wer equivalent
" to thair myndis. But God moderatis thair forces
ff well aneuch, and takis the moyen of executioun of
" thair pretenfis fra thame; for, as we believe, thay
" fall find nane, or varray few, approveris of thair
" counfalis and devyfis imaginit to our difplefor
or miilyking */' There is nothing in all thefe
exprefliofls of Mary's, but a calm confcioufciefs of
her own innocence, and a firm confidence in her
own fecurity through that, againft the enquiries
and contrivances of the King concerning her. YET
SHE SAYS NOTHING OF HIS ILLNESS. Had fhe
knov/n of it then, fhe mud have mentioned it.
Had fhe alfo intended to fet out the very next day
on a vifit to him, fhe moft have mentioned her in-
tention. She would have done it in order to fhew
her reconciliation to him, if it had been all f&i-
ticus. And, if it had been genuine, fhe could not
have concealed it. It would have burft from her
in fpite of herfelf. Hence " no tokens of fudden
f reconcilement appear" in the letter. They could
net. She knew not of the only faclr, that could
produce them in a mind like hers ; the dangerous
Ulnefs of the King, Attended with " fymptoms vio~
" lent and unufual," and {C commonly imputed to
" the effects of poifon" at the time. She heard
of it after fhe had written the letter. She heard of
it from himftrif too, with a mefTage exprefllng his
grief for the paft, profeflmg his reformation for the
ruture, and requeuing her prefence immediately.
And fhe immediately hurried away to fee him.
* Keith, Pref. via.
3 The
j4 VINDICATION OF LET. I.
<f The Queen," fay Crawford's Memoirs, " was
" nojooner informed of bis danger, than Ihe bafied
" after him *." " Hearing and advertifed," fays
the Bifhop of Rofs in an un-anfwered publication
at the time, <e that HE WAS REPENTANT AND SOR-
*' ROWFUL, and that he DESIRED HER PRESENCE;
" Ihe without delay" though it was, as Buchanan-
himfelf has told us, in the deip of a fchairp
" wynter f," " tliereby to renew, quicken, and re-
" frelh his fprites, and to comfort his hart, to the
" amendment and repayring of his helth lately by
tf ficknes fore impaired, hajted ivitb Jucb fpede as
" Jhe conveniently might,' 1 with fuch weather and at
fuch a feafon, " to fee and vifit him at Glafco J ;"
probably fetting out in \hzforenoon of January 2 1 ft,
reaching Linlithgow, fixteen miles off, that night,
and getting to Kalendar, about eight miles farther,
the next . So clear, fo honourable, and fo gene-
rous, is the Queen's behaviour in this bufmefs ! So
ftrong too is the twift of mind in her hiftorian !
And with fuch a fideling pace does it carry him,
through all this period of the hiftory !
But let me make another remark upon the pre-
fent paflage in the letter, for the better detection of
the whole, That Darnly was " aftonifhed" at the
vifit, and that Mary was <f penfive" in the very firft
moments of it ; is faid with the fame view as Dr.
* P. 12. f Detection, 17. Anderfon, ii. and 242,
Jebb, i. j Defence, 1 2. Hence alfo Barnftaplc in /ebb, i.
407, calls it " profeaio tarn longa, tarn impedita."
Appendix, N x. And hence Barnftaple fays, " Morbi rumor
" cum primum increpuit," then the Queen fet out, Jebb, ibid
A fall of fnow probably prevented her from moving fafter.
Robertfon
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEtt OF SCOTS.
Robertfon fays, that " the fudden tranfition will ap-
" pear with a very fufpicious air, and will be con-
" fidered by them [who are acquainted with the
'" human heart] as the effect of artifice.'' In this
affertion, I think, the Doctor fliews himfel to be
very little acquainted with the human heart indeed.
Or, to Ipeak more properly,, and to do juftice to
the Doctor's understanding, his fagacity became a
ready fervant to popular prejudice, and an officious
flave to the folly of the^ times. Mary certainly vi-
; filed Darnly in his illnefs at Glafgow. But why
I did ihe vifit him ? From artifice, fay the letters,
. and that writer who, like Buchanan, has incorpo-
I rated them into hiftory. This, the writer intimates,
is plain from her not vifiting him till he was " out
' " of all danger." The fad is npt true, and the
\ inference is totally falfe. This very letter fhews
him not to be out of all danger. " He has," it
fays, C almaift flane me with his braith, it is worfe
j <c than zour uncle's, and zit I cum na neirer unto
" him, bot in ane Chyre at the bed-fi it, and he
*' being at the uther end thairof *." " He declairit
*' unto me," it tells us,'" his feiknes, and that he
" wald mak na teflament, but only leif all thing to
" me f." But, not to imitate the Podftor in erect-
ing hiftory upon forgery, I turn to the cotemporary
memoirs of Crawford, The Queen, they affirm,
<c notwithftanding her refentment of the pail in-
" jury," the murder of Rizzio, <c was extremely
jj " moved to find him in Jo bad a condition, and
ff waited very carefully upon him for the fpace of
* Sett. xx. f Sed. viii.
E 4 < ten
j6 VINDICATION OF LT. I.
" ten days, till, thejlrengtb of bis nature overcoming
the venom of bis dijeaje, he was able to abandon
" that place *." And " after this difcovery of Ma-
" ry's fentiments," fays the Doctor, with a refe-
rence to the letter of January 2Oth, and to her not
vifiting him at firft, " it was fcarce to be expected
" that fhe would vifit the King" a,t all f. Yet this
very circumftance overthrows his whole argument.
If fhe had been acting from defign, fhe would have
gone atfirft. The defign would have been beft 'pro-
moted by that. So unhappy is the Doctor in his .
reafonings ! But he is worfe than unhappy. When
the Queen does0/ go to Glafgow, fhe is reproached
with a " neglect" of the King, with no longer feeling
" conjugal affection" for him, with t not even put-
" ting on the appearance of this pafiion," and with
" amufing herfelf notwithflanding the King's dan-
" g er J-" When fhe does go, then fhe is equally
condemned, as acting purely from defign. " To
" thofe who are acquainted with the human heart,"
we are then told, " this fudden tranfition will appear
" with a very fufpicious air, and will be confidercd
" by them as the effect of artifice ." Thus is the
former charge even made to confirm the latter.
And a bold and falfe affumption is made to pervert
a true fact, in the hands of this party- writer.
Indeed every generous fpirit muft feel a ftrong
tendernefs of pity for the unhappy Queen, affaukcd
with all the enginery of fraudulcnce by her unprin-
cipled brother, and abufed with all the perverfions
* P. 12. The Queen was abfent only ten days in all, by the
Journal, N x. Appendix. t i. 396. j i. 395.
i. 39 6 *
Of
CHAP, I. MARY QJLJEEN OF SCOTS. 57
of fophiftry by a modern hiftorlan. She could not
*%o vifit the King in his illnefs, ^/^ fhe knew
f*t. Yet fhe is traduced for not doing fo. She
is traduced, as if fhe had known of his illnefs Yet
U the while the traducer has full evidence that
flie did not know, lying direftly before him. But
party feals up his eyes. And the fun {bines in vain
upon wilful blindnefs. She goes at lair, however.
She is very kind in her behaviour to the Kincr. All
the world fpeaks of her tendernefs. But the writer
who was blind before to the sux, can now difcern
the MOTES that are not there. He can now pene-
trate below the femblance of tendernefs, and fee
cruelty and murder lurking under it. Thus does
the violence of party, when party is the prevailing
tone of the nation, work wildly in bofoms that are
otherwife the feats of honour. And thus did Mur-
ray, in the ftern flagitioufnefs of his ambitious policy
^rn that high aft of generality and love in Mary
into an infernal deed of covered malignity; and fo'
Pour the -Tweet -milk of Concord into Hell!
But let it alfo be remembered, in difplay of THS
KoviDE*CE OF COD OVER MAN, that, if Mary was
fingularly unhappy in the variety of attacks upon
icr, fhe has been peculiarly fortunate in the inftru-
ments rfher defence. No other perfon, in fuch
Pircumftances, can appeal to fuch juftifying docu-
ments as fhe can. We fee this ftrildnglv exempli,
3 m the prefcrvation of that very letter, which I
ave noticed above. Written only the day before
Ae ict out to vifit the King, it fhews, in the moft
latisfaclory manner, that (he had not even then heard
Of his illnefs, and that fhe did not even then intend
to
$S VINDICATION OF LET. I.
to vifit him. Such a letter, written in fuch a cri-
tical moment, is a very extraordinary monument in
itfelf. It feems to have been peculiarly preferred
for the confutation of thofe flanderous writers, who
have been long arifmg among us. Yet, what fhews
it not to have been humanly preferred for that pur-
pofe, it has never been applied to the purpolc be-
fore. And it is now applied, becaufe a new asra
is begun in the nation j when all the records of
Mary's innocence are daily coming forward to the
eye of the public; when all the petty libellers of
her name are fnrinking abafhed before them ; and
when her honour will be finally laid open, with a
meridian fplendour of evidence.
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.. ^
IV.
LETTER THE FIRST CONTINUED.
._ i departit to fupper ( , } _ rer
11 zow of my arryving (2). He prayit me
to rcturne : the quhilk I did (3). He declairit
unto me his fciknes ( 4 ), an d that he vvald mak
na teftament, hot only leif all thing to me (e) -
- and that I was the caus of his maladie (8), beau*
the regrait that he had that I was fa ftran^c
" unto him (d). -And thus (7)"
f,
rt nbi de meo adventu narrabit (a).
'me ut redirem, quod ec fed (3). Suun^mihi
morbum (4) expHcavit ; fique nullum teftamen-
tum fafturum,. nifi id unum, quod omnia mihi
relmqueret (5) . me autem fui morbi [caufam]
re (b), quod molefte tuliflet me tarn alieno
fe animo fujfit ( 6 ). A c poftea (7 )"
I m '~" Je m ' en allay foupper (') Celu >' q ui
>us porte ces lettres vous fera entendre de m
fTv^^',, I] n ] e pria de retourner ' ce i >
" l.i-i , me dara fon mal M> adjouftant,
'1 ne vouloit point faire de teftament, C non
tule, c'tft qu'il me laifliroit tout (c)
; qe javoye eft la caufe de fa maladie (8),
' ennuy qu'il avoit porte que j'euffe 1'affec-
loigneedeluy(6). Et puis apres( 7 )"
(0 This
V 1 N D I C A T I N O F LET. I .
(1) This (hews the paragraph preceding to re-
late the interview immediately on her arrival, and
the paragraph before that to tell the King's ante-
cedent enquiries from her forerunner.
(2) This fentence has been mifplaced. It fhould
be at the head of the paragraph preceding. There
it is wanted. And here it is impertinent. " Thi
" beirer," Scotch; " qui has fert tibi," Latin;
" celuy qui vous porte ces lettres," French.
(3) All the convention that follows, therefore,
is what is reprefentcd to have pafled in the evening
of the Queen's arrival at Glafgow, January 2jd,
and after flipper.
(4) What was the King's ficknefs ? Crawford's
Memoirs aflert, that it " was generally reported
the effeft of POYSON *." Melvill fays, that " he
<e went to Glafgow, where he fell fick ; it being al-
ff ledged, that he had got POISON from J ome of hisfer-
tf vants-\." Buchanan and Knox aflert pofitively,
that he was POISONED. Some of Mary's friends,
both antient and modern, Bhckwood, Caufin, and
Carte, affirm his diforder to have been THE SMALI<
POX. Thefe letters aflert it to have been the
GREAT POX. Mr. Goodall and Dr. Robertfon can-
not decide with certainty, concerning its nature and
its caufe. Only the latter intimates, that it was
commonly imputed to poifon at the time. And Dr.
Stuart gives this ftrong reafon for fufpccl:ing, that
the King was actually poifoned. " From what is
" obferved by Melvill," he fays, " from the cir-
" cumftance of the fubfequent murder of the King,
P. 12. t p. 77 .
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 6 1
" and from the characters of Murray and Bothwell,
" Morton and Lethington, there is a high probabi-
" lity that they had corrupted fome of his domef-
" tics to take this method of deftroying him *."
The practice of poifoning, indeed, feems to have
been as dreadfully common at this period in Scot-
land, as we know it to have once been fmce in
France. The King was alledged at the time, we
fee, to have been poifoned. Both well's family is
faid by Buchanan to have been "in France de-
" fami; of poyfoning j" and his fervants are faid
to have been, for the fame caus, fum tortu-
" rit, fum imprifonit, and all fufpeclit f." But
we know from an authority equal to Buchanan's,
though anonymous, even from a letter of April
the jd, 1566, to Cecil* that one of BothwelFs
fervants confeffed himfelf, and four of his fel-
low-fervants, to have agreed upon afTaffinating
or foifoning Bothwell, at the inftigation, of Le-
thington ; and that the other fervants, upon exa-
* See Goodall, i. 324. Robcrtfon, i. 394. and Stuart, i. 187.
The Doftors Stuart and Robertfon refer to Keith, 364, for
3imop Lefcy afferung the diforder to be the Great Pox. But
why do they refer to Keith for this ? Why do they not refer to
the B!{hop himfelf? Even for this fhort reafon, that they did.
not know where the Bifhop had faid fo, and yet fuppofed Kekh
to have known. The fadi U, I believe, that Keith has made a
lake concerning the Bifhop, and that the latter no where
aflerts what the former quotes him for.,
t Deteftion, 51. Andcrfon, ii. and 255. Jebb, i. The mo-
Murray is faid in Jebb i. 405, to have been an adept
n poifoning, a Countefs of Soifons in her day. And Elizabeth,
s intimated in Moyfe 128, to have put forth her hand in ex-
nents of poifoning upon King James.
mination,
62 VINDICATION OP LET. t.
mination, confeffed the fame*. Morton alfo was
ftrongly fufpected of poifoning the Earl of Mar
firft, and the Earl of Athol afterwards ; and was
more than fufpeded of poifoning Lethington f.
And, to mount up to the firft and leader of this
profligate triumvirate MURRAY, the Queen was
apprehenfive herfelf of being poifoned by fome
Proteftants about her ; Ruthven actually gave her
a ring, as a pretended fecurity from their poiibn ;
Murray actually confidered the fecurity as intended
againft bimfelf ; and actually urged Mary to punifh
Ruthven, for furnifhing it j. The King therefore
was afluredly poifoned. Crawford's and MelvilTs
united allegations prove decifively the general opi-
nion at the time to have been, that lie was. The
a&ual murder of the King fo fpeedily afterwards,
confirms that opinion, and corroborates thofe alle-
gations, very ftfongly. And the practice of poifon-
ing, fo familiar to the wretches concerned in the
murder, lends a great addition of weight to all, and
carries all into a moral certainty.
That he was poifoned then, was the frft opinion.
This appears from Crawford and Melvill. That
he had either the Small or the Great Pox, was only
a fubfequent furmife. Yet, what is very furpr:
both the furmife and the opinion make their ap-
pearance together in this letter. Thus Darnly is
called " this pokifche" or pocky " man ;" not hav-
ing the fmall pox, as Dr. Robertfon interprets the
word , as Blackwood intimated at the time, as
* Keith, App. 167. f Leflzi Vita, 10, in AnderfonJ.
Melvill, 1 18. Jebb, ii. 268. Crawford, 347348. and Moyfe,
32, and 35. j Keith, App. 125. Hid. i. 394!
Caufin
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEft OF SCOTS. 6j
Caufm intimated afterwards, and as Buchanan's
Latin intimates here, in direct contradiction to his
own Detection*, by its verfion of the main word
into variolato ; " but infected with the pox, that
greater one, to which the word poekv has always
been emphatically referred. And accordingly the
Queen refufes to fleep with him-, becaufe " he be-
' hovit to be purgeit" rrrfl f. Yet another palTao-e
bmts that he was poifoned. He not over
mekledeformit," it fays, zit he hes RESSAVIT
verray mekle : he has almaift flane me with his
braith 5 it is wode than zour uncle's ; and zit I
cum na neirer unto him, bot in ane chyre at the
eit, and he being at the uther end thairof t
That thele words were meant to intimate he was-
[foned, we know from Buchanan himfelf , So
contradictory is Buchanan, to poifon the King in
one part of this letter, and to give him the fmail
?ox in another. So contradictory too is this very-
letter, as, in the compafs of a few lines only, to pro-
ounce the King a pocky man, and yet to infinuate
that he was poifoned ! All this arifes from the con-
trary opinions entertained generally at the time
It was.firft believe* that he was poifoned. It was-
fterwards furmifed,, that he was poxed.. The for-
mer, no doubt, was the report of the phyficians, the
srvants, and the Queen. The latter was the coun
ter-report circulated by the poifoners, I fuppoie, to
fliield themfelves from detection; and afterwards
varied by a miirake in Buchanan, BlackwOod, and
Vaufin, into a report of the fmall pox. And two of.
* P. 16. .f Seft. xii. t Sed. xx. Detec-
l0 "^ 50 si. Aaderfon, ii. and Jebb, ii. 254-255.
thefc
64 VINDICATION OF LET. 1^
thefe reports very aflonifhingly meet together in
the Scotch of this letter, and even all three in the
Latin of it. This therefore proves the forgeiy very
evidently. Different people at different times might
think differently, concerning the diforder. But one
perfon could not at one time. The Queen, parti-
cularly, could not intimate that the King was
poxed, and yet in the fame breath infinuate that he
was poifoned. And fhe could ftill lefs declare his
diforder to be poifon, to be the great pox, and to be
the fmall pox, all in one inftant.
(5) " Makna teftament, but only leif all thing
* c to me," Scotch ; " nullum teftamentum faclurum,
" nifi ad unum, quod omnia mihi relinqueret,"
Latin ; " ne vouloit point faire de teftament, finorj
<c ceftuy feule, c'efl qu'il me laifleroit tout," French.
The exact conformity of the French to the Latin is
remarkable.
(6) This is another proof of the forgery. The
King's diforder is afcribed to the pox, to poifon,
and to regret. The laft, to be fure, is a moft dan-
gerous caufe of ficknefe, efpecially in minds fo
finely and elegantly organized, as Darnly's was.
It worked very violently in him. Regret racked
him with dreadful pains in his body. Regret threw
out the black and putrid puftules all over him.
And regret gave a baleful taint to his breath. It
was both the poifon and the pox to him. " That
" I was fa ftrange unto him," Scotch -, " me tarn
" alieno erga fe animo fuiffe," Latin ; " que j'eufle.
" I'affection tant efloignee de luy," French.
(7) "Thus,"
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 6$
(7) Thus," Scotch i "poftea," Latin; puis
" apres," French.
(8) Caufam is by fome negfeA of the prefs omit-
I m Goodail's edition. It is in Jebb's *. And it
is alfo in the French.
he raid, Ze afk me (i) quhat I mene be the cruel-
' tie cpntenit (2) in my letter ? It i s O f zow alone
that will not acceptmy offeris and repentance (3).''
" inquit, me rogas (i) quid fibi velit ilia crudelitas
cujus mentio eft (2) in meis literis ? Ad te imam
" id fpedat, qu^ meas pollicitationes ac poeniten-
" tiam recipe^e nort vis (3)."
vous de demandez (,), dit-il, que vent dire cefle
cruaute dont je fay mention (2) en mes lettres ?
^elasacldrdTe feulement a vous, qui ne voulez
cevoir mes promefles ny ma repentance (3)."
(i) How ftrangely does this come in here ! The
qucfhon wasafkohbcfore fupper. He then an-
fwent, that-he was aftonilhed and glad to fee
ier. But after fupper, without any frefh queftion,
; e anfwers to the point at once. Juft fo it is with
J words froze in northern air." The ueft
56 . VI ND 1C AT I ON OF- LET. I.
!< eft," Latin i " 'que veut dire cefte cruaute dont
" je fay mention," French.
(3) The King is made to account for the cruelty
faliely averred to be intimated in his letter to the
Queen, and to fay that lie meant, the Queen's
cruelty to him, in not accepting his offers and re-
pentance. Here the forger becomes more entangled
in his own perverfions of the hiftory. There were
no offers made, there was no repentance averred, in
the letter. Let his own hiftorian tell us the contents-
of it. " He wrote to Mary/' fays Dr. Robertfon *,
" and mentioned two things as grounds of dilguft.
" She herfelf, he laid,' no longer admitted him into
<f any confidence, and had deprived him of all
" power ; and the nobles, after her example, treated
< e him with open neglect, fo that he appeared in
* c every place without the dignity and Iplendor, of
" a king." Where is the repentance, and where arc
'the offers, in all this ? But let us go to that which
is Dr. Robertfon's authority for his account of the
letter, an addrefs of the Privy Council of Scotland
to the Queen Dowager of France. . " In the letter
" he wrote the Queen," they fay, " he grounds a
" complaint on two points -,. one is, that her Ma-
" jefty trulls him not with fo much authority, nor
" is at fuch pains to advance him, and make him
<c to be honoured in the nation, as fhe at Mrit did.
<c And the other point is, that nobody attends hirn >
" and that the nobility defert his company. To
fc theie two points the Queen has made anfwcr f."
Where then, let me repeat, is the repentance of
* i- 37 6 - t Keith, 350.
Darnly
CHAP. I. MARY QJUEEN OF SCOTS. 6j
Darnly in this letter, and where are his 6ffers ? No
where. Yet the forger has the impudence to inferc
both. And Dr. Robertfon has the modefty, even
when he gives an account di redly contrary to the
forger's, not to hint at the flighted fraud in him.
I confes that I have failit, bot not into that quhilk
; I ever denyit (,) . and ficklyke hes failit to (2)
fmdne of zour fubjeclis, quhilk ze have fora*.
Vln (3)-
IX. cc I am zouno-.
o
X.- Ze will fay, that ze have forgevin me
" oft tjrmes, and zit yat I"
Fateor a me peccatum effe, fed non in eo quod
femper negav, (,), pe ccavi etiam -
d^r;rs tuoruni ' qu
IX. Ego fum adolefcens.
Je conftfle, que j'ay grandement offenfe, mais
peche r qUe }Y 'r 9011 " defti <') j'aufli
peche a 1 encontre (2) d'aucuns de vos citovcns
ce que vous m'avez pardonne (3).
IX. " Je fuis jcuue.
F 2 X.-Vous
58 VINDICATION OF LET, I.
X. " Vous dites cependant, qu'apres m'avoir
ec fouvent pardonne (3),"
(i) This alludes to the King's fliare in the aflaf-
fmation of Rizzio. That fhare he publicity and
formally denied. And to make him deny it now
to Mary, is only giving him a proper confiftency of
character. But Mary never believed him. This
appears from the abftraft of her anfwcr to his letter,
as given us by the Privy Council. " To thefe two
" points," they fay, " the Quene has made aniwer,
" that if the cafe be fo, he ought to blame himfelf,
< not her; for that, altho' they who did per-
<f petrate the murder of her faithful fervant, had cn-
" tered her chamber with his knowledge, having
u followed him clofe at the back, and had named
" him the chief of their enterprize ; yet would Ihe
" never accufe him thereof, but did always excufe
" him, and was willing to appear as if Ihe believed
" it not *." And, after fuch an anlvver as this to
his letter, even Darnly himfelf could not have had
the folly to deny it to the Queen again. " Grande -
" mem" is added in the French.
(c) The Latin has here made a ftrange miftake,
and drawn in the French after it. " Sicklyke," in
fuch a manner, "hes failit to," have alfo failed in
their duty, " findrie of zour fubjedis," meaning
Murray, Lethington, &c. But the Latin, with a
wildnefs that I hardly know how, upon any princi-
ples of conftruction, to account for, has rendered the
claufe thus, " peccavi etiam adverfus quofdam ci vium
* Keith, 3 50.
" tuorum /'
CITAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 6$
" tuorum i" and the French comes fhambling be-
hind it in the fame aukward pace, " j'aufli peche
** a 1'encontre d'aucuns de vos citoyens." And
yet, grofs as this corruption of the meaning is, it
was firft obferved by Mr. Goodall, and produced as
one of his proofs againft the originality of the
French*.
(3) " Zour fubjeais," by the republican pen of
Buchanan, is ablurdly rendered <c cives" in Latin,
and is therefore changed into <c citoyens" in French.
" Quhilk ze have forgevin," meaning which fub-
jefts, in confequecce of the blunder above is thus
tranflated, " quod mini abs te condonatum eft,"
and " ce que vous m'avez pardonne."
" returne to my fkultis ( i ). May not ane man of
" my age, for lacke bf counfell (2), fall twyfe or
<f thryfe, or inlacke of his promeis, and at laft (3)
" repent himfelf, and be chaftifit be experience (4) .?
" Gif tmay obtcne pardoun, I proteft I fall never
" mak fault agane (5). And I craif na uther thing,
c bot yat we may be at bed and buird togidder, as
;f hufoand and wyfe .(6) ; and gif ze will not con-
<f fent heirunto, I fall never ryfe out of zis bed. I
<c pray zow, tell me zour refolutioun. God knawis
" how t am punifchit for making my"
"ad peccata redeo (i). Nonne homo, qua ego
fum state, confilio deftitutus (2), bis aut ter labi
f( jpoteft, aut pollicitis non ftare, ac deinde (3) fui
* See i. 91 93.
F 3 " errati
70 VINDICATION OF LET. I.
errati pcenitere, et rerum ufu (4) corrigi? Quod
fi veniam impetrare potcro, polliccor me nun-
quam pofthac pcccaturum (5). .
t: aliud peto, nifi ut communi mensA et lefto, tan-
quam conjuges,utamur (6) : ad htec nifi tu confen-
tias, nunquam ex hoc lecto refurgam. Te rogo,
ut mihi indices quid decreveris. Novit autcm
Deus quid pcenarum feram, quod Deum"
je returne en femblables fautes ( i). Unc homme
de rnefme age que je fuis, et deftitue de confeil
" (2)1 nepeut il pas faillir deuxou trois fois, ou ne
" tenir pas quelque-fois promefle, et apres (3) fe
" repentir de fa faute, en fe corrigeant par 1'ufage
des occurrences (4) ? Que fi je puis obtenir par-
" don, je promets cy apres de nc plus offenfer (5).
" Je ne vous demande rien d'avantage, finon que
" nous ne faifions qu'une table et im lifb, comme
" ceux qni font mariez (6) : a cela fi vouz ne con-
< c fentez, je ne releveray jamais de ce lift. Je vous
<f pne, de me faire entendre ce que vous avez deli-
bere : car Dieu fcayt quelle peinc je porte, de
ce ce que j'ay"
(1) " Ze have forgevin me oft tymes, and zit
ec yat I returne to my faulris, " Scotch j " poft ve-
" niam abs te datam, adhuc ad pcccata redeo,"
Latin; and "apres m'avoir fouvent pardpnnt-, je
<c returne en femblables fautes." The Latin de-
parting from the Scotch in the turn of the expref-
fion, the French departs too.
(2) " Ane man of my age, for lacke of counfell,"
Scotch] " homo qua ego fum a:u:e, confilio defti-
<c tutus,"
8
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS, 71
" tutus," Latin -, and " tine homme de mefme age
" quejefuis, et deftitue deconfeil," French.
(3) At laft," Scotch j deinde," Latin ;
" apres," French.
(4) " Experience," Scotch j cf rerum ufu," La-
tin j cf 1'ufage des occurrences," French.
(5.) " Gif," Scotch 5 quodfi," Latin 5 que
fi," French.
(6) All this fpeech of Darnly's is in direct viola-
on of hiftcrical truth. He was not the man which
ic is here rcprefented to be. He was very different.
iis great aim was not the happinefs of conjugal
fTeclion. " So far as things could come to ocr
knowledge," fay the Privy Council of Scotland,
he has had no ground of complaint ; but, on the
contrary, that he has the very bed of reafon to
look upon himfelf as one of the moft fortunate
princes in Chriftendom, could he but know his
own happinefs, and make ufe of the good for-
tune-which God has put into his hands *." But
without one atom of ability for bufinefs, and with-
ut one particle of difcretion in dignity, he was
lildifhly eager for authority. He was a mere eu-
uch in ambition. " Multum cupiit, nihil potuir."
nd, to obtain this authority, he entered into the
ufmefs of murdering Rizzio in the very prefence
;of the Queen, then feveral months gone with child.
This was fuch an ad of brutal favagenefs, as fhews
m to have been a monfter in feeling and in folly.
* Keith, 350.
F 4 And
72 VINDICATION OF LET. I.
And a fpeech like this put into his mouth, there-
fore, is a violent breach of the unity of charade r,
and a full evidence of the general forgery." At
" bed and buird togidder as hufband and wyfe,"
Scotch - y " communi mensa et lecto, tanquam con-
" juges, utamur," Latin , and " nous ne faifions
" cju'une table et un lift, comme ceux qui font
" mariez," French.
" God of zow, and for having na uther thoclu but
<f on zow (i); and gif (2) at any time I offend
cc zow, ze ar the caus, becaus, quhen ony offendis
" me, gif, for my refuge (3), I micht playne unto
" zow, I wald fpeik it unto na uther body (4) : bot
" quhen I heir ony thing, not being familiar with
" zow, neceffitie conftrains me to kcip it in ITV
" breift (5); and yat caufes me to tyne my wit fr
(C verray anger (6)."
" mihi te feccrim, ac nihil aliud nifi te cogitem
" (i) : quod fi (2), quando te offendam, tu ipla
" in causa es, nam, cum aliquis me offend it, ii id
" perfugium haberem (3), ut apud tc queri pofiem,
" ad neminem alium querelam deferrem (4) ; fed
" fi quid audio, nee te familiariter utor, cogor
" id in peftore claufum tenere (5); quae res ita me
" angit, ut mentem et confilium mihi prorfus ex^
" cutiat (6)."
" fait de vous un Dieu, et que je ne penfe a autre
chofe qu'a vous (i) j quc fi (a) je vous offenfe
*' quelque*.
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 73
<c quelquefois, votis en eftes caufe, veu que, qnand
fc on m'offenfe, fi j'avoye ce refuge (3), quc je me
<c peuffe plaindre vers vous, je ne feroie ma com-
"plaint a autre (4) ; mais fi j'entend quelque
" chole, et que je n'aye familiarite avec vous, je
" fuis contraint de la retenir clofe en mon cceur
" (5); ce qui tourrnente tellement, qu'il m'ofte du
41 tout 1'entendement et le confeil (6)."
(i) This idolatry of Darnly's is fomething like
what the Heathens practiied at times. They whipt
and fcourged their idols occasionally, if they did
hot indulge them in their willies. And, to fpeak
ferioully, we may here fee the impudent forgery of
the letter in its proper view, if we only turn to
two or three circumftances in Darnly's conduct,
He entered into a formal and exprefs agreement
with the ruffians who committed the murder upon
Rizzipj of doing it even " in prefence of the
" Queen's Majefly." and of fupporting them after-
wards for it. He even f elicited them to do it.
He even intended to have done it with his oivn
band, if they had not undertaken it for him *. At
laft he not only united with them to do it, but
actually infifted upon their doing it in her very -pre-
Jencs t and at her very table; the devoted victim
flying behind her for refuge, laying hold even of
her garments for protection, and even throwing his
arms round her waift for fecurityj even there being
flabbed by one of the villains over her fooulders,
with fo much fury too, that he was obliged to leave
* Goodall, i. 268 and 264.
the
.^ 4 V I N D I C A T I O N r OF LET . I.
the dagger in his body; being then tbixvd train his
hold, while cocked piftots were -printed to kerjdf-,
being dragged away bleeding and Icrearning into
an adjoining chamber, and being inilantiy dif-
patched therewith a vaiicty of wounds*.
when
* The pcrfon who prefentcJ the piftol to her, is faia by Earn-
ftaple in his Maria Stuarta (Jcbb, i. 396) to have been An-
" dreas Carreus." But Bedford and Randolph, in a letter at the
time, mention " Andrcwe Car of Fawdenfide," as the perlbu
" whom the Queen fayth would have Jircke* htr w
And they fay it was "one Patrick Balentine, who, al
" Grace i"ayth,^m-</ a dug again ft icr /v.'/y with {be coc .
(Robertfon, ii. 357). Thefe two peculiar monftcrs of enormity
ought to be dragged forth into particular view, and their names
branded with a particular mark of infamy, for their conduct
upon this occafion. The honour of humanity demands it at our
hands.
Let me alfo remark, that Mr. Goodall, i. 247272, has
thrown a new light upon the motives and plan cf this horrid
tranfa&ion, but has confounded hi (lory and himfelf concerning
one circumftance leading to it. " David," fays Kuchanan,
Hid. xvii. 345, " interea fmgulos circumibat, animolq.
" tcntabat, quid de abfentibus decreturus quifque efict, ii a rc-
" liquo conventu nps*Xo Jegeietur." This he under!!,
mean, That David aflced each what each would vote for con-
cerning the exiled lords, if each was chofen a lord of the ar-
ticles. But it clearly means, as it had always been interpreted
to mean (Spotiwood, 194). That he afked the lords fingly how
they would vote, if he, David Rizzto, mould be chofen fpcaker
by the parliament, n^o&^oc can never fignify a lord of the
articles. Buchanan's appellation for thcfe lords in general, the
only time (I believe) that he mentions them, is " Apolefti-*
(Hill, ix, 167). Nor can no>.o? fignify any officer <
except the fpeukcr or prefuleut of an aflcm'oly. The lame in-
terpretation is alfo given, as Mr. Goodall himkif acknow-
Je.dges, in Knot's hiftory of the limes ; who equally with
Buchanan ;
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 75
when the provoft and citizens of Edinborouo-h
came down to the refcue of their Queen, fo outra-
: geoufly infulted by this body of banditti under the
conduct of her hufband; thefe brutal wretches, with
an addition of favagenefs, declared to her face,
that, if flie offered to fpeak to the people, " they
" fhould cut her in collops, and caft her over the
" walls ;" and their brutal captain, concurring in
all their utmoft favagenefs with them, called 5 to
the crowds, and commanded them to retire *.
This is perhaps, when contemplated in ail its va-
rieties of horror, the time, the place, the \vorr^n,
I and the Queen ; fuch a woman, and fuch a
QIJ- n ; the pregnancy, die far-advanced preg-
f. nancy ; the perfons who were the accors, the man
who was the leader, the deed, the mode, and the
language ; beyond any thing that occurs, among
I all the wildtft eruptions of brutality and barbarifn?,.
, in the human hiflory. Yet the forger of this Icrtrr
lad the ftupid effrontery, to make Mary the god
[Buchanan hints at the defign of giving the Chancellorfhip to
>r.vid (i. 272). And it occurs alfo ia Crawford's Memoirs.
David," lays the author, " was likely to be chofen Chan-
" ccllor (Speaker or Prefident) in Morton's ftead/' p. -. The
ft indeed is obvioufly falfe, for the two grand reaions af-
by Mr. Goodall (i. 771), that David was rot naturalized,
I i-.d therefore could not be Chancellor to the kingdom ; and
j hat David did not underftand Scotch, and therefore could not
I : >e Speaker to the parliament. But the" faction circulated the
ic. ^ And all the factious, the Buchanans, the Knoxes, and the
Msfe-rtMt of fedition, with even feme of the honeil and the
} udicious, particularly the worthy and refpeclable author of
ac Memoirs, fwaliowed the lie without confideration.
Keith, 331-532. App. 123. Melvill, 64. and Craw,
lord, ic-
Of
76 VINDICATION OF LET. 1.
of Darnly's idolatry, and to afiert he had no other
thought but on her ; at a time too, when this exe-
crable faft, with all its train of horrible particu-
lars, was yet frefh and lively in the minds of the
whole nation, lie wanted to raifc the character
of the King, and to fink that of the Queen. Me
was therefore compelled to change the whole tc-
nour of hiftory, to caft the two characters anew,
and to give each the other's part in this play of
his. And he thus betrayed the forgery directly to
every mind.
But what fays Dr. Hobertfon to this aft of the
King's ? He fays, as all mankind have ever faid,
and as common fcnfe and common decency muft
for ever fay. " Every circumflance here," he tells
us, " fills us with horror. The place, chofen for
" committing fuch a deed, was the Queen's bed-
" chamber," a clofet within it. " Though Mary
f< was now in the fixth month of her pregnancy,"
near the end of her feventh *, " and though Kiz-
" zio might have been feizcd elfewhere without
" any difficulty, THE KING PITCHED UPON THIS
** PLACE, that he might enjoy the malicious plea-
" fure of reproaching Rizzio with his crimes be-
" fore the Queen's face j-." And he after.
lays in general of the King, that " by his folly and
" ingratitude he loft the heart of a woman, who
" doated on him to diftraftion J." If however Dr.
Robertfon fays true, the letters are the moft im-
pudent of liars. Or, if the letters arc true, the
Doctor muft exchange fituation., with them. Two
'Keith, 33,. fi. 3;^. j i. 4 oo.
fuch
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. JJ
fuch intelligences cannot prefide in one orb of
hiitory. Either the one or the other muft be dif-
lodged from it. The Doctor is undoubtedly true;
and yet, ftrange to tell ! according to the Dcfyr
himfelf, the letters are not falle. The Doctor hirru
iHf ftill confiders them as tme. He formally vin-
dicates their authenticity. He gravely interweaves
them with the thread of his hiftory. And he
founds his accumulated (landers of Mary, in a pe-
culiar manner, upon them. But how is this ? Can
\ light and darknefs blend in the fame fphere ? Can
i the letters be at once convicted of grofs and deli-
berate falihoods in fads, and ftill be authentic in
themfdves? They certainly cannot. The Doctor,
himfelf is compelled to go againft them. And ftill
the Doctor afierts them to be genuine.
YET BK.OTUS is AN HONOURABLE MAN !
(2) In the claufe preceding, "autem" is added
;n Latin, and " car" in French, In the prefent,
c and gif," Scotch, is anfwered by tf quod fi/ 1
Latin ; and que fi," French.
. t (3} " For my refuge," Scotch; fi id per fu-
gium baberem," Latin; and fi \'avoye ce re-
f fuge," French.
(4) " I wald fpeik it to na uther body," Scotch i
ad^neminem alium querelam deferrem? Latin;
nd <f j e ne/c-T-wV ma complaint a autre," French,
r (5) " Keip it in my breift," Scotch; in pec^ore
|! clau -f llm tenere >" Latin ; and k retenir e hfo en
mon cceur/' French.
(6) "Caufes
7 g VI N- DIG ATI ON OP LET. I.
{6) Caufcs me to tyne my wit," Scotch, to
lofc my undemanding * ; " mentem t coo/ilium
mfaiprGrfiis cxcutiat," Latin ; " il m'ofte du tout
Ventmdement et Is confeil" French. And " yat
caiifes me," Scotch ; <c quae res ita me angit, ut/'
I^tin ; and " ce qui tmirmenie telkment, qu'il,"
French. All thcfe paflages concur to prove be-
yond a poffibility of doubt, that the French was
not the original, that the Latin was the original to
ir, and that the Scotch was no tranflafion from
cither. Indeed the fact is fo ftrikingly apparent in
thefe and a thoufand other paflages, that a reflect-
ing mind is amazed at firft, to think the difcovery
was left to Mr. GoodaiJ.
XL " I anfwerit ay unto him, bot that wald be
" ovir lang to wryte at lenth (i). I a(kit quhy he
" wald pas away in ye Inglis fchip (2). He de-
" nyis it, and fweris thairunto (.3) ; bot he grantis.
<c that he fpake with the men (4)."
XI. " Ego Temper ei refpondebam, fed ;
" longvim eflet omnia pcrfcribere (i). Rogavi cum
" cur difcefium adorn aret in ifti nave Anglica(2). 4
" llle id pernegat, adjecto etiam juramento (3);
" fed confeffus eft fe cum Anglis (4) colloquu-
u turn."
XI. " Je lui refpondoye tousjours, mais il fe-
" roit long de tout efcrire (i). Je luy ay demandc
* Sonnet ixth.
" pourquoy
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN- OP SCOTS. ^%
rc pourquoy ils deliberoit s'en aller en ce n*voire
' Anglois (2). Ce qu'il nia, voire avec j ure -
' ment (3) ; mais il a confefTc avoir parle avec
: les Anglois (4)."
(i) This is another proof of forgery. That the
Queen mould repeat all the King's defences of him-
elf, and fhould not repeat her replies to them i
:ontrary to every principle of the human heart
r natural fondnefs for ourfelves, puts us -co n-
tantly upon a conduct the very reverfe <tf all -his
'We fhorten the defences, we lengthen the replies'
>, if we are fair enough to give the full fubfrincJ
the former, we are always partial enough to do~
) by the latter. And we fee this very Queen ad-
; tng accordingly in this very letter; relatino- the-
neflage of apology few her by Darnly's father
ecitmg the addition made to it by the bearer, but
Bhearfing all the fubftantial part of her reply to
::he former, and finally declaring that.ihe Slena-d
; he latter. Yet the forger was obliged to take this
Unnatural coud>, as no other would carry him to
Ms aim. To make the Queen reply to thefe p-r-
knded allegations of Darnly's, mud have been to
tfiite them at^once. ' And he might as well have
%ed them, in the opinion of every man of judg-
cnt ; as he has betrayed the forgery which he
anted to profecute, by not doing it. But he
Pug^, no doubt, as Partridge the almanack-
ker is faid to have fpoken, and as knaves of all '
aes naturally think, that the men of judgment
* to the fools of the world only as one to a L
dred,
^
8o VINDICATION oy L-T. :,
clred, and that, if he could gain thefe, he cared little
about thofr. The event indeed fecms to have
juftified his choice awhile. The almanack-predic-
tions of Partridge retained their credit for years.
The letters of Murray have not yet loft theirs. But
the men of judgment will turn the tide of opinions,
at lad. Partridge has been long confidered as an
impoftor. And Murray is daily haftening to join
him in that (late of obfcurity, where the letters and
the almanacks will repofe upon one fhelf, once thft
favourites of many, and now the contempt of all.
(2) Here a frefh evidence of the forgery
fents itfclf before us. At this time, January 231!,
1567, all defign of pafling away in an Englifti or
any other (hip, had been long laid afide. It was
taken up at lead four or five months before, about
September 26th *. Darnly mentioned it to I*
Croc, the French embafiadour. " He told me,"
fays the embafladour in a letter of October ifth,
" that he had a mind to go beyond fca, in a fort of
" defperation. I faid to him what I thought proper
" at the time, but (till I could not believe that he
" was in earned." But as Lenox informed the
Queen in a letter which (he received on M
* It was after the Queen's departure from Stirling
345); and ihe departed about September the 25*h. " Sh<
" departed ten or twelve days ago," fays a letter of Oftobel
the. 8th (Keith, 348). Lenox alfo came to Stirling " while tlw
" Queen was abfent," ftaid there " two or three day ," wen
back to Glafgow, wrote a letter to the Queen, and (he rcccivei
it " on St. Michael's day" (Keith, 348). She depart-
jcame, thereibre, on the 25th.
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. Si
mas-day, it had been taken up even long before
this time. <c FORMERLY," he fays, " both by let"
<c ters and mejages, and now alfo by communica-
" tion with his fon, he had endeavoured to divert
" him" from it *. Le Croc afterwards fays, in a
poftfcript to his own letter, " now I believe he
" will not go out of the kingdom, though I per-
fc ceive that he ftill entertains fome difpleafure t"
Accordingly, Sir Robert Melvill fays in a letter of
Oct. 22d from London, " fens my departure I
" heir be is ftayit, bot hes not fens come neir the
" Quene J '." And that Le Croc was right in
his belief, and Melvill in his intelligence, time
{hewed. The fhip, which Darnly had in readinefs,
was difmiiTed ; and he ftill continued in Scotland.
But this perverfion of the hiftory was made, for the
purpofe of new-decorating the character of Darnly.
And that infamous pimp to the luft of power in
Murray, Buchanan, was not afraid to venture upon
the fame perverfion, even in hiftory itfelf. " Ibi,"
at Holyrood-houfe, " cum refcitum effet," he fays
in full oppofirion to his own Detection , " Regem
<e convajefcere, ac vim veneni JEtatis vigore et cor-
" poris firmitate naturali fuperatam/' a fact that
happened, as appears from the rebel journal- it-
felf Jl, in the end of January 1567 ; " novum de
<f eo tollendo confilium initur : aliquot etiam e no-
" bilitate in confcientiam fceleris afciti : cum in-
" terea ad regmam delatum effet, Regem de fuga
* f in Galliam aut Hifpaniam cogitare, eaque de re
* Keith, 348. -j- Ibid. 345 -347. } Ibid. 351.
P. 17- I! App. Nx.
VOL. II, G " cum
g2 VINDICATION OF LET. I.
cum Anglis, qui navem in aeftuario Giotto ftan-
" tern habebant, collocutum *." Here the re-
markable coincidence of the letter and the hiftory,
in an impudent distortion of the facts, fliews the
hiftory to have been modelled upon the letter.
Buchanan condefcended to adopt the falfhoods of
another,' though he was himfelf an Original Genius
in lying. He felt his mind impregnated with a
peculiar portion of that fpirit of falfhood, which is
fo largely poffefled by the great " Father of Lies"
and which 'he fo liberally communicates to fome
of his chofen children. And he exerted this fpirit
in his hiftory, as in all probability his equal and
rival in falfhoods had previoufly exerted it in the
letters, not merely for the petty purpofe of accom-
modating either to the other, but with the
view which he uniformly purfued in both f ; that
of abufing Mary, his patronefs and benefaftrefs, of
branding her forehead with the hotteft iron of in-
famy which his underftanding could provide, and of
breaking down all the fences and guards of truth,
in the eagernefs of his knavery againft her.
But Mary herfelf has told us a circumftance
cerning him, that ferves fufficicntly to account fc
his flagitious conduct. " Buchanan," Ihe faid, " i
" KNOWN to be a LEWD MAN and ATHEIST J." 1 Ie
was one of thofe wretched men therefore, who fuf-
fer their pafiions to beguile their underftandings,
'who plunge into fcepticifm to efcape from fcnfibi-
lity, who deftroy the tone of their minds while they
are blunting the force of their feelings, and at lait
* Hift. xviii. 350. f App. N xii. J Goodnll, i. 5i<i
become
CHAP. 1. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. gj
become devoid equally of principle and of fhame,
ready for any fabrication of falihood, and capable
of any operation in villainy *.
(j) This is perhaps a more impudent ftroke of
forgery,, than any which we have hitherto met with.
That the King's defign of going abroad, which was
firft taken up in July or Auguft at leaft, and even
owned in September, fliould be referred by the
hiftory and the letter to the January fucceeding, is
certainly a very bold meafure in impudence. But
it is a greater, Curdy, to make Darnly deny that he
had ever fuch a defign, to make him /wear to the
denial, and to make Mary not reply either" to the
affirmation or to the oath. The King, as I have
already Jhewn, imparted his defign to his father in
Auguft or July before. Formerly, both by let-
* Buchanan does not appear to have ufed much art, in work
ing up the falfhoods, even of his Detedion. He particularly
eems to Kave often taken the' very ready method of a fool's
Ififications, by giving the ads of his patrons to Marv, and
Mary's to his patrons. This is ftrikingly apparent in the ftory
f the propofed divorce at Cragraillar (Anderfon, ii. 13-^14.
and Jebb, i. 241); where the .overture, which was adually
made by Murray and Lethington (Goodall, ii. 3,6321), / s
attributed to Mary; and the very objedion, which Mary her-
felf made to it, is afcribed by this inverter of hiftory to one of
them. ^ See allb Anderfon, i. 14. Defence of Mary. But in
1/20, it feems, another Buchanan appeared at London with
another fet of Mary's letters. Thefe were eleven in number,
ill written to BothweH, and found in his fecretary's clofet fince
.his death (Keith, 367). Yet, as there was no Elizabeth to lend
sr bold fandion to thefe forgeries, they funk at once under
OVV "
from
G z ters
$4 VINDICATION OF LET. I.
" ters and meflfages, and now alfo by commu-
" nication with his fon, he had endeavoured to
"divert him" from it. The King alfo men-
tioned it to the French embafTadour, as I have
equally Ihewn, about the 26th of September,
at Stirling. "He told me there, that he had
" a mind to go beyond fea, in a fort of def-
" peration." YET HE is HERE MADE TO DENY
IT. " Since that time," adds Le Croc, " the
et Earl of Lenox, his father, came to vifit him j
" and he has written a letter to the Queen, figni-
" fying, that it is not in his power to divert bis Jon
" from bis intended voyage, and prays her Ma jefty
" to ufe her intereft therein." YET DAIIVI.Y is
STILL MADE TO DENY THE DESIGN. " This let-
" tcr from the Earl of Lenox," fays Le Croc, "the
" Queen received on Michaelmas- ddy in the morn-
"ingi and that fame evening the King arrived
c here about ten of the clock. When he and the
" Queen were a-bed together, her Majefly took
" occafion to talk to him about the contents of his
" father's letter, and befought him to declare to
" her the ground of his deftgned voyage \ but in
" this he would by no means fatisfy her." YET
DARNLY is STILL MADE TO DENY THE DESIGN.
" Early next morning," Le Croc goes on, " the
" Queen fent for me, and for all the Lords and
" other councilors : as we were all met in their
ce Majefties prefence, the Bilhop of Rofs, by the
" Queen's commandment, declared to the council
" the King's intention to go beyond fea, for ivlicb
fttrpofe bt bad a flip lying ready to Jail ; and that
<l her
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. g
" her Majcfty's information hereof proceeded not
<c from the rumour of the town, but from a letter
cc written to her by his. own father, the Earl of
" Lenox: which letter ivas likewife read in council"
YET THE DARNLY OF THE LETTERS SWEARS HE
HAD NO SUCH PURPOSE. " And thereafter the
" Queen prayed the King to declare, in prefence
" of the lords, and before me, the reafon of hisfro-
" jetted departure-, fince he would not be pleafed
<c to notify the fame to her in private betwixt
" themfelves. She likewife took him by the hand,
" and befought him for God's fake to declare if
" fhe had given him any occafion for this rejolution ;
<c and entreated he might deal plainly, and not
" fpare her. Moreover all the lords likewife faid
" to him, that if there was any fault on their part,
" upon his declaring it, they were ready to reform
" it. And I likewife took the freedom to tell him,
<c that his departure muft certainly affe<5t either his
" own or the Queen's honour j that if the Queen
<c had afforded any ground for it, his declaring the*
" fame would affecT: her Majefty; as on the other
fc hand, if he fhould go away without giving any
Cf caufe for it, this thing could not at all redound
" to his praife." Yet forgery, with all <c the rafh
cc dexterity of wit," reprefents the King as SWEAR-
ING he NEVER MEANT TO GO AWAY. " After
" feveral things of this kind had pafled amongft
<f us, the King at laft declared, that he had no
" ground at all given him for fuch a deliberation ;
" and thereupon he went out of the chamber of
<c prefence, faying to the Queen, Adieu, Madam,
G 3 "you
$6 VINDICATION OF LET. I.
tc you /hall not fee my face for a long/pace; after v
" he likewife bad me farewell ; and next, turning
<c himfelf to the lords in general, faid, Gentlemen,
"Adieu. He is not yet embarked-, but we receive
(( tidvertifement from day to day, that be ftill bdds
" on his refoluticn, and keeps a flip in readimjs"
Yet Mary is defcribed by this ANNIUS of Scot-
land, as ADMITTING his DENIAL of any fuch rc-
folution, WITHOUT OBJECTION and WITHOUT RE-
PLY. And, as Le Croc fubjoins in a poftfcript to
this letter, " during the five or fix days I continued
tc at Lifleburgh," Edinborough, " after the Queen
tf left it," who left it on the yth or 8th, and
reached Jedborough on the 8th or 9th, of Octo-
ber *; " the King, who had gone to Glafgow, ferit
" me "word to come and meet him half way be-
<f tween Lifleburgh and Glafgow. I obeyed him,
" and found his father, the Earl of Lenox, with
" him. We had much communing together, and
ic I remonftrated to him every thing that I could
" think of: and now 1 believe be will not go cut of
" the kingdom ; though I can perceive that he ft ill
" entertains fome difpleafure. I came hither to
" Jedburgh, onpurpofe tofigmfy to the Queen, what
" the King badjpoken unto me, and what I b.
" to bint-\." Yet the Queen is pictured by ti;
ricatura-painter, as fwallowing the OATHS of the
King that he had NEVER formed fuch a rcfolu-
tion, WITHOUT HESITATION and WITHOUT
SWER. But, what aggravates the impudence of all
this, the falfe account of the whole was drawn tv
* Goodall, i. 237, 303, and 308. f Keith, 34^
infe
<IKAP. I. MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 87
inferred in the letters, and publifhed to the Scotch
parliament, to the Englifh commifTioners, and to
the world, at a time when the true was. known to
ib many; when the whole had been Hated in a
letter from Lenox to Mary, had been canyailcd in
converfation betwixt Lenox, Darnly, and Le Croc,
and had even been formally broughj: before the
privy council. And this gives a ruffian air of ef-
frontery to the letters, fuperior to any which the
biftory can bear; the latter not being publifhed till
fome years afterwards, and the former within a few
months only from the real incidents,
(4) The coincidence of the letter and the hiftory
here is remarkable. He grants, fays the former,
* c that he fpake with the men." He, fays tjie lat-
ter, cf ea de re cum Anglis, qui navem in seftu-
* ario Glottse ftantem habebant, collocutum," And
what fhews the Latin tranflation to have been
made by the hand of Buchanan himfelf, (f the
t( men" of the Scotch are rendered " cum Anglis"
by the Latin, and confequently " avec les Ang-
" lois" by the French. Only the hiftorical forger
is not fo impudent, as the epiitplary is. He let
his name to the hiftory, he did not to the letters.
This would pull back the forward fteps, even of
immodefty itfelf. Accordingly Buchanan in his
narrative plainly allows, that the King had formed
a defign of going abroad - f while Lcthington in the
letters makes him deny it, and even to fandion
his denial by oaths.
G 4 Efter
8S VINDICATION OF LET. I.
" Efter this I inquyrit him of the inquifitioun (i)
" of Hiegait (2). He denyit the fame, quhill I
tc Ijphew him the verray wordis was fpokin. At
cc quhilk tyme (3) he faid, that Mynto had advcr-
" tifit him, that it was faid that fum (4) of the
<c counfell had broucht an letter to me to be fub-
" fcrivit, to put him in prefoun, and to (lay him
" gif he maid refiftence (5). And he (6) alkie the
" fame at Mynto himfelf ; quha anfwerit, that he
" belevit ye fame to be trew. The morne (7) I
f will fpeik to him upon this point (8). As to
the reft of Willie Hiegait's, he confeffit it (9),"
ce Poftea rogavi de quseftione (i) Guliclmi (2)
<e Hiegait. Id quoque negavit, donee ipfa, vcrba,
cc quse prolata erant, ei detuliffem. Turn (3) dixit
ef fe certiorem a Minto factum, dici quendam e^
* f concilio literas de fe mittendo in carcerem, ac,
c< nifi pareret (5), occidendo, ad me detulifie ut
<f fubfcriberem : ac fe (6) idem ex ipfo Mynto qua-
" fifTe; eumque refpondifle, fibi vcrum videri. DC
C hoc capite (8) cum eras (/) convcniam. Quod
ad reliqua de Gulielmo Hiegait, ea confcffus
eft ( 9 )/'
{ Apres je 1'ay enquis touchant la difpute ( i ) de
ff Gillaume (2) Hiegait. Ce qu'il a aufli defnir,
c jufques a ce que je luy ay rapporte les IYK
" paroles qu'il avoit proferees. Alors (3) il dir,
" qu'il eftoit adverty par Minto, qu'on difoit,
" qu'un (4) du confeil m'avoit apporte des lettrcs,
" afin
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 89
ff afin de les figner, pour le faire mettre en prifon,
ff voire, s'il n'obeifibit (5), pour le tuer ; et qu'il
<( (6) enquift le femblable de Minto ; qui refpondit,
" que cela luy fembloit vray. De ce chef (8) je
ft luy en parleray demain (7). Quant au rcfte
<c touchant Gillaume Hiegait, il 1'a confefle ^),"
1 i ) The Frenchman, deceived by the ambiguity
of the word " quasftione," rendered it " difpute,"
and fo altered the whole meaning.
(2) " Hiegait," Scotch ; " Gulielmi Hiegait,"
Latin ; tc Gillaume Hiegait," French. " Quoque,"
Latin, and " aufli," French, are added.
(3) "At quhilk tyme," Scotch; "turn," La-
tin j " alors," French.
(4) u Sum," Scotch; " quendam,'* Latin;
c< un," French.
(5) <f Maid refiflence," Scotch; fc nifi pareret,"
Latin ; <c s'il n'obeifibit," French.
(6) And he afkit," Scotch; acfe qujefifle/'
Latin ; ec et qu'il enquift," French.
(7) Mary appears before to have pretendedly
written this part of the letter, the evening after her
arrival at Glafgow, the evening of January 24th,
1567. And Ct the morne" or next day muft mean
Jan. a5th,
(8) " This point," Scotch ; " hoc capite," La-
tin ; " ce chef," French. This Mynto was " Johnc
Stewart, of Mynto, Knycht, proveft of Glaf-
gow,"
O VINDICATION OF LET. I.
gow," and deeply embarked in the rebellion af,
terwards *.
(9) All this tale concerning William Hiegait is
very confufedly told here, and affords us another'
cvidfnce of the forgery. On the 2Oth of January
1567, the day before the Queen fet out for Glaf-
go\Vj flic wrote a letter to her embafladour at Paris.
I have already made good ufe of it in her favour.
But I have ftill more to make. In this letter flic
explains the bufmefs, which is here alluded to,
" A fervand of zouris," ihe fays, " nainit William
" Walcar, came to our prefens, being for the tyme
* f at Sterveling, and declarit to us how it was not
" only oppinly bruted, bot alfua he had hard be
" report of perfonis quhome he efteimit lufferis of
" us, that the King, be the afliftence of fum of our
* l nobility, fuld tak the prince our fone, and crown
<c him; and being crownit, as his fader fuld tak
" upon him the government," the very plan of"
njurpaticn that was afterwards purfued by Murray,
inftead of Darnly j " he [Walcar], being prcffit,
" nominat William Hiegait in Glafguo, alfua zour
" fervand, for his cheif author. Quhairupon we>
" tuke occafion, -with diligence, to fend for 1 Jie-
<c gait, quha being inquirit in our counfell, of his
" communicatioun had with Walcar, he dcnyit,
" als weill apairt as being confronted togidder, that
" evir he talkit with the faid Walcar upon ony fie
" pnrpoflls. Onlie this far he confcflit, th.ir lie
c< hard of a bruit how the King fuld be putt in
* Keith, 437.
<l v.-ardj
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEtf OF SCOTS, OJ
:c ward; and for his author in that poynt, namit a
rf fervand of the Erie of Eglintonis callit Cauld-
" well -, qua being alfua fent for and examinat,
:( expreffitlie denyit that evir he fpak or entrit in
:c fie termis with William Hiegait. This purpois of
tc the bruit of the Kinges warding, wes fchewen be
f Hiegait to the Laird of Mynto, quha agane de-.
{< clarit it to the Erie of Lenox, and be him the King
rc was maid participant thairof: by quhais defyre
" and commandement Hiegait agane (as he alle-
" geit) fpak Cauldwell ." ^This incident appears
to be very different from all the foregoing. It is
recent enough, to have employed the convention
of the King and Queen, at their interview on Jan.
ajd 24th, &c. The date of the letter reciting it*
is only Jan. 2oth before. But then it is fo told'
as Mary could not have told it. She tells it on
Jan. 20th. She is again made to allude to it three
days afterward. Let us compare the allufion and
:he recital together.
The adulterous Mary fays, that Hie enquired of
:he King concerning the inquifition of Hiegait
>efore her council, and that he denied it before
he fpecified the very words that had been fpoken.
But why fhould Mary interrogate Darnly concern-'
ng this inquifition ? He knew nothing of the faff
the mquifition. Nor could Mary want to know
ny thing concerning that. And, as to the oljeff
f the inquifition, all that part of it which alone
could have denied, viz. that he himfelf was
3 take the Prince, crown him, and ufurp all the
* Keith, Pref, viii,
royalty
gi VINDICATION OF LET. I.
royalty as regent to him; this did not appear in
Hie<rait's inquifition at all. It was only in Walcar's
declaration to the Queen herfelf. And the very
words fpoken muft have been Walcar's, not Hie-
gait's. On the mention of thefe, the King exculed
himfelf for having entertained fuch a fcheme, by
the intelligence which he received from Mynto,
of a defign to fend him to prifon, and to put him
to death if he refufed to go. But, by the King's
account, Mynto had apprized him of this reported
defign; be afked Mynto concerning it, and Mynto
told bim he thought the report true ; when in fad
Mynto told it, not to bim, but to \\hfatber Lenox,
when Lenox was the perfon that communicated it
to the King, and when the King afterwards fpoke,
not to Mynto, but to Hiegait, about it. Nor was
this reported defign fuch, as the King is here made
to j-eprefent it, that " fum of the counfcll had
<c broucht ane letter to Mary to be fubfcrivit, to
put him in prefoun, and to flay him gif he maid
" refiftence." It was merely, that the King " fuld
be put in ward." Nor did Mynto declare tnort
to Lenox, nor did Lenox communicate more to the
King, nor did the King fpeak of more to Hiegait.,
And then as to " the reft of Willie Hiegait V
which " he confeffit," it is this very point again,
about fending him to prifon. W r ith fuch wild con-
fufion is this incident alluded to by the adu.
Mary on the 23d of January, though it is very
clearly related by the innocent Mary on the coth
before ! What Walcar faid, is attributed to Hiegait.
Vf hat Lenox faid, is given to Mynio. W!v.i: the
King faid to Hiegait, is addrcffcd to JT
CHAP. I. MARY QJtJEEN OF SCOTS. <5*
great object of all is made very different. And,
as the whole drift of the paragraph is calculated to
exculpate the King, for having embarked in a mea-
fure, fo violent, abfurd, and unnatural, which was
remotely fuggefted in all probability by the very
man, who executed ic afterwards in all its parts,
, and who would foon have wrefled the fcepter out of
the weak hands of fuch an ufurper, when once it
had been wrenched by him out of the Queen's ; fo
k proves the fad by endeavouring to excufe it,
jand, what is infinitely more important, proves to a
demonftration the forgery of the letters, by its con-
ifufed and erroneous flatement of the hiftory.
: bot it was the morne after my cumming (i) or
f c he did it."
cc nee id nifi poflridie quam veneram (i)."
" mais non jufques au jour d'apres mon arrivee
K 0)."
1 ( i ) This is alfo a dafh from the pen of forgery.
This part of the letter pretends to be wrkten the
lay after Mary's arrival at Glafgow, or on Jan.
24> i5 6 7- Hence the letter fpeaks before of what
:he King did " zifter-nicht," and of the converfa-
ion that patted with him before and after fupper.
\nd, as we fhall foon fee, it was written in the
vening or night of this day. The " morne" or
lay efter" her cuming," therefore, muft be the
'-ery day on which fhe was writing. She relates the
difcourfe,
, VINDICATION OF J-ET. I
difcourfe, that took place betwixt her and the King
the evening before, concerning William Hiegait.
About one point in it, flic fays, (he will aik him.
again the next day, Jan. 25th. But concerning
another, flic fays, he did not own this till the day
afterwards. Yet how comes die letter-writer to
call this day " the day after her coming," when it
was that very day on which (he was pretendedly
writing ? From the fame principle, on which we
have feen the very town in which flie was pretend-
cdly writing at the moment, denominated that
town. The mind cannot be kept continually under
the reftraint of* fraud. It will afiert its native free-
dom at times. It will break away from the pre-
fcribed line of ideas. And, imperceptibly to itfelf,
it will throw out fome circumilances, that betray
the bondage in which it is aaing. Mary, writing
of what had been confefled the day of her writing,
would have called it ibis day. Nature could not
have acted otherwife. But Lcthington and art,
putting themfelves in Mary's and Nature's place,
could not fo far diveft themfelves of their own pro-
priety, as to refrain from calling it the day after her
coming. And they difcovered themfelves by thf
aft. '
v.
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. O
S v.
LETTER THE FIRST CONTINUED.
XII." He wald verray fane that I fuld lud^
in his ludgemg ( i ). I refufit it, and faid to him
that he behovit to be purgeit, and that culd not
f be done heir. He faid to me, I heir fay ze have
brocht ane lytter with zow ; hot I had raither
: have paffit with zow (2). I trow he belevit that
I wuld have fend him away prifoner (3). I an ,
rc fwerit that I wuld tak him with me to* Craio~
' millar, quhair the mediciner (4) and I m ic hc
help him, and not be far from my fone,"
XII.- Magnopere cupiebat ut ego in ejus
c hofpitio apud eum diverterem (i). Ego recu-
favi, ac dixi ei opus effe purgatione, nee id hie
fieri potfe. Dixit fe accepiffc, quod letficam me-
cum attiiliffem ; fe vero maluiffe mecnm una pro-
ficifci (2). Credcbat, opinor, quod in carcerern
eum aliquo (3) amandatnra eflem. Ego refpondi,
quod dudura mecum cflem ad Cragmillarium'
et medici (4) et ego pofTemus ei adefTe
I neque longe a meo filio abefTe."
XII. II defiroit fort que j'allafle loger en fon
?1 (0 ; ce que j'ay refufe, luy difant, qu'il
befom de purgation, et que cela ne fe
" pouvoic
g VINDICATION OF LET. I*
pouvoit faire [icy]. II adjoufta, qu'il avoit en-
tendu que j'avoye amene unc litiere, et qu il
mieux ayme aller enfemble avec moy (a). J c
time qu'il penfoit que je le vonluffe envoyer
prifonnier quclquc part (3). Je refpondy, que
fe le meneroye avec moy a Cragmillar, afin que
Rles,medicins ( 4 ).et moy le peufljons fecounr,
et que je m'efloignaffe de mon fils.
(1) Ludge in his ludgeing," Scotch ; in ejus
hofpitio apud eum diverterem," Latin ; loger"
en fon hotel," French, from the corrected La-
tin.
(2) "/heir fay ze have brocht ane litter with
" zo-iVy bot / had rather have paffit with ZGW,"
Scotch ; " Dixit fe accepiffe quod ledicam tnccim
" attuliflem,/t' vero maluifle ;^wwunaproficik-i,".
Latin ; il adjoufta, qu'/7 avoit entendu que/avoy<
amene une litiere, et qu'// euft mieux ayme alle^
enfemble avec may" French.
(3) " Send him away prifoner," Scotch; " in
* e carcerem eum aliquo amandatura cflTem," La::n j
" envoyer prifonnier quel^ue part" French.
(4) tf Mediciner," Scotch ; " medici," ^4
" medicins," French.
cc He anfwerit, that he was rcddy when I pleifit (i))|
" fa I wald aflure him of his requeft,"
" Ille rcfpondit, fe, ubi vellem, paratum c
" mod6 de eo quod peterct fecurum fe facerem/
i
CHAP. I. MARY QJJ ZEN OF SCOTS. 97
< II refpondit, qu'il eftoit preft d'ailer, ou je vou-
" droye (i), pourveu que je le rendiffe certain de
u ce qu'il m'avoit requis."
(i) Here is a fair print from the cloven foot of
forgery. This letter makes the Queen to propofe
Craigmillar the very evening of her arrival, and
: King to exprefs his readinefs to go to Craig^
millar whenever fhe pleafed. But the fecond de-
Jfitions of Paris aflat, that fhe fent Paris from
lafgow to Edinborough in order to confult Both
I and Lethington, "lequell eft meilleur pour
loger le Roy, a Craigmillar, ou a Kirk-a-fieid "
mt fhe charged him to make hafte, becaufe fhe
uU not ftir till he returned with his anfwer,
[ haftez vous de revenir, car je ne bougeray d'ici,
Jiques au temps que m'aures raporte la re-
; ponfc;" and that Lethington and Bothwell re-
rned for anfwer, Kirk-a-field would be a prooer
'lace, fc Kirk-de-field feroit bon * " Thefe two
xounts ftand in direct oppofition to each other
hey therefore ferve, like two contrary
^ ^v/iiLiaiy UUllOns
tually to counteract themfelves. And they are
*h counteracted by the fulleft force of truth
: hornasNelfon, one of Darnly's attendants, was
' m England to fome circumftances concern-
^g the murder of the King. His is' therefore a
7 d JP fltI on. And he aflerts what proves Paris's
1 the letter to be both forgeries. "He wes
actual fervand to the King," he fays, "the tyme
(of his murder, and lang of befoir, and came
* Goodall,ii. 77^78,
V L - "' " with
pS VINDICATION OF LET. I.
with him from Glafgow the time the Quenc con-
" voyed him to Edinburgh. Item, the ck
" remembris it wes dewyfed /;; G//>::', th.
King //</ haif lyne firjt at Craigmillar -, but BE-
" CAUS HE HAD NA WILL THAIROF, tl
" wes altered, and conclufioun taken that he fH
" ly befyde the Kirkrof- field *."
XIII. " He defyris na body to fe him ( i ). He
c< is angrie quhen 1 fpeik of Walcar (2), and
" fayis, that he fall pluk the eiris out of his heac^
<f and that he leis (3). For I inquyrit him upon
" that (4), and y'at he was angrie with fum of the
" Lordis (5), andwald threittin thame. He de f
" nyis that, and fayis he luifis thame all (6), and
" pray is me to give traift to nathing againft him
" (7)-"
XIII. cc Cupiebat ne a quoquam confpiceretur
" (i). Irafcitur quotics ei mentionem Walcarii
" fac'io (2), ac fe dicit, aures ei e capite avulfurum,
" ac mentiri eum ait (3). Nam de hac re eum
<c interrogaram (4), ac deeo quod iratus cflet qui-
c< bufdam procerum (5), atque eis minaretur. Id
tc negat, et ait omnes fibi charos efie (6), ac me
<c rogat ne quid fecus de fe crederem (7)."
XIII." II defiroit de n'eftre vcu de per
<f (i). II fe fafcetoutes les fois que jeluy p
<c Walcar (2), et dit, qu'il luy arrachera les oreilksj
* Goodall, ii. 241 and 244,
CHAP. I. MARY QJUEEN- OF SCOTS. 69
:c de la tefte, et qu'il a menty (3). Car je 1'avoyc
" interroge de ccla (4), et de ce qu'ii s'eftoit cour-
:c rouce centre aucuns des feigneurs (5), et les
" avoit "mcnaflez. Ce qu'il hie, et die qu'il les
<c ?.vme tons (6), et me prie que je ne croye point
" autrement de luy (7)."
(1) "Defyris," Scotch; "cupiebat," Latin;
" defirolt," French; u na body to fe him," Scotch;
" ne a quoquam confpiceretur," Latin ; " de n'eftre
veu de perfonne," French.
(2) This intimation makes the allufion to the
:ory of Walcar arid Hiegait before, more confufed
tan ever. Walcar had faid as from Hiegait, that
y report the King was to crown his fon, and
furp the government in his name. What Walcar
lus faid has been already given to Hiegait, but is
o\v taken from him again, and reflored to its right
wner. And we fhall foon fee a fimilar ftroke of
ontradictorinefs, in another alhiiion to this very
ory.
(3) That Walcar lied, is plainly 'not true. Such
plan had been fuggefted, no doubt, by the arti-
ces of the doubling Murray, to the poor head and
oorer heart of this unhappy King. Mary thought
much of it, as to mention it in her letter
her embafiadour at Paris. And we have a
rong confirmation of the truth of it, which Mary
ad not then ; in the adoption of the very fame
:heme only a few months afterwards by Murray,
id in the full execution of it by him, to the ruin
r Mar> r and her fortunes for ever.
H 2 ( 4 ) That
100 VINDICATION OF LET. I.
(4) That Mary (hould have now afked him con-
cerning this, is utterly incredible upon every fup-
pofition. The King was in a very weak and lan-
guifhing condition. She had flown to him on the
news. She was juil arrived. She had only fupped
fmce her arrival. She was now fitting at the foot
of his bed. And that flie fhould, in thefe circum-
fiances and at this time, hint a fyllable concerning
a reported defign of his in his health, for feizing
the crown from her -, is fo wildly incredible, as to
convict the letter of forgery at once.
(5) This alludes more immediately to what the
Queen notices in her letter of January 2Oth. " Hie-
" gait faid further, as Walcar reportit to us, that
" the King culd not content nor beir with fum of
" the noblemen that war attending in our court, bot
" othir he or thay behovit to leif the famyn * "
But then both refer to what happened on the joth
of September before. " The fame evening," fays
the privy council of Scotland in a formal letter of
October 8th, to the Queen Dowager of France,
"the King came to Edinburgh, but made fonfc'
K difficulty to enter into the palace, by reafon that'
" three or four lords were at that time prefent with'
" the Queen, and peremptorily infifled that they 1
ct might be gone before he would condefcend to:
" come in : which deportment appeared to be abun-
c: dantly unreafonable, fmce they were three of the
" greateft lords of the kingdom," fuppofcd to be
Argyle, Murray, and Rothes f, " and that thofc
" Kings, who by their own birth were fovereigns
* Keith, Prcf. viii. f Goodall, i. 284.
CHAP. T, MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. IOT
of the realm, have never aded in that manner
< towards the nobility. The Queen however re-
: ceived this behaviour as decently as was pofilble,
and condefcended fb far as to go meet the King
c without the palace, and fo conduced him into
her own apartment *." But furely this was not
n incident, that could have engaged a moment's
ttention from both, at fuch an interview as the pre-
ent, and in the fir ft evening of it. If the Queen
ad come with* a real regard for him, fhe could not
ave led moft diftantly to the fubjecl. If fhe had
ome from a pretended one, fhe would not.
(6) That Darnly fhould be made to aflat this,
direct oppofition to the fpeaking fa<5t above; was
le defign in introducing the fubjeft. But then it
>rves, with ajmoft every other circumftance here,
prove the plain fpurioufnefs of the letter, and the
old fraudulence of the writer.
(7) "Give traift to nathing aganis him," Scotch;
ne quid Jecus de fe crederem," Latin ; which,
onneded as it ftands with " ait omnes fibi charos
efle,'' defires Mary not to believe but that they
fe all, as he fays, dear to him. Though this is
pt the fenfe of the Scotch, yet, the Latin being fo,
e French was forced to accommodate itfelf to it,
autrement 4e luy."
As to me, he wald rather give his lyfe or he did
ony difplefure to me (i).
* Keith, 348349.
H 3 XIV.
I02 VINDICATION OF LET. I.
XIV. " And cfter this he fchew me of fa mony.
lytil fiattereis, fa cauldly and fa wyiely (2),
ze will abafce thairat (3). I had almoil (<
(f that he laid, he culd not dout (4) of me
" purpois of Kiegaite'si fcr he vvald never beli
" I, quha was his proper Id do him ony
" evil! j alfvrall it was fclur.s in that I refufit to fub-
" fcrive the fame (5) :"
" Quod ad me atthiet, fe malle de vita di ft
" qu:tm quicquam coaimittere quod me offrnde-j
"ret (i).
XIV. " Ac ppftea tantum minutarnm aduja-:
re tionum tam moderate ac tarn prudenter
" (2), ut tibi res admiration! fit futura (3). Pcne
" oblita eram, quod dixit, in hoc negotio Kicgait
" non poiTe de me quicquam fufpicari (4) ; fe enim
" nunquam crediturum, quod ego, quz propria
" ejus caro eflem, quicquam mali ei facerem : etiam
" fe refcifle, quod ego ei rei fubfcribere reculaf-.
fern (5) :"
" Et quant a ce qui me touche, qu'il aymeroit
" mie-ux monrir, que de faire chofe qui me peuft-
" offenfer (i).
XIV. * c Or apres il m'a ufe de tant de \-
" flatenes, avec tel poids et difcretion (2), que vous
<f en feriez eftonne (3). J'avoye, pen s'en faut,
" oublie ce qu'il dit fur le fait de Hiegait, qu'il ne
" peut fonpconner de moy (4) ; et qu'il ne crqir^
"jamais que moy, qui fuis fa propre chair, luy
a fafle aucun defplaifir ; et qu'il fcavoit bien, que
<c j'avoye refuf<? de ibufcrire a cela (5) :"
(i) Thcfe
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. IOJ
(1) Thefe wild and abfurd attempts to colour
ver the wretched character of Darnly, I have al-
eady noticed with the proper feverity. But, left
>erfeverance (hould attract credit, let me only fub-
oin Le Croc's account of his conduct fo late as
he 2 jd of December before. His bad " deport-
ment," fays this honeft embaffadour, who was
Ifo a kind of confidante to him, ". is incurable ;
nor can there be ever any good expeffed from him y
c for feveral reafons *."
(2) " Cauldly," Scotch, which then meant coolly
and calmly, as Mary's commiffioners fay to Eliza-
beth, "we replyed cauldely and myldlye, without
ony railing j- j" and tranflated accordingly in La-
in, ff moderate j" has, by a mifunderftanding of
ic Latin, been rendered in French " avec poids,"
joitb weight ; as if the French author took his idea
f the Latin word from that paflage in Salluft,
nihil penfi neque moderati habere.'.' " Schew
me of fa mony lytil flattereis." This, fays the
Vl-ifcellaneous Remarker, is a French expreflion,
xcaufe it is fimilar in its ftru6ture to the French
icre, " m'a ufe de tant de petites flateries J." He
night as well have laid that it was a Latin one,
Decaufe it is equally fimilar to the Latin here,
c tantum minutamm adulationum effudit." And
ndeed we know the French to be merely derived
rom the Latin.
(3) I have already fhewn the abfurdity of Mary's^
elating all the exculpatory topicks of Darnly, with-
* Keith, Pref. viii. f Goodall, ii. 218219. J P. 20 21.
H 4 out
104 VINDICATION OF LET. T.'
out any fpecified reply to them. But I now wifli
to urge another point concerning it, as a proof of
forgery. Why fhould Mary relate all thefe to her
adulterer ? Why fhould fhe thus labour to foften
and extenuate the King's conduct in a letter to
Bothwell ? Is this nature, or is this art ? Nature
it certainly is not. No adulterefs was ever fo far
abandoned, as to wifh or allow herfelf to exculpate
her hufband. She would much rather feck for all
occasions to cenfure him, in order to excufe herfelf.
She would be fo far from repeating all his long
defences of himfelf, without recording her anfwers
to them ; that fhe would hardly permit herfelf to
repeat them at all, that fhe would certainly repeat
her anfwer to each defence, and that fhe would give
her anfwer every advantage of force. She would
do this to any correfpondent. But fhe would pe-
culiarly do it to Bothivell. And, even to bim t fhe
had one fpecial reafon for doing it. She is de-
fcribed even in thefe very letters, as jealous of Both-'
well's wife. She is made to mention her jealoufy
over and over again. Then why, in the name of
common lenfe, fhould fhe rehearfe to Both well the
King's long vindications of himfelf, which muft
have fuch a tendency to plant a jealoufy of Darnly.
in him ? She did not do it, in order to counterafl
one jealoufy by another, Had fhe, her behaviour
muft have been more kind to Dandy* and more
diftant to Bothwell. But flie avows, even
very letter, her fulled regard for Bothwell, and her
higheft contempt for Darnly. And fhe therefore
employs herfelf fo laborioufly, in reciting all that
P ;rnlv
I CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. I O f
Darnly fpoke in his own juftifkation, not becaufe
it was natural for her to do fo 5 but becaufe it was
icceflaryto the policy of forgery that Ihe fliould, '
becaufe nature was to be facrifked to art, and be-
caufe the forgers trufted the facrifice would be as h
i has now been for two hundred years, totally un-
| obferved by the world.
(4) Dout,'; Scotch, fufpicari," Latin, f ollp .
Conner," French.
(5) This is the contradiction, to which I referred
|,a few notes before. The point alluded to is called
the purpofc of Hicgait . and yet it is evidently the
information of Mynto. The latter had faid, that
iome of the council were reported to have brought
an order for the Queen's fignature, which was to
Darnly to prifon, &c. And it is now added
gat Mary had refufed to %n the order/ What
'gait had alledgedwas merely this, that it was
reported Darnly was to be fent to prifon. This is
|ch Ihort of the other. This fays nothing of an
hrder actually prefented to Mary for fendin- him
This has no connection, therefore, with Mary's
efufal to fign the order. Yet the two inforrrL
is are confounded. And Mynto's is *iven to
rliegait.
But let us now, at this prefent reference to the
I nquifition before the council, examine all the P? rts
t again 5 left, while we are active in expofin*
ie forgery, we fhould prefs fome points into the
He, that have no concern in it. The real fact is
' we have fhewn before, that Walcar acquainted
Queen with a reported defign in Darnly to de-
throne
JO VINDICATION OF LET. I.
throne her, to crown her fon, and to reign in his
name ; and that Hiegait informed the council of
an equally reported defign in Mary, to fend Darnly
to prifon. By thefe two informations we are to
try the notices in die letter. To which of thefe,
then, does it refer, when it fays, that Mary afked
Darnly concerning the inquifitioun of Hiegait,"
and that " he denyit the fame" till ihe (hewed " the
verray wordis was fpokia ?" By the name of
Hiegait, it fhould refer to the. real information'
given by Hiegait, that it was reported Darnly was
to be fent to prifon. Ye: this it c. >, be-
caufe Darnly denies the allegation, till (he iliewed
him the very words of it. Had it meant the real
information of Hiegait, Mary would net have en-
quired about it, and Darnly would not have denied
it. She is even made to fay afterwards, that ihe
thinks he believed, even on her prc.il in vifit to him,
(lie would fend him to prifon. It means therefore
the information of Wakar, that the King dcfi-ncd
to feize the reins of government, under die appear-
ance of acting as regent to his fon. - And yet the.
letter fpeaks afterwards of " the reft of Willie
Hiegait V* which Darnly " confeifed" t'
afWwanl What did he "confefs" then? The,
f;unc that he. denied before, concerning the plan off
dethroning the Queen? Or the fact, of Iliegait's
communication to Mynto, of 'Mynto's to Lenox,
of Lenox's to the King, and of the King's to llie-
gait ? Yet the latter he has equally denied with the
former. Mynto, he fays, was the per fon who m-
: :<:d him of the ddign. And with Mynto it was
r!uu he calked about it. So thoroughly eonfounded
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
was the letter- writer, by his half-recolkaipn.of this
inquifition, of which we have fo full an account in
Mary's letter ! He little thought of fuch a letter
being preferved, to expofc his ignorance, and to
detect his impofture. But let us go c.n.
The letter-writer makes Mynto inform the King
o a report, that fome of the council had brought aa
order to Mary, for confining the King, and for put-
ting him to death if he refilled the execution of the
order. The King is defcribed as a/king Mynto
.s opinion,- concerning the truth of the report.'
I And Mynto is reprefented as declaring his belief
m the .truth of it. But, fays the aRed $ueen> the
" morne I will fpeik to him upon this point." Yet
before the morne" comes, Mary fpeaks to her
readers upon the point; and only, by a blunder
ather extraordinary in fo fhort a compafs, mifcalls
it Hiegait's for Mynto's. For fhe knows 'immel
diately, and without fpeaking any farther to the
Ktng about it, that he knew Ihe had refufed to 'firm,
the order. And though the next day (as I fhall
foon fhew) fhe writes the remaining half of this
bng letter, yet fhe never fpeaks 'to the point any
we. But I proceed to another circumftance.
Walcar's information, and Mynto's intelligence
both attributed in different places to Hfegtkrj
c Mynto in one place, and Walcar in another,
h their feveral allotments. And then the
'reft of Hiegait's" is noticed, either as different or
t lame j if as the fame, then being moft imperti-
itly noticed -, if as different, then being nothino-
t ali. ~ r v >
So
I08 VINDICATION OF LET. I.
So cohfufedly, and fo contradictorily, are thefe
allufions to the JubjeR of Mary's letter managed by
the forgers ! Confufednefs upon fuch a recent point,
and from fuch a pretended writer, is fufficient of
itfelf to betray the hand of impofture in the whole.
But contradiftorinefs does it ftill more ftrongly.
And, which is what I wifh to remark at the clofe,
thefe intimations concerning an order produced by
fome of the council to Mary, for feizing the perfon
of the King, and' for flaying him if he made refift-
ance > and concerning the King's belief, even at the
very inftant of her really or.prctendedly kind vifit
to him, that flic meant even then to commit him
to ward, fo directly contrary to his own avowal,
ttiat he knew the Queen had already refufed to fign
an order for his committal ; are wholly falfc in
themfelves. The. Queen's letter of January 2oth
is a full proof that they are. She who wrote an
account of Walcar's information and of Hiegait's
intelligence to her embafladour, muft certainly have
written -an account of fuch an order and fuch a
refufal, had they been true. And this concurs with
all to fhew, not merely the artificial, but the awk-
ward and the blundering, fabrication of thefe cvlc-
brated letters.
" but as to ony utheris (i) that wald perfew him,
" at leift he fuld fell his lyfe deir aneuch (2) ; bot
" he fufpeftit na body, nor zit wald not; but wald
" lufe all yat I lufit (3).
XV.
CHAP. I. MARY CLUEEN OF SCOTS. 109
XV. " He wald not let me depart from him,
Ci hot defyrit yat I ftild walk with him (4). I mak.
" (5) it feme that I believe that all is trew, and
" takis heid thairto, 'and excufit myfelf for this
" nicht that I culd not walk (6). He fay is, that
" he (leipis not weil (7)."
" quod fi quis (i) fuam vitam peteret, fafburum
ut fatis magno ei conilaret (2) : fed fibi neminem
" nee fufpedum efle, nee futurum ; fed fe omnes
" dilecturum quos ego diligerem (3).
XV. Nolebat permittere ut a fe difcederem,
" fed cupiebat ut una fecum vigilarem (4). Ego
" fimulabam (5) omnia Videri vera, ac mihi cune
" efle, atque excufavi quod ilia node vigilare non
" poflem (6). Ait fe non bene dormire (7)."
que fi quelqu'un (i) cherchoit a luy ofter la vie,
qu'il feroit en forte qu'elle luy feroit cherement
" vendue (2) ; mais que nul ne luy eftoit, ou feroit,
" fufpeft ; ains qu'il aymeroit tous ceux que i'av-
"rnoye( 3 ).
XV." II ne voulolt point permettre que je
" m'en allafle, mais defiroit que je veillaffc (4)
" avec luy; et je faingnoye (5) que tout cela me
fembloit vray, et que je m'en foucioye beaucoup,
" et en m'excufant que je ne pouvoye veiller pour
<f cefte nuia-la (7), il dit, qu'il ne pouvoit bien
<c dormir( 7 )."
(i) ff Onyutheris," Scotch; "quis," Latin;
Cf quelqu'un," French.
(2) It
IIO VI N D I C AT'ION
(2) It is very obfervablc, in what contradiclions
this negligent letter-writer inv- (elf. The
Kino- n^bw A&wfc. to fell his life dear enough, at
leall* to fucii of the lords as W( .^ing it. Yet,
a very little before, he denies that
them and avers that he loves them all. So con-
tradiftory, in the compafs of a few minutes, is the
Darnly of the forgers ! The denial is put into h
mouth, to raife his character for good-nature. The
threat is put in, to enhance his reputation for
bravery. And both are to be exalted, at the ex-
pence of confidence. " At leift," Scotch, is omit-
ted by the Latin and the French.
(3) As a proof of this, that comes neareft to the
date of the prefent letter ; let me produce once more
the Queen's own letter of January 2Oth. Her au-
thority is at leaf as good as his. But in reality it
is much better. She puts her name to what (he
fays. And even Lethington did not dare to put it
to what Darnly fays. " For the King our hulband,
" God knawis alwayis our part towards him ; and
his behaviour and thankfulneis to us is fembUble-
ment well knawin to God and the warld ; f
" lie our awin indifferent iubje^lis feis it, and in
" thair hartis, we doubt not, condemnis the !
" Alwayis we perfave him occnpeit and biffy arvnich
" to haif inquifitioun of our doyngis, quhilkis, God
<c willing, fall ay be fie as nane fall haif occafioun
c to be offendit with thame, or to report of us any
" wayis bot honorably j howfoever he, his father,
<f and thair fautoris, fpeik, quhilkis we knaw want
- na gude will to mak us haif ado, gif thair power
10
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
" were equivalent to thair myndis. But God mo-
deratis thair forces well aneuch, and takis the
ff moyenefexecutioun of thair pretenfis fra thame -
for, as we believe, the'y fall find nane, or verray
f few, approveris of thair counfalis and devyfis
f imaginit to our difplefor or miflykmg *." Let
me alfo repeat what I have faid before in other
words, that this letter, however Dr. Robertfon
has mifreprefented it, gives us the pidure of a foul
elmg but firm, touched but not provoked, look-
ing down from its dignity with concern upon the
injuries that it had received, and looking up from
its innocence to GOD againfl the injuries that it
'knew to be meditated. And this pidure beincr
drawn undefignedly by the hand of Mary herfelf
und at a very critical minute of her life it thence
becomes the more valuable.
(4) " Walk," Scotch, meaning to wake It
chance oft to the infirmities of man," Ninian
Wmgate fays in 1562, -that he fall on flepe
^ quhen he fuld craft [chiefly] tffcfc ; ^ ze
ie of zour
(5) "I mak," Scotch 5 fimulabam," Latin -
and"jdfaingnoye/ J French.
(6) This is the night of her arrival, January - 7 -
n which fhe very naturally excufed herfelf from -'
g "P late with him, becaufe Hie was tired with her
journey.
* Keith, Pref.viii. f Ibid. App. 2C 6.
(7) The
Iia VINDICATION OF LET. I.
(7) The turn of the French muft have arifen, I
fuppofe, from fome miftake in or concerning the
coi-refted Latin.
Ze (i) faw him never better, nor fpeik mair
" humbler. And gif I had not ane prufe of his
" hart of waxe, and yat myne wer [not] of ane
" dyamont (2), quhairintill na'fchot can mak brek,
" bot that quhilk cummis furth of zour hand, 1 wald
" have almaift had pietie of him. Bot feir not, the
" place fall hald unto the deith. Remember, in
" recompence thairof (3), that ze fuffer not zouris
" to be wyn be that fals race that will travell no
< les with zow for the fame (4).
XVI. " J beleve thay have bene at fchoullis
<f togidder. He hes ever the tcir in his eye ; he
cc falutis every body, zea, unto the Icift, and makis
" pieteous carefling unto thame, to mak theme
" have pietie on him (5). This day his father
" bled"
< Nunquam vidi ( I ) eum melius habere, aut loqui
" humilius. Ac nifi experimento didicificm, quam
" effet ejus cor cereum, meum adamantinum (2),
" et quale nullum telum penetrare poflet, nifi quod
<f e tua manu veniat, prope erat ut ejus miicrta
* f fuiflem : fed ne time, prasfidium ad mortem
" ufque cuftodietur. Tu vide (3), ne tuum capi
" finas
PHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. Jlj
c fmas a gente ilia perfida, quas non minore con
{ ' tentione tecum de hoc ipfo aget (4).
XVI. "Arbitror in eadem fchola dodo's fu-
Y iflfc. Ifte femper in oculis habet lachrymam j
t falutat omnes, etiam ufque ad infimos, et miferis
{; modis eos ambit, ut ad fui mifericordiam eos per-
i ducat (5). Hodie patri ejus fanguis e naribus"
f Je (i) ne 1'ay jamais veu mieux porter, ne parler
j fi doucement; et fi je n'euffe appris par 1'expe-
t rience^ combien il avoit le coeur mol comme cir,
letle mien eftredur comme diamant (2), et lequel
Inul trait ne pouvoit percer, fmon defchoche de
Ivoftre main, peu s'eh euft fallu que je n'eufTe eu'
Ipitie de luy : toutesfois ne craignez point, cefte
iforterefle fera confervee jufques a la mort mais
Ivous regardez (3) que ne laiffiez furprendre la
Ivoftre, par cefte nation infidele, qui avec non
inomdre opiniatrete debatra le mefme avec vous
l'4).
^XVI. J'eftime qu'ils ont efte enfeignez en
f nefme efcole. Ceftui-cy a tousjours la larme a
f 'ceil; il faliie toute le monde, voire jufques au
t >lus petits, et les flate d'une facon pitoyable,
*.fin qu'il les ameine jufques d'avoir companion
1 e luy (5)."
; i) " Ze faw," Scotch; " vidi," Latin j ff je
rf eu," French.
' .2) <c Not," Scotch, omitted in Latin and
|nnch, and, as the fenfe fhevvs, inferted in the
Sccch by fome miftake of the prefs.
VOL. II. I ( 3 ) In
n ^ VI N DIC ATI ON OF LET. U
(3) " In recompence thairof," Scotch, omitted
in the Latin and French.
(4) Meaning Bothwell's wife.
(5) This affords us a very extraordinary evi-
dence of the forgery, in a plain and palpable con-
tradiction. An author, who writes from a let of
imaginary ideas, and has therefore no real arche-
type's in nature to direft him, is almoft fure to fall
into contradictions. The prefrnt is a very great
one. Darnly at this very time kept his bed.
had done fp for fome time paft. He was particu-
larly in bed during all this convention. " I cum,
fays Mary herfelf foon afterwards, " na neirer unto
" him, bot in ane chyre at the bed-feit, and he be-
" ing at the other end thairof." And, as me fays
onlya little before, " he defyris nabody to fc him."
Yet here we are told, that " he falutis every body,
" zea, unto the leift, and makis picteous careffing
< unto thame, to mak thame have pietie on him."
He, who fees nobody, is fainting every body;
tout le monde," fays the Frenchman. He fz
Kites even the very loweft of the people. He
makes piteous Carefiings to all orders of life at
Glafgow from the upper end of his b&d. And he,
who defines to fee no one, who has feen none fince
the Queen came, even now has had a grand
COUCHE'E, and has been praftifing all the hurra
lities of politeneft to die crowds about him.
CHAP. Ii MARY QJJEEN OF SfcOTS. tl
*' at the mouth and nofe ; ges quhat prefage that
4< is (i). I have not zit fene him, he keipis his
" chalmer (2). The King defyris that I fald give
" him meit with my awin handis (3) j hot gif na
tf mair traift quhatr ze ar (4), than I fall do heir
" (5)-
XVII." This is my firft'jornay (6) : I fall end
n the fame ye morne (7)."
cc et ore fluxit , tu conjice quale id fit prsefagium
" (i). Nondum eum vidi, continet enim fe in
" cubiculo (2). Rex pofcit ut meis manibus fibi
tc tradam cibum (3) ; fed tu nihilo magis ifthic
" fis crediturus (4)5 quam ego hk ero (5).
XVII. ft Haec eft mea primi diei expeditio (6),
" tandem eras finiam (7)." ^ v .^
" Aujourdhuy le fang eft forty du nez et de Id
" bouche a fon pere 5 vous done devinez mainte*
a nant quel eft ce prefage (i). Je ne 1'ay point
" encor veu, car il fe tient en fa chambre (2). Le
" Roy me requiert que je luy donne a manger de
" mes mains (3) ; or vous n'en croyez pas par dela
" rien d'avantage (4), pendant que je fuis icy (5).
XVII. Voyla j'ay defpeche pour mon pre-*
" mier jour (6), efperant achever demain le reft
(C f-,}
(.7 )-
la i Thia
ti(j VINDICATION OF LET. r.
(1) This is the firft hint about the murder.
And a moft dark one it is. Yet it is fmgled our
in a ihort abftrad of the letter, by the bufy appre-
henfivenefs of the commiflioners of England, as a
very particular one *.
(2) This is a falfe facT, and fo proves the for-
gery. All the intimations here concerning Lenox,
imply him to have been ill, and to have therefore
kept his chamber. Yet the prefent Mary has al-
ready informed us, that this very day Lenox fent
a gentleman to her four miles before (he reached
Glafgow, to pay his refpefts of duty to her, and
to excufe his non attendance upon her in peribn,
not becaufe he was fick, but " be reflbun he durft
" not interpryje tbejame y becaufe of the rude wordis
" that I had fpokin to Cuninghame." He v.-.is
therefore not Cck that afternoon. Yet tbt
evening of that afternoon he is here reprefcnted as
fick. And, what pins down the point decifively,
the very gentleman, who came from Lenox to the
Queen, afterwards dcpofed in England, that " the
" faid Erie durfl not then, for difpleafure of the
* f ghiene, come abroad f." So thoroughly does this
agree with the former part of the letter ! And fo
compleatly are both in oppofition to the prefent !
But let me make another obfervation upon this
part of the letter. I have already (hewn the forger
of the letter to have confounded his underftanding
by the indiftinftnefs of his memory, to have taken
incidents that happened in the April of 1566, and
* Appendix, N ri. f Goodall, ii. 246.
HAP. I. MARY QJJ E E N OF SCOTS. I 17
to have fixed them in or about January 1567.
And the prefent pafTage in the letter corroborates
what I have faid. In April 1566 this very con-
tradiction was realized. Then Lenox actually ex-
cufed himfelf from attendance at Edinborough, firft
becaufe he was lick, and then becaufe " he durft
" not enterprize the fame *."
(3) This .was a very pretty office for the Queen.
It fhews the regard of Darnly for her extremely.
Her Majefty was to become nurfe to his father.
Yet " he wald rather give his lyfe or he did ony
" difplefure to her." And he had been feverely
" punilhit for making his God of her, and for
* having na uther thocht bot on her." So' much
at odds are the parts of this letter ! Yet the Queen's
refufal to do this menial office to one of her Earls,
of attending him in his chamber of ficknefs, and
" giving him meit with her awin handis," was moft
injudicioufly intended to injure her character with
the reader. " Thefe cocknies," faid Conde, make
" me to think and fpeak, juft as they would think
" and fpeak in the fame fituations." And, in the
fottifhnefs of forgery, a Lethington became a mere
cockney !
(4) Meaning ftill Both well's wife,
(5) The French has rrmde a great blunder here,
miftaking the fenfe of the Latin, < f quam ego hie
I" ero," confidering it to mean as long as I Jhall be
fare, and therefore rendering the claufe fc pendant
' f que je fuis icy."
* Anderfon, i. 52^53, ^nd ii. 106 107.
I 3 (6) This
j3 VINDICATION OF LET. I*.
(6) TKis paffage is a memorable one. It was
one of thofe, which firft detected the vain preten-
tious of the French to originality *. And it is very
aftonilhing, how Buchanan could mifs the meaning
of fo eafy a word, familiar as it ftill is in all the
diftant extremities of the ifland, and hedged and
fenced in as it is by the context. It (hews him to
have been very carelefs in making the verfion.
(7) The paffage before {hews this part of the
letter to have been written Jan. 24th, the day after
the Queen's arrival. And the prefent paffage in-
timates, that the letter was to be tinifhed on Jan.
15th,
I wryte all things, howbeit thay be of ly till wecht,
to the end that ze may tak the bcft of all to
"judge upon (i). I am in doing of ane work
heir (2) that I bait (3) greitly (4). Have ze
* c not defyre to lauch (5) to fe me lie fa wcill, at
* f ye leift to difTembill fa weill, and to tell him (6)
<{ treuth betwix handis (7) ?"
'< Omnia fcribo, etfi non funt magni ponderis, ut tu
* f optima fcligendo judicium facias (i). Ego in
" negotio (2) mihi maxime (4) ingrato (3) vcrlor,
* f Nunquid fubit cupiditas ridendi (5), videndo me
tl tarn bene mentiri, faltem diflimnlare tarn bene,
** ac (6) interim vera dicere (7) r"
Goodall, i. 93,
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 119
" Je vous efcry toutes chofes, encor qu'elles foient
" de peu d'importance, afin qu'en eflifant ks meil-
" leures, vous en faffies jugement (i). Je fuis
t( occupee en une affaire (2) qui m'eft infiniement
" (4) defagreable (3). Ne vons prent-il pas envie de
f< rire (5), de me voir ainfi bien mentir, au moms
" de fi bien diflimuler (6), en difant verite(7) ?"
(i) This is the apology made by the writer,
for inferting fo long an account of what the King
faid to the Queen. Bothwell was to felect what he
thought the principal ftrokes in the King's fpeech,
-and to judge from them with regard to his future
proceedings. But, not to dwell on the abfurdity
.of her not fele&ing them herfelf, what were the
ftrokes, principal or fubordinate, that could lead
him to form any judgment concerning the murder?
For the future proceedings muft relate to the mur-
der only. Could the difcourfe concerning the letter
lead him ? Could the hint of her fenfivenefs ?
Could the King's declaring, that he would leave
her all he had, that fhe was cruel to him, that fhe
refufed to accept his repentance, and that his re-
gret for this had given him his diforder ? None of
thefe circumftances, furely, could either have re-
tarded or haftened the murder ? Let us go on then,
and fee if we can find any other that could. Could
the King's confeflion afterwards, his petition for
pardon, his promife of amendment, and his avowal
of his former idolatry for Mary ? Or could his an-
iwer concerning the Englifh fhip, concerning Hie-
gait, Mynto, and Walcar, concerning his defire
I 4 to
I2O VINDICATION OF LET. I.
to deep with the Queen, her refufal to let him,
and hi*s readinefs to attend her to Craigmillar ?
Could his defire to fee no one, his declaration oflove
for all the lords, his exprefiions of peculiar regard
for Mary, his flatteries to her, her fo fully exprefTed
attachment to Bothwell in fpite of all, and his ge-
neral courtefy and humility to all the world ? Cer-
tainly they could not. They could not feparately.
They could not collectively. They could not even
ferve as lights, to regulate the proceedings of
Bothwell in preparing for the murder. The mur-
der indeed was already determined. " Ibi," at
Holyrood-houfe, " cum refcitum efiet," fays Bu-
chanan, " Regem convalefcere, ac vim veneni seta.
<c tis vigore et corporis firmitate natural! fuperatam,
*' novum de eo tollendo confilium initur ; con-
" fulunt omnes feftinandum, antequam plane con-
" valefceret *." And accordingly the commifiionen
at York, from the fuggeftions of Murray and his
fellows, and as a proof of the Queen's " procure-
" ment and confcnt to the murder of her faid huf-
ft band," fay fhe appears in this letter to have
" toke her journey from Edenburghe to Glafco,
" to vifit him being theare fick, and purpofely of
" intent to bringe him with her to Edenburghe f."
It was therefore determined, according to the rebels
themfelves, and according to their own comments
upon this very letter, to murder the King at Edin-
borough. What influence then could any
the many particulars in the King's converfatioa
-have, towards regulating the mode of the murder ?
* Hid. xviii. 350. t Appendix, N vi.
-CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
None at all, certainly. And the apology for this
long rehearfal is as abfurd, as the rehearfal itfelf Is
unnatural.
(2) Heir," Scotch, omitted in the Latin and
French.
(3) Here the author has thrown a flight touch of
remorfe into the eharafter of Mary. This is more
judicious, than any other part which I have yet
obferved of his management. And Milton, even
in defcribing the great author of wickednds in the
I univerfe, fays ;
Cruel his eye, but caft
Signs of remorfe and paffion, to behold
the nature of his crime in its confequences.
(4) Behold the gradation, in which the two
tranflations fucceffively " out-ftep the motfefty" of
the original. Greitly," Scotch, is "maxime,"
Latin, and " infiniement," French. It fhews the
I tendency, which all mankind have to exaggerate.
(5) This is very unnatural. Mary was the mo-
ment before under lively compunctions of remorfe.
She is now laughing at her own clevernefs of de-
ceit. The tranfition is much too quick and fudden
for nature. She could not have patted from the
one to the other at a ftep. There mutt have been
fome intermediate fteps between them. And the
want of thefe fhews the workmanship of a man,
writing concerning a remorfe which he never felt,
>and therefore capable of paffing from remorfe to
triumph in an inftanf,
(6) Him,"
J22 VINDICATION OF LET. I.
(6) " Him," Scotch, omitted in Latin and
French.
(7) That Mary was a profeflcd diflembler, is
what the rebels have repeatedly endeavoured to
fuggeft. But nothing could be more oppofite to
-her real character. A frank and open heart, like
her's, can never praftiie difiimulation habitually.
It is indeed the very game and quarry, at which
diiCmulation is ever (hooting. And Mary was,
throughout her whole life, a dupe to her own ho-
nefty, and a fuflferer from the dilTimulation of
others. Accordingly Darnly himfclf, in one of his
mod excentric follies of extravagance, in his con-
fpiracy with Morton &c. for murdering Rizzio
and ufurping the crown, when " they laid they
< feared all was but craft and policy," on fome
propofals from the Queen after the murder, " the
" King would not credit the fame, and faid, That
" SHE WAS A TRUE PRINCESS, and HE WOULD SET
" HIS LIFE FOR WHAT SHE PROMISED V*
Cf Betwix handis," Scotch; "interim," Latin;
omitted in French. " It is not eafy," fays Mr.
Goodall f, " to exprefs in Latin the meaning of
4t the words betwixt bands. Buchanan's word in-
" terim not only falls fhort, but makes his Latin
" fentence ftand, as it were, at variance with itiVlf:
<c which the Frenchman obferving, he omitted it
* e altogether." Buchanan fhould have translated
* Ruthven's owif account of the murder, Keith, App. 128.
t *$<
the
CHAP. I. MARY QJTEEN OF SCOTS. 123
the words by fubinde. This would have met the
meaning compleatly. But it is of more confe-
quence to remark, that the occurrence of fuch an
idiom as this in the Scotch, which is indubitably
Scotch in itfelf, and has even nothing parallel to it
either in Latin or in French, is a ftrong proof for
the originality of the Scotch. Proverbial modes ot
exprefiion like this, are fome of the fureft figns of
an original. They enter not into translations. They
are only the effufions of a mind, not converfing
with foreign idioms at the moment, but expatiat-
ing in its native language, and throwing out its
. ideas in the freedom of popular and colloquial dic-
: tion. And we have another idiom of the fame na-
ture hereafter *, 'which even Buchanan, though a
Scotchman, underftood flill lefs than this ; both of
them being merely forms of fpeech, appropriated to
the familiarities of common life.
<c He fchawit me almaift all ( i ) yat is in the name
/' of the Bifchop and Sudderland (2), and zit I
(( have never twichit ane word (3) of that zc
w fchawit me; but allanerly be force, flattering,
" and to pray him (4) to affure himfelf of me (5).
" And be pleinzeing on the Bifhop, I have drawin.
<f it all out of him : ze have hard the reft (6).
XVIII. " We ar couplit with twa fals races ;
(( the devil finder us, and God knit us togidder for
* SeV xxij.
" ever,
1*4 VINDICATION OF LET. I,
" ever, for the maift faithfull coupill that ever he
" unitit. This is my faith, I will die in it."
" Omnia (i) mihi aperuit fub nominibus Epifcopi
<f et Sutherlandi (2), nee tamen adhuc collocuta
*' fum,autverbo attigi (3), quicquam eorum quas tu
" mihi declarafti ; fed tantum vi adulationum et
-" precum (4) ago, ut a me fit fecurus (5) : et con-
" querendo de Epifcopo, omnia de eo expifcata
t( fum : csetera audifti (6).
XVIII. " Nos fumus conjunfti cum duobus
" infidis hominum generibus : diabolus nos fejun- 1
"gat, ac nos conjungat Deus in perpetuum, utj
" fimus fidifiimum par quod unquam junctum eft.!
" Hsec mea fides eft, in ea volo mori."
" II 1 m'a tout ( i ) defcouvert foubs le nom de
" 1'Evefque et de Sutherland (2) ; et toutesfois je
" ne luy ay encor parle, ny dit un feul mot (3), de
" ce que vous m'avez declare ; ains feulement je leij
" pourfuy par force de flateries et prieres (4), afin
c< qu'il s'afleure de moy (5). Et me plaignant de
<c 1'Evefque, j'ay fceu toutes chofes de luy, et en-
tendulerefte(6).
XVIII. " Nous fommes conjoints avec deuxij
<c efpeces d'hommes infideles ; le diable noustj
" vueille feparer, et que Dieu nous conjoingne a jaJ
*' mais, a ce que foyons deux perfonnes tres-fidele. j
" fi jamais autres ont efte conjointes cnfcmble,
Voila ma foy, et veux mourir en icelle,"
CHAP I. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
(1) Almaift all," Scotch 5 omnia," Latin ;
** tout," French.
(2) This alludes, I fuppofe, to fome quarrel
between Robert Stewart, bifhop of Caithnefs, and
uncle to the King, and the Earl of Sutherland, who
married his fifter *. But we know nothing of the
quarrel. Had any record conveyed us an account
of it, I doubt not but we fhould have found fome
falfe hint concerning it here, to have expofed
the forgery.
(3) " Never twichit ane word," Scotch ; ff nee
" adhuc collocuta fum, aut verbo attigi," Latin ;
ne ay encor parle, ny dit un feul mot," French.'
(The wordinefs and languor of the Latin and French
is generally very obfervable, in comparifon with
the Scotch.
(4) << Allanerly be force, flattering, and to pray
him," Scotch, words that mean merely this, only
fneceffity, to flatter him, and to pray him, have been
(Irangely mifunderftood by the Latin, and have
therefore been thus rendered by it, and its fhadow,
he French, " vi adulationum et precum," and
f par force de flateries et prieres." And the Mif-
:ellaneous Remarker very gravely informs us thus :
f Beforce, flattering, this is very remarkable ; the
French were wont to ufe the word force as an ad-
f jeftive ; hence, par force flaterie means by muck
flattering f." Even in this very inftance, the
fordforct is ufed, not as an adjective, but as a fub-
* Keith, 205. f p. .
ftantive.
VINDICATION OF LET. I.
ftantive. So unfortunate is the author in his re-
marks ! The French formerly faid " par force dt
* flaterie." This the French tranflation of the
prefent paflagc fhews. They now fay, par force
flaterie," without the de. But the word force is
equally a fubftantive in both, whatever the French
dictionaries, and the Mifcellancous Remarker may
unite to fay to the contrary. And, even if it was
not, how can the words " beforce, flattering," run
into " par force flaterie ?" Authors, before they write,
Jhould think.
(5) How foon is the fcene fluffed here ! This
is not nature, but a play. This very evening " he
" was fa glaid to fe her that he belevit to die for
glaidnefs." This very evening alfo, he has de-
clared he has been " making his God of her, and
having na uther thocht bot of her." Yet he
foon fcems to believe, that " Ihe wald have fend
" him away prefonner." But he inftantly recovers
himfelf, and " wald rather give his lyfe or he did
" ony difplefure to her." And yet, after all, fhe is
obliged to flatter him, and to pray him to be af-
fured of her. " One of nature's journeymen"
might give this reprefentation. Nature herfelf
could not.
(6) " Ze have hard," Scotch ; " audifti,"
Latin ; " et entendu," French, blunderingly.
CHAP. I. MARY QJ7EEN OT SCOTS. 1 27
XIX." Excufe I wryte evill, ze may ges ye
' half of it (i) : bot I cannot mend it, becaus I
am not weil at eis (2)- and zit verray glaid to
" wryte unto zow quhen the reft are fleipand (3),
fen I cannot fleip as they do, and as I wa ld
" defyre,-that is, in zour armes, my deir lufe,
f quhom I pray God to preferve from all evill'
" and fend zow repois (4) : I am gangand to feik
^ myne till the morne, quhen I fall end my Bybill
1 (s) ;"
XIX.- Excufa quod male pingam, dimidium
" te oportet divinare (i) , fed ego ei rei mederi
" non poflum, non enim optime valeo( 2 ) ; et tamen
" magna fruor Isetitia fcribendo ad te cum alii
" dormiant (3) ; quando ego dormire non pofTum
ut ilh faciunt, nee ut ego vellem, hoc eft, in tub
amplexu, mi care amice, a quo precor Deum ut
omnia mala avertat, et quietem mittat (4). go
" eo ut meam qnietem inveniam in craftinum, ut
turn mea Biblia (5) finiamj"
XIX." Excufez moy que j'efcry mal, il faudra
que vous en deviniez la moytie (i) : ma i s j e ne
puis remedier a cela, car je ne fuis pas a mon "
:c aife (2) s et neantmoins j'ay une grand joye
^ en vous efcrivant pendant que les autres dor-
lent (f)> puis que de ma part je ne puis dormic
comme eux, ny ainfi que je voudroye, c'eft a dire,
" entre le bras de mon tres cher amy, du quel, je
" prie Dieu, qu'il vueille deftourner tout mal/ et
* luy donner bon fucces ( 4 ) : je m'en vay pour
" trouver
12 g VINDICATION OF LET. t
cc trbuver mon repos jufques au lendemain, afin
que je finifie ici ma Bible (5);"
(1) This is artfully thrown in, to account for
the badnefs of the writing, fo different from Mary's
ufual penmanfhip. <c Her hand-writing," fays Mr.
Goodall, " was formed after what is commonly
<c called italic print, which it much refembled both
fc in beauty and regularity, and not to be eafily imi-
" tated but by a fine writer *." It had not been
well imitated, as is plain from this infinuation. And,
that it had not, is confirmed by the fteady refufal of
Elizabeth and her coadjutors in villainy, to let the
originals be feen by Mary, or by Mary's commif-
fioners.
(2) Why was flic not well at eafe ? From the
adultery? But this had been long carried on, ac-
cording to the rebels. From the projected mur-
der ? But this alfo, according to the rebels, had
been projected before. This very diforder of the
King's, fays Buchanan, proceeded from poifon com-
municated to him by the Queen. Why then was
fhe ill at eafe ?
(3) This fliews the prefent part of the letter
to be pretendedly written in die night, and late in
the night, of January 24th.
(4) This wild mixture of religion with adultery
and. murder, carries a very ftrange and unnatural
appearance with it. The human mind has been
fometimes fo overborne by the fanaticifm of reli-
gion or of liberty, as to reconcile itfelf to great
* i. 79-
enormities,
CfcAP* t. MARY QJtfEIft OF SCOTS.
enormities, and to fuppofe affaflination, regicide,
and maflacre, acceptable facrifices at the fhrine of"
God. But adultery is one of thofe crimes, which,
in Chriflendom at leaft, have never been fuppofed
: to be even tolerated by religion. And yet Mary
is moft extravagantly reprefented, as plunged in
adultery, even full of a projected murder, and ftill
; praying to God to preferve" her partner in mur-
der and adultery " from all evill, and fend him
ce repois." The Frenchman, miftaking the mean-
ing of the Latin quietem," tfanflates it bon
:j" fucces."
(5) This ftrange miftake, which began firftfrom
a falfe print or falfe writing in the Scotch, and has
been copied without reflection by the Latin and
Wench, v/as one, and the moft famous one, of Mr.
cGoodall's decifive arguments againft the originality
pf the French *. And it is hardly worth obfervino-,
pat the Mifcellaneous Remarker fuppofes the ori-
l^inal word to have been French, in direct oppofi-
:ion to his own confeffion the very page before ;
vhich fays, Mr. Goodall has proved, beyond
c poffibility of cavil, that the firft letter, as we
< now have it, was tranflated into French from the
c Latin copy f." Yet he fuppofes the word to have
)een mon Mil, in colloquial Englifh, my chat - y an
xprefTion, that would be as abfurd in itfelf, as im-
|i >ertinent to the purpofc. It is her hufband's chat,
ji iOt her's. Balil alfo then fignified, as it ftill does,
Ipmething worfe than chat, imprudent or exceffive
* '^ 8>-88. t P. 34-35.
VojL.II, K ta ik s
VINDICATION OF LET. I.
talk; Mary herfelf faying in 5th letter, il en a
babille," for be has blabbed the Jeer et. And, as
we now know the word for certain to have been
originally a SCOTCH one, fo we know the letter to
be exprefsly denominated a BYLLB by the very
iranufacturers of it *.
bot I am fafchit that it ftoppis me to write newis
" of myfelf unto zow, becaufe it is fa lang (i).
Advertife me quhat ze have deliberat to do in die
mater ze knaw upon this point (2), to ye end
that we may underftandis utheris weill, that na-
thing thairthrow be fpilt (3).
XX." I am irkit (4), and ganging to (leip
(5) ; and zit I ceis not to fcrible all this paper in
fa trickle as reftis thairof (6). Waryit mot this
pokifche man be (7), that caufes me haif fa
" mekle pane, for without him I fuld have an far .
plefander (8) fubject to difcourfe upon."
" fed angor quod ea me a fcribendo de me ipfa ad
" te impediat, quia tam diu eft (i). Fac me cer-
" tiorem, quid de re quam nofti decreveris (d), ut
" alter alterum intelligamus, ne quid ob id fecu*
" fiat (3).
XX." Ego nudata (4) fum, ac dormitum eo
" (5) i nee tamen me continere pofium, quo minus
So in Buchanani Epiftolz, p. 10. Ruddiman, " fa lang
ane lettre" is called immediattly aftenvards ' this bill."
c (6) quod
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEN Of SCOTS. I^f
(6) quod reftat charts deformiter confcriberem.
Male fit ifti variolato (7), qui me tot laborious
" exercet ; nam abfque eo effet ut materiam multo
" elegantiorem (8) ad diflerendum haberem."
< f mais je fuis fachee que ce repos m'empefche de
: vous efcrire de mon fait, par ce qu'il dure tant ( i ).
Faites moy fc.avoir ce que vous avez delibere de
" faire touchant ce que fcavez (2), afin que nous
" nous entendions Tun 1'autre, et que rien ne fe
" falfe autrement (3).
XX. Je fuis tout nue (4), et m'en vay
" coucher (5) ; et neantmoins je ne me puis tenir
" que je ne barbouille encor bien mal, ce qui me
refte de papier (6). Maudit foit fe [ce] tavole
" (?)> qui me donne tant travauxj car fans lui
j'avoye matiereplus belle (8) pour difcourir."
(x) Mr. Goodall refers the words " it is fa lang"
to the letter, and founds a criticifm upon it a^ainft
the originality of the French *. But he is plainly
wrong in his reference. Mary is made to fay, that
fhe is going to feek her repofe, but is vexed that it
keeps her from writing to Eothwcll, becaufe // is
fo long. This is in the true fpirit of that frantick
regard, as it has been juftly called, which the letter-
writer has attributed to her. The letter, not being
, more than half-fmifhed, could not yet be pronounc-
3 long. And, if it could, it could not keep her
om writing news of-herfelf. She was aclualljr
writing news of herfelf, while flic was writing *7.
* i. 8788.
K a Accordingly,
JJ2 VINDICATION OF LET. X.
Accordingly, the two tranflations are explicit irt
giving the words this meaning. Only, the Latiri
lays improperly " tarn diu" for tarn diutina.
(2) This wemuft fuppofe to hint at the murder.
But, as I have already afked, what was to be fettled
by Bothwell ? It had been determined to bring the
King to Edinborough. The only queftion could
be therefore, where he was to be lodged when he
came thither. And this furely, upon every princi-
ple of common-fenfe, muft have been fettled before
Mary fet out for Glafgow, or at leaft before Both-
well left her at Kalcndar the "very morning of the pre-
ceding day. Accordingly, Buchanan fays in his
Detection, when he has fent the Queen to Glafgow,
that " Bothwell, as it was betwene thame befoir ac~
" cordity'pro'vydis ALL tbingis reddy that wer needful
<c to accom^lifche ye haynous aR : firft of all cine
" bous* " &c. " Upon this point," Scotch, omit-
ted in the Latin and French.
(3) " That we may underftandis utheris wcill,"
Scotch, means the fame as in modern Englifh, that
we may underfiand each ether well. " That nathing
" thairthrow be fpilt," Scotch - t " ne quid ob id fe-
t{ cus fiat," Latin , " que rien ne fe fafle autre-
" ment," French. Mr. Goodall has juftly remark-
ed, that the French tranflator, not underflanding*
the peculiar import of the word " fecus" here, has
rendered it by a word which does not convey its
[ prefent meaning f.
* P. 1 8. AuJerfon, ii. and Jcbb, i. 242. f I. 94.
(4) "
CHAP. I. MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. JJJ
(4) " Irkir," Sqotch, by fome ftrange mif-writ-
ing or mif-prinr, was transformed into " nakit,"
and rendered " nudata" in Latin ; then improved
by an added ftroke from the hand of the French
tranflator, and heightened into that laft extreme of
blundering abfurdity, " toute nue." This there-
fore might well form one of thofe ever-memorable
proofs, which Mr, Goodall brought againft the pre-
tended originality of the French, and with which he
began the courfe that I am now compleating, I
truft, of triumphant attacks upon it *.
(5) This goes on to fhew, that the firft part of
the letter was written late in the night of January
24th.
(6) This alfo fhews, that fhe is now to come
foon to the end of the prefent day'% writing. She
ha* only a little paper remaining. And fhe only
means to write over this little remainder. " Zit I
" ceis not to fcrible all this paper in fa mekle as
" reftis thairof," Scotch ; " nee tamen me continere
" pc/um, quo minus quod reft at chart* deformiter
" confcriberem," Latin ; " neantmoins je ne me
" puts tenir que je ne barbouille encor bien mal,
<c ce qui me refte de fapier" French.
(?) " Wary it," Scotch, is a petty curfe, not fo
lirong as " maudit," French. " The day, the day,"
fays Walter Kennedy, abbot of Corfraguel in 1558,
" the terrible day fall cum," the day of judgment,
" quhen the unhappy avaricious man fall warry the
ff tyme that evir he had," &c.j the prince fall
K 3 " warry
134 VINDICATION OF LET. t.
warry the tyme that evir he wes," &c. ; "the mi-
ferable ignorant fall curs the tyme that evir he
tuke on hym *," &c. " Pokifche," Scotch ;
" variolato," Latin; and, from the Frenchman's nor
underftanding a word which is only of the bafe or
colloquial Latinity, though fo exaftly the fame with
one in his own language, rendered by him " ta-
< f vole" or pock-marked, inftead ofvariole.
(8) Plefander," Scotch; " elegantiorem," Latin j
plus belle," French.
" He is not over mekle deformit, zit he has reffa-
" vit verray mekle (i). He has almaift Qane me
<c with His braithj it is worfe than zour uncle's (2);
" and zit I cum na neirer unto him, bot in ane
<f chyre at the bed-feit (3), and he being at the
<c uther end thairof (4).
XXL "The mefiage (5) of the father in the
gait.
" The purpoife of Schir James Hamiltoun.
" Of that the laird of Luffe (6) fchawit me of
the delay."
fc Non magnopere deformatus eft, multum (i)
" tamen accepit. Pene me fuo enecavit anhelitu j
"eft enim gravior quatn tui propinqui (2) ; et
" tamen non accedo propius ad eum, fed in <
" thedra fedeo ad pedcs ejus (3), cum ipfe ir^
" motiflima lecli parte fit (4).
* Keith, App. 203.
CHAP. T. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. IJ5
" XXI. ff Nuncius (5) patris in itinere.
" Sermo D. Jacob! Hamiltonii.
<c De eo quod LufTse comarchus (6) mihi re-
" tulit de dilatione."
" II n'a pas efte beaucoup rendu diforme, toutesfois
" il en a pris beaucoup (i). II m'a quafi tuee de
ce fon halene, car elle eft plus fort que celle de
" voftre parent (2), et neantrnoins je n'approche
" pas pres de luy ; mais je m'afiieds en une chaire
" a fes pieds (3), luy eftant en la partie du lift plus
<c efloignee (4).
XXI. " Du meflager (5) du pere fur le chemin.
<e Du dire du fieur Jacques Hambleton.
" De ce que le prevoft de Lufle (6) m'a rap-
<( porte touchant le retardement."
(i) " Verray mekle," Scotch ; " multum," La-
tin ; " beaucoup," French.
(2)"UncleV' Scotch; " propinqui," Latin;
" parent," French. Bothwell's uncle here meant,
I fuppofe, was his great uncle, the bifhop of
Murray.
(3) " At the bed-feit," Scotch; ad pedes ejus/'
Latin ; c< a fes pieds," French.
(4) I have already noticed this pafTage, as a proof
that the letter-writer meant to intimate the King
\ was foifoned by Mary, though juft before it inti-
1 mates that he was only poxed. And Dr. Robert-
fon, though his faith revolted at the former infinua-
tion, though he did not believe the latter,, though
K 4 no
136 VINDICATION OF LET. I.
no one could believe both, and though the infmua-
tjon of both fhewed evidently the forgery of the
letter ; yet continued, like a true confeflbr to the
caufe of party, to believe fteadily in its authenti-
city, and even to engraft it upon that very hiftory
of his own, which was compelled to give it " the
<f lie direcV'
(5) The French not underftanding " nuncius"
to mean a <f meffage," as well as a " mcflengcr,"
rendered it " meflager."
(6) " The laird of Lufle" before was " Luf-
" fius" and " Lufs." It is now " Lulfe comar-
" chus" and " Ic prevoft de Lufle." The French,
without reflection, takes up the variation of the
Latin at the moment.
" Of the demandis that he afkit at Joachim,
" Of my eftait (i).
" Of my company.
" Of the occafioun of my cumming.
ef And (2) of Jofeph.
" Item, the purpois that he and I had togidder,
" Of the defyre that he has to pies me, and of
*' his repentance.
" Of the interpretatioun of his letter."
" De quibus interrogavit Joachimum.
" De ordinatione familiae (i).
" Demeo comitatu.
" De caufa mei adventus.
(2) De
CHAP. I. MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 137
" (2) De Jofepho.
" Item, de fer-mone inter me et ilium.
<c De ejus voluntate placendi mihi, et de ejus
<c pcenitentia.
" De interpretatione fuarum literarum."
<f De ce qu'il s'eft enquis a Joachim,
ff De reglement de la famille ( i ).
" De ma fuite.
" De la caufe de mon arrivee.
" (2) De Jofeph.
" Item, du devis d'entre moy et luf>
" De la volonte qu'il a de me complaire, et de
s fa repentance.
f( De 1'interpretation des fes lettres."
1 i ) This gives us another proof of what I have
>bferved juft before, the ready obfequioufnefs of
he French to the Latin at every turn. " Gif I had
c maid my eftait," Scotch, is in the place alluded
o rendered, " an familiae catalogum feciflem," and
f fi j'avoye faidt quelque rolle de mes domef-
( tiques." But now, when the Latin fantaftically
varies what is not varied in his original, the one be-
comes " de ordinatione familise," and the other
f du reglement de la famille."
(2) " And," Scotch, omitted in the Latin and
Tench.
Of
VINDICATION O* LET. I.
Cf Of Willie Hiegait's matter (i), of his depart-
Cf ing-
" Of Monfiure de Levingftoun (2)"
<c De negotio Gulielmi Hiegait (i),et de fuodif-
cefifu.
" De domino de Levifton (2)."
" Du fait de Guillaume Hiegait (i), et de fon'
depart.
" Du fieur de Levingftoun (2)."
(1) Here we have " confufion worfe confound-
" ed." We have feen before Walcar's intelligence
attributed to Hiegait, but ftrengthened and im-
proved by Mynto's ; then re-attributed to Walcar ;
and Mynto's finally given to Hiegait. And now
we fee Mynto's, Walcar's, and Hiegait's own, all
ultimately and collectively afligned to Hiegait.
" Et" is added in the Latin and the French.
(2) Here, as I lhall afterwards fhew, ends the
former half of the letter, that which pretends to
have been written in the night of January 24.
But what do thefe fhort notices mean, that come
fo ftrangely in the middle of the letter ? Dr. Ro-
bertfon fuppofes them to be the contents of the
preceding part of the letter, fet down originally as
loofe memorandums, and then coming into the letter,
becaufe Mary, for want of other paper, took that
CHAP. I. MARY QJJEEM OF SCOTS.
of the memorandums to write upon *. This is too
ridiculous in itfelf, to have been ever fuppofed by
a candid and reflecting examiner of the point.
The notices are not the contents of the preceding
part of the letter. The laft refers only to the/*-
cond part. And the appearance of the letter here is
too regular and compleat, to admit of fuch a cafual
and fortuitous advance of the notices. We might
as well believe a dance of atoms to have fettled
into the creation of the world. Yet Mr. Hume
improved the abfurdity. He faid, that thefe notices
i were " a memorandum of what Mary intended to
" add the next morning, and // is added accordingly :"'
: when all the notices referred to in the writing of
ithe next morning, are only one, and the other four*
teen relate wholly to the prior part of the letter.
i And Mr. Tytler attacked him fo vigoroufly upon
.his hardy and falfe affertion, that he became afhamed
of it, and filently withdrew it in a new edition f.
;Mr. Tytler indeed Ihewed decifively, againft him
>.and Dr. Robertfon, that thefe were points on which
iMary is made to refer Bothwell to the bearer for
further or new information, for further in the firfl
fourteen, and for new in the laft of all ; that others
occur of the very fame nature, at the end of the
other half of the letter ; and that thefe are exprefsly
.underitood from the makers of the letters them-
felves, when they produced them at York, to be
" the credit gifin to the berar J." This mode of
referring to the credit of a bearer, was no uncom-
mon one in thofe times. And we find Mary ac-
! DiiT. 28. f Hiit. v. 147. i Tyder, n i 1 16.
tuaily
J40 VINDICATION OF LET. I.
tually doing fo in a letter to Lord Huntly ; when
V referring the reft to the beirar, quhom zc will
<c credit," ihe commits him to God *.
But, as the King's reported convcrfation ends
here, let us examine one point of moment concern T
ing it. Thomas Crawford, the gentleman from
the Earl of Lenox who met Mary four miles from
Glafgow, was produced by the rebels in England,
to authenticate upon oath what the Queen faid to
him at the meeting, and alfo what the King Jaid to
her afterwards. " One Thomas Crawford faid,"
as the commifiioners at Weftminfter tell us, " that
<c as foon as the Quene of Scoffs hadfpoken with the
<c King, bis mafter, at Glafgow, from tyme to tyme
" he the faid Crawford was fecretly informed by
" the King of all things which had faffed betwixt the
"Jaid Quene and the King, to the intent he fhuld
" report the fame to the Erie of Lenox his matter,**
both the King and the King's father, it feems, being
his matter j " and that he did immediately, at the
ct fame tyme, write the fame word by word, as near
" as he poflibly could carry the fame away." This
is furely as poor an expedient for communicating
the King's and Queen's difcourfe to Crawford, as
ever a diftrefled novel-writer was reduced to for
conveying intelligence to his reader. " And fure
" he was, that the words now reported in his wri&-
" ing, concerning the communion betwixt the
" Quene of Scots and him upon the way near Glaf-
<f gow, are the very fame words, in his confciencc,
* Goodall, ii. 3:6. See alfo Keith, ziy, &c. and Sir Ralph
Sadler's Letters, 118, &c.
" that
JCHAP. i. M'ARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
! " that were fpoken ; and that others being reported
j< to him by the King, are the fame in effect and
a fubftanc'e as they were delivered by the King to
" him, tho' not percafe in all parts the very words
!f c thmifelves *." Here it is very obfervable, what
a mockery is played off upon the. reader. Crawford's
idepofition was intended to fubilantiate this conver-
sation, and fo derive a credit upon this and all the
letters. Yet the converfation might be true, and
the letters be falfe. This very man might have
received an account of the conveifation in the
tnanner infmuated, and have communicated it again
to the rebels. But the intention of the rebels was
ruflrated by the modefty of the fwearer.
I He does not fwear, as they originally meant he
jhould, as they ftill hoped all would believe he had
worn, and as all have actually to this day believed
;ne did fwear, that the words flated in the letter, for
'he Queen's addrefs to him and the King's addrefs
b her, were refpectively fuch in expreffion or in
; jbftance, as the Queen fpoke and the King re-
'orted to him. No ! he feems to do this, but he
oes not. He fwears concerning the Queen's ad-
refs, that " the words NOW REPORTED IN HIS
WRVTING are the very fame words that were
fpoken." He fwears alfo concerning the King's
Idrefs, that " others being reported to him by the
King, are the fame in .effect and fubftance, as
' they were delivered by the King to him ;" nor,
vat the words reported to him by the King are the
ane in effect with the words reported to him by
* Goodall', ii. 246.
the
f42 VINDICATION OF LET. I
the King, as the meaning feems at firft to be ; bu
that the words SET DOWN IN HIS WRITING as " re-
" ported to him by the King," are the fame in ef-
fect with what were really reported. His oatl
concerning the Queen's addrefs explains that con
cerning die King's. In both, " lefs is meant than
meets the ear." He fwears not of either, tha
the words STATED IN THE LETTER are the fame
that were fpoken and reported j but that the word
STATED IN HIS WRITING are. Accordingly " the
< f fame Thomas Crawford coining before the com
" miflloners, he did prefcnt a WRITING, which he
" faid he had caufed to be made according to th
" truth of his knowledge ; which, being read, h
" affirmed upon his corporal oath there taken to
" true, the tenor wherof hcrafter followeth, 7
" words betwixt the tjhtefn" &c. That thi
ing contained equally the words betwixt the Queer
and him, and betwixt the Queen and the King, i
plain from the fucceeding account given by
commiflioners : " And after this [writing] wa,
" read, the faid Crawford faid, that as foon as th
ff Quene of Scotts had fpoken with the King hi.
" mafter at Glafgow," &c. as before.* It is then
fubjoined again by the commifiioners, thai " th
" confeflion of the faid Thomas Crawford in wryt
" ing hereafter followeth thus, The wcrds bet-wix
" the Queen and me" &c. The reported converfa
tion of the King and Queen, therefore, was equall
in the writing with the very addrefs of the Quec
to Crawford. It is this writing, and the conver
fdtion in it, which he fwears to be true. He fwear
12 t
CHAP. X. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 143
to the truth of nothing pofitively in the letter; as
he has hitherto been prefumed to do, both by the
friends and by the enemies of Mary. And as the
original of this writing has been loft, and no copy
of it has been preferred, we know not what it was
that he fwore to be true.
That he did not fwear all to be fo, is obvious
from the fmgular management of his oath. Had
he done this, he would barely have fworn, as he
has for that reafon been falfely fuppofed to have
fworn, that the words fatea* in the letter were the
(fame as fpoken and reported. But he did not
dchufe this. He felected fome parts of the addrefs,
jand fome parts of the converfation. To the truth
jof tbefe he fwore, with the evident difparagement
of the reft. This partial and exceptive kind of
teftimony, indeed, threw a brand of cenfure upon
all the rejected paflages. It indirectly convicted
iitlhem of forgery. Several fuch, carrying plain
parks of forgery on their forehead, I have pointed
,Dut before. And the oath of Crawford fhews
dearly, that there were fuch in the letter. So dif-
ferent does the teftimony of Crawford turn out to
oe, from what it has been uniformly confidered to
)e ; and even from what I confidered it myfelf, be- .
Tore the prefent occafion induced me to examine it !
i t fhews fome incidents to be true in the letters,
!>Ut IT PROVES OTHERS TO BE FALSE. And it thus
DESTROYS THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE WHOLE AT
>NCE, even in the very act of importing it.
CHAPTER
144
VI N DIC AT ION OF LET. I.
CHAPTER THE SECOND.
I-
LETTER THE FIRST CONTINUED,
XXII. " I had almaift forzet, that Monfmre
" de Levingftoim ( i ) faid to me in the Lady Rcres
<{ eir at fupper, that he (2) wald drink to ye folk yat
"1(2) will of, gif I wald pledge thame (3). And
Cf efter fupper he faid to me, quhen I was lenand
" upon him warming me at the fyre, Ze have fair
<c [fair] going to fe feik folk (4), zit ze cannot be
c< fa welcom to thame as ze left fum body this day
" (5) in regrait, that will never be blyth quhill
" he fe zow agane (6). I afkit at him quha that
" was. With that he thriftit my body (7), and faid,
" that fum of his folkis had fene zow in fafchcne
" (8) ; ze may ges at the reft (9)."
XXII. " Pene oblita eram, quod Dominui
" Leviftonius ( i ) D. Rerefias dixit in aurem, dum
<f ccenaret, quod pre-biberet (2) eis quos nolTem
" (2), ealege ut ego re-biberem eorum nomine (3)*
" Ac poft ccenam dixit mihi, dum ad ignem a
" fiebam cum ei inniterer, Bellaj inquit, huji
" moc
: CHAP. 2. MARY QJJ E N OF SCOTS. I 4
" modi hominum vifitatio (4) ; non tamen tanta
" e tuo acceffu poteft eis efle hetitia, quanta in
moleftia quidam hodie (5) relidtus eft, qui nun-
* f quam tetus erit, donee te iterum videbit (6).
Ego de eo quasfivi quifnam is efiet. Ille arc-
" tius corpus meum comprimens (7), refpondit,
" Unus eorum qui te reliquerunt (8) ; tu quis fit
c< divinare potes (9)."
XXII. Peu s'en faut que je n'aye oublie,
*< comme le Sieur de Levinftoun (i) a dit a I'o-
" reille en foupant a Madamoifelle Reres, qu'elle
^ (2) beut a ceux qu'elle (2) cognoiffoit, foubs con.
dition que le pleigeroye en leur nom (3). t
*' apres fouper il me dit, comme je me chauffbye
tf aupres du feu, cftant appuyee fur fon efpaule,
rf Voyla une belle vifitation de telles gens (4)
<( mais toutesfois la joye de noftre venue ne leur
" pent eftre fi grande, combien eft la facherie a
celuy qui a efte delaiffe feul aujourdhuy (5), et
" qui ne ferajamais joyeux, jufques a ce qu'il vous
f< ayt veue. Derechef (6) je luy demanday, qui
ff eftoitceftuy-la: lui m'embraflant plus eftroke-
" ment (7), me refpondit, C'eft 1'un de ceux qui
"vous ont laifiee (8); vous pouvez deviner qui
"eftceftuy-la( 9 )."
(0 Levingftoun," Scotch 3 de Levifton"
before, and Leviftonius" now, Latin , de Le-
" vingftoun" before, and de Levinftoun" now,
iFrench. From this and other inftances before and
; after, I fufpeft the French tranOator to have had a
VOL ' ]I - L
I 4 6 VINDICATION Of LET. f.
Scotch, as well as a French, copy before him ; to
have kept his eye almoft entirely upon the Latin ;
but to have turned his eye to the Scotch at
times, as to proper names particularly, and to have
caught fome of his words from it. -But why is
Lord Levingfton called " Monfiure" here ? He is
called " my Lord Leviftoun" in the rebel journal.
And he was at times denominated Monfieur, I fup-
pofe, from fome afFeftation of French manners in
him.
(2) "He" and "I," Scotch; " prse-biberet"
and " noffem," Latin ; " elle" and " elle," by fome j
negligence, French. Lacy Rercs was " ane of |
" the cheif of the Quenis privie chalmer," fays!
Buchanan *. She appears to have always attended ,
the Queen.
(3) This ferns to prove my fufpicion above. j
The French has united a part of the Latin and a]
part of the Scotch together. " Pledge thame,"j
Scotch, is in Latin " re-biberem eorum nomine,*"
and in French " pleigeroye," a word (I fuppofe]
purely Englifb and Scotch in this fenfe of it,
Cf leur nom" an expreflion purely Latin. And I
endeavour to account for this hereafter.
(4) Tliis alib is one of the memorable paffag<
that led Mr. Goodall, amidft the darknefs of t!
times in which he lived, to the difcovery of th<
true original.' The Latin, as he obferves, " d
" read two words wrong in this Ihort fentem
* Deteftion, 8.
CHAP. 2. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 147
"namely, < fair 5 " for '"fair"' or fore, and- for
<cf feik,'" fick, as it is in the edition of St. Andrew's
cc in Scotland, '" fik"' fuch, with the firft edition
Cf publifhed in England [and in Englifh]. fff Ye
fff have fair going to fee fick folk,'" is a mean kin4
tc of phrafe, ufed among people of the loweftrank.
" It ought to have been tranflated in this or th*
" like manner, Iter fads *gre, xgros vifendi gratia.
<{ But Mr. Buchanan's miftakes fpoil the fen-
" tence very confiderably, " e Bella hujufmodi ho-
'" minum vifitatio ;'" and the Frenchman could
"not mend the matter, it behoved him to follow
" his leader, " c Voyla une belle vifitation de telles
" c gens/" I know not what others may think of
* f this affair, but for my own part I would reckon,
" that this fmall fentence, maturely weighed, may
" be fufficient to prove, againft ten thoufand oaths,
" and as many ads of parliament, that thefe letters
<c were originally written in the Scottish language*."
Such was the honeft confidence of acuteneS, in this
new track of difcovery. And every generous reader
will be happy to refleft, that ilich acutenefs and
fuch confidence were rightly employed ; and that
\faft has now come in to the aid of reafoning, to
prove the originality of the Scotch.
But let me obferve, in .addition to this, that the ap-
, pearanceof fuch a form of expreffion in the letters be-
( trays their fpurioufnefs. It c ' is a mean kind of phrafe,
" ufed among people of the lowejl rank." It was
i equally fo, no doubt, in the days of Mary. The
I lapfe of two hundred years could not have degraded
* i. 82-83, *
La tho
148 VINDICATION OP LET. I.
the language of kings and queens, into the diction of
meannefs, and the idioms of the loweft ranks in
life. Accordingly, we fee Buchanan nor underftand-
ing it. It was confined to the familiarities of vul-
gar converfation. Tt was therefore not recollected
by him. And^it ought therefore not to have ap-
peared in a letter attributed to Mary.
This remark, of itfelf, fhews that Buchanan was
not, as he has always been hitherto confidered to
be, the affual fabricator of the letters. Had he
been, he could not have miflaken their meaning.
He muft have known his own intent in writing
every part of them. He muft have known parti-
cularly the drift of this proverbial form of fpeech,
if it had come in the ftream of compofition to hi
pen, and mingled naturally with his language.
And I have previoufly fhewn Lethington, and not
Buchanan, to have forged the letters.
(5) This fhews Lord T_,evingfton's fpeech to be
made on the evening of Mary's arrival at Glafgow,
on the evening of January the 23d.
(6) The printer of the French has abfurdly
thrown " derechef " into a new fentence.
(7) This paflage was wrongly exprefled by the
Latin, and, in confequence t*f that, more wrongly
paraphrafed by the French. <c He thriftit my bo-
<c dy," means he gave her a fecret hint with, a
touch of his elbow, that he had a peculiar and
myfterious drift in what he laid. This kind of
corporal intimation is called mtdging^ in fome of
our nortbern counties. It fhould therefore have
beep
CHAP. 2. MARY QJ7EEN OF SCOTS. 149
been rendered in Latin, Hie cubitum corpcri meo Je-
nifer admovit et, &c. Yet the Latin renders it,
" ille arfiius corpus meum cmprimens" And the
French rifes upon it with an addition of abfurdity,
" m'embraflant plus eftroitement." In this manner,
and by a fcale of miftakes, is a mere touch of the
elbow magnified into a drift compreflion, and then
heightened into a more drift embrace !
(8) " Sum of his folkis had fene zow in fafche-
** rie," Scotch, mod freely tranflated into f{ unus
" eorum qui te reliquerunt," Latin, and implicitly
followed in French, " c'ed 1'un de cenx qui vous
<f ont laifiee." Indeed I fufpeft, from the turn of
the claufe, and from a couple of indances which
we have feen before, that originally the Scotch was
as the Latin now reprefents it, that it was fo at
the York conference, and that it was altered into
jts prefent form for the conference at Wedminder.
The fenfe of the Latin is too devious from the
Scotch, and yet too adhefive to the context, to be
the cafual dafti of a blundering hand. And as we
have already feen a claufe certainly, and a fentence
probably, not in this very letter at York, and yet
in it at Wedminder ; fo we lhall hereafter fee a
variation, in the very words of the Wedminder and
York originals of it.
(9) " Ze may ges at the red," Scotch; " tu quis
"fit divinare potes," Latin; "vous pouvez de-
" viner qui cd ceduy-la," French. This alfo
i ferves to drengthen my fufpicion. The fenfe is
i dill carried on as regularly in the Latin, as it is in
: the Scotch ; though in a very different manner.
L 3 But
VINDICATION OF LET. I,
But in this anecdote concerning Lord Leving-
fton, as in almoft every other faft alluded to in
the letters, we find a proof of the forgery. Here
we particularly trace the feet of the forger, in the
dirt of his own fteps. That Lord Levingfton
ihould know of the adultery, if there had been
any ; that he fhould know it fo well, as to fpeak of
it ; that he fhould fpeak of it to one of Mary's at-*
tendants, to her confidante and intimate ; that he
fhould fpeak of it to her at fupper, when numbers
muft have been prefent ; and that he fhould at lad
fpeak of it to Mary herfelf, to Mary leaning en his
jhoulder, to Mary in a circle of guefts (landing
around the fire ; carries fuch a monftrous incredU
bility with it, that none but one of Condc's cock-
nies, and he a fworn foe to Mary, can believe it.
Nor is there any reafon for believing Lord Le-
vingfton to have attended her from Kalendar to
Glafgow, There are fome ftrong reafons for be-
lieving the very contrary. That the Queen was
efcorted by a party of the Hamiltons, is infmuated
in a paflage before ; in which Lenox fends word to.
Sir James Hamilton, " that he [Lenox] wald never
<c have belevit that he [Sir James] wald have ac-
" companyit him [Sir James] with the Harrmil-
ft tounis," and in which Sir James anfwers, " yat
" he wald nouther accompany Stewart nor Hammil*
" toun, bot be Mary's commandement." But it i$
pofitively afferted hereafter ; Mary faying, " all
" the Hammiltounis ar heir, that accompanyis me
" verray honorabilly." Buchanan alfo confirms
this in his Detection, when he fays of the Queen,
that " to Glafgow fcho gais, accompanyit with the
" Hammiltounis^
CHAP. 2. MARY QJJEEM OF SCOTS. 151
c; Hammiltounis, and uthf r the Kingis naturall ene-
" meis," Bothwell and Huntly, who attended her
to Kalendar *. She was therefore efcorted by the
Hamiltons, and not by the Levingflons, to Glaf-
gow. And as in the other expedition to Stirling,
when Lord Levingflon is equally reprefented to
have attended the Queen, fhe fays, " we had zifter-
<f day mair then in. c. hors of his" Huntly's, {C and
<f Levingftoun's f j" fo in this fhe fays, what appears
the more finking from the contrail, " all the Ha-
(< miltounis ar heir, that aceompariyis me verray
**' honorabilly " and then adds, what doubly ex-
cludes the idea of any others being with her at the
time, " all the freindis of the uther," the Stewarts,
<c convoyis me quhen I gang to fe him," the King.
Lord Levingfton therefore could not have faid what
he is here reprefented to have faid, afcer flipper on
$he evening of the arrival at Glafgow.
XXIII." I wrocht this day (i), quhill it was
<e twa houris (2), upon this bracelet (3), for to put
" the key of it within the lock thairof, quhilk is
" couplit underneth with twa cordounis (4). I
" have had fa lytill .time that it is evill maid ; bot I
" fall mak ane fairer (5). In the meane tyme (6)
* f tak heid that nane that is heir fe it, for all the
* Anderfon, ii. 17. Jebb, i. 242, and Appendix, N x.
f Letter vii. 2.
L 4 "warli
I2 VINDICATION OF LET. T,
" warld will knaw it, becaus for haift it was maid
" in yair prefence (7).'*
XXIII. " Ego hodie (i) elaboravi ufque ad
" horam fecundam (2) in hac armilla (3), Lit
" clavem includerem, quas fubttis eft annexa duo-
" bus funiculis (4) ; male autem facta eft ob tem-
" poris anguftiam, fed faciam pulchriorcm (5),
" Interim (6)profpice,ne-quifquam eorum qui hie
" funt videat, quia omnes mortales eum agnofcent,
" tanta feftinatione in omnium oculis facta eft (7)."
XXIII. " J'ay aujourdhuy(i) travaille a deux
" heures (2) en ce brafielet (3), pour y enfermer la
" clef, qui eft jointe au bas avec deux petites
" cordes (4). II eft mal fait, a caufe du peu de
" temps qu'on a euj mais j'cn feray un plus beau
" (5)- Cependant (6) advifez que perfonne de
" ceux qui font icy ne le voye, car tout le monde
" le cognoift, tant il a efte fait a la hafte devant;
cc les yeux de chacun (7)."
(1) This is the fecond day of writing, as will
appear from a note hereafter ; the day but one
after the arrival at Glafgow ; January 25th.
(2) " Quhill it was twa houris," Scotch, till
two o'clock j as Mary is faid in the rebel journal
to have gone with Bothwell " to Baftian's banquet
" and maique about eleven houris, and thairefter
" thay baith returnit to the abbay, and talkit quhill
" twelve houris and eftir *." Accordingly the
Latin fays, " ad horam fecundam." And the
* Appendix, Nx.
French,
CHAP. 2. MARY QJJ E N OF SCOTS. 153
French, coinciding exaftly in idiom with the
Scotch, fays, " a deux heures." But let us ob-
ferve the condudt of Mary here. She had come to
Giafgow, on a vifit to the King in a great illnefs.
! The King is dill very ill, He keeps his bed. Yet
what does Mary do on this vifit ? She fees him
immediately on her arrival. She goes away to
fupper. She returns to him. She fits with him
for fome time. She excufes herfelf for fitting lon-
ger, becaufe of her wearinefs. She fees f him the
next morning. But, for the reft of the day, we
-know not what fhe does, We only know, that
Ihe has very little converfation with him ; that, in
! the evening or night of this day, Ihe writes a long^
; account of what the King faid the night before";
land that only a hint occurs, of what the King had
>&id on this day. So greatly does fhe negledt him
jfor the fecond day, the day after her arrival ! But
Jon the third this negleft is confummated, by what
|is faid here, her working till two o'clock in the
[afternoon upon a bracelet; and by what is faid
'hereafter, " I faw him not this evening for to end
" zour bracelet." And this forms one more- of
rhe wild incredibilities, that mark the letters. Had
Mary come from a pretended regard, r.s I have
-emarked before, fhe would rux. have done fo; and,
is (lie came from a real, Ihe could not.
(3) cc This bracelet" implies it to have been
ent with the letter to Bothwell. Accordingly fhe
)ids him immediately afterward tak heid, that
c nane that is heir fe it." Yet fhe foon after-
jvards fays thus to him, advertife me gif ze will
" have
I 4 VINDICATION OF LET. I.
have it." Such are the contradi&ions, in which
the letter- writer involves himfelf ! And the feconcl
pretended confeflion of Paris confirms the contra-
diction, by declaring that he did not carry the
bracelets till fome time afterwards *.
(4) That men wore bracelets fo late as this
period, was unknown to me, but is plain from the
letter. Thefe were not fattened together, as they
now are, by a fnap-lock. They had a formal key
to the lock.
(5) cc J fall mak ane fairer," Scotch, implying
that fhe would make another ; " jVw feray un plus
" beau," French, implying that flic would make
it fairer j becaufe the Latin is ambiguous, " fa-
* ciam pulchriorem."
(6) " In the meane tyme," Scotch, by a wrong
punctuation was thrown into the preceding fen-
tence ; when it plainly belongs, and is given by the
Latin and the French, to this, I haye therefore
placed it right.
(7) This is another of thofe contradictions, in
which the unfettled ideas of a forger are continually
involving him, and by which he betrays himfdf
continually. Lord Levingfton is juft before re-
prefented as knowing of the adultery, as hinting
it to one of Mary's confidantes at fupper, and as
even infmuating it plainly to Mary herfelf in the
midft of company. Nor is jVTary alarmed at his
knowledge, at his hint, or at his infmuation. Yet
* Goodall, ii. 79.
CHAP. -2. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS, 15$
now fhe is afraid, left any of her prefent attendants
: fhould fee a pair of bracelets, which fhe was fend-
ing to Bothwell. She feems to enjoy a real detec-
tion of the adultery by Levingfton, and even an
intimation given of it in the prefence of many
attendants, and even a whifpered annunciation of
it to herfelf before many perfons who were clofe to
her. And yet now (he is apprehenfive of any fufpi-
cions of it in any of her train, from the fight of
one of her prefents. Thus the fturdy oak, that
1 feared no blafts of winter, in an inilant is turned
I into a fenfitive plant, and fhrinks up at the ap-
; proach of a finger !
XXIV. cc I am now pafiand to my fafcheous
j* e purpois. Ze gar me difiemble fa far, that I ( i )
P naif horring thairat ; and ye caus me do almaift
f* (2) the office of a traitores, Remember how,
;t gif itwer not to obey zow (3), I had rather be
f deid or I did it (3) 3 my hart (4) bleides at it
c (3). Summa, he will not cum with me, except
( upon conditioun that I will promeis to him, that
' I fall be at bed and buird with him as of befoir,
' and that I fall leave him (5) na ofter (6) ; and
>' doing this upon my word (7), he will do all
: thingis that I pleis, and cum with me. Bot he
: hes prayit me to remane upon him quhil uther
' morne (8)."
XXIV,-
l$6 VINDICATION OF LET. I.
XXIV. "Nunc proficifcor ad inftitutum meum
" odiofum. Tu me adeo diflimulare cogis, ut
" etiam ipfa (i) horream; ac tantum non (2) pro-
" ditricifi partes me agere cogis. Illud reminifcere,
" quod nifi tibi obfequendi defiderium me cogeret
" (3), mallem mori quam haec (3) committere j
" cor enim mihi ad li^c (3) fanguinem fundit (4),
(c Breviter, negat fe mecum venturum, nifi ea lege,
" ut ei pollicear me communi cum eo mensa et
" thoro ufuram vclut antea, ac ne fepius eum de-
relinquam (5). Hoc fi faciam (7), quicquid
<{ velim faciet, ac me comitabitur j fed me rogavit,
" ut fe exfpedarem in diem perendinum (8)."
XXIV. "Maintenant je vien a ma deliberation
" odieufe. Vous me comraignez de tellcment dif-
<c fimuler, que j' ( i ) en ay horreur, veu que vous
tl me forcez de ne joiier pas feulement (2) le per-
" fonnage d'une trahiftrefle. Qu'il vous fouvienne
" que fi I'affeclion de vous plaire ne me forcoit (3)
" j'aymeroye mieux mourir que de commettre ce
'* chofes (3) ; car le cceur me feigne (4) en icelle
" (j) Bref, il ne veut venir avec moy, fmon
" foubs cefte condition, que je luy promette d'ufe
" en commun d'une fcule table, et d'une mefmc
c< lift, comme auparavant ; et que je ne 1'aban
donne (5) fi fouvent (6) : et que, fi je le fay
" ainfi (7), il fera tout ce que je voudray, et me
" fuivra. Mais il m'a prie, que je rattendifTe enco
" deux jours (8)."
(i)I," Scotch; "etiam ipfa," Latin; "je,'
French, from the corrected Latin.
CHAP. 2. MARY QJJEEN or SCOTS. 157
(2) " And almaift," Scotch ; ac tantum non,"
Latin ; and, from the ignorance of the Frenchman
concerning the peculiar import of tantum non., " veu
" que vous me forcez de ne joiier pas Settlement"
French.
(3) " Gif it wer not to obey zow," Scotch ; "nifi
" tibi obfequendi defiderium me cogeret," Latin ;
<f fi raffe&ion de vous plaire ne me forcoit,"
French. ff It, it," Scotch ; hcec, haec," Latin j
* c ces chofes, icelles," French.
(4) This is the fecond fit of remorfe. It is alfo
t ftrong one, But it is gone almoft as foon as
the other. It ends fuddenly, like that. And, like
iithat, it fuddenly paffes off into a profecution of
the very bufmefs, which is the fubjedb of the re-
morfe. Both remind one of the repentance of
ilFalftafr, who declares that he will not be damned
jfor ever a King's fon in Chriftendom, and then,
jthe very next minute, goes from praying to purfe-
" taking."
(5) Whofe fault was it, that the King and Queen
were not at bed and board before ? The Queen's,
; fays the letter. She had left him. Thus does the
forger contrive to tell us of his own impofture, by
the force which he puts upon fads. And let us
: take the figns, which he has fo kindly been plea'fed
:o give us, and add one more proof of the forgery
:o the many which we have feen already.
The King and Queen were at Stirling together,
ibout the end of September before. Their conduct
in parting there, let the French embaffadour, and the
privy
jrg VINDICATION OF LET. I.
privy couneil of Scotland, tell us together. On
" the 2 ad of the laft month," fays the former in
a letter of October i5th, " your brother arrived
" at Stirling,- where he found this Queen in good
health. "the Queen is now returned from Stir-
" ling to Lifleburgh," Edinborough, " as being
" vacation-feafon, which, as you know, continues
<c in this country from Auguft until Martin-mas,
and during which the nobility are convened to
c look after the public affairs of the Queen and her 1
*' realm. The King however abode ftill at Stirling"
" About ten or twelve days ago," fays the council
in a letter of October the 8th to the Queen Dowa-
ger of France, " the Queen at our requeft came to
" this towne of Lifleburgh," Edinborough, " to
" give her orders about fome affairs of ftate, which
c without her perfonal prefence could not be got
" difpatched. Her Majefty was de/irats the King
" Jhould have come along with her ; but becaufe he
" liked to remain at Stirling* and wait her return
" thither, fhe left him there, with intention to go
<c towards kirn again in five or fix days." Yet
IT WAS HER FAULT, fays the letter-writer, that
they were not at bed and board together. But why
did the King " like to remain at Stirling," when
the Queen was obliged to go to Edinborough upon
public bufinefs ? The embafladour and the council
lhall again tell us. The King, however, abode
" ftill at Stirling ; and he told me there, that he had
" a mind to go beyond fea, in a fort of defperation.'
Yet IT WAS MARY, fays the letter-writer, that was
frequently
CHAP. 1. MA&V OJJEEN OF SCOTS.
frequently or continually leaving him, " I faid to
" him," adds the embafiadour, " what I thought
" proper at the time, but ftill I could not believe
' ' that he was in earneft. Since that time, the Earl
" of Lenox, his father, came to vifit him [at Stir-
" ling] y and he has written a letter to the Queen,
" fignifying that it is not in his power to. divert his
"fen from his intended voyage, and prays her Majefty
" to ufe her intereft therein" " Meantime, while the
" Queen was abfent," fay the council, c the Earl
" of Lenox, his father, came to vifit him at Stir-
" ling ; and having remained with him two or three
** days, he went his way again to Glafgow. From
" Glafgow my Lord Lenox wrote to the Queen,
<f and acquainted her Majefty, that altho' formerly,
" both by letters and mejfages, and now alfo by com-
" munication with hisfon,he^^<^ endeavoured to divert
" him from an enter-prize he had in view, he never-
" thelefs bad not the interejl to make him alter his
" mind. This project, he tells the Queen, was to
" retire cut of the kingdom beyond Jea j and that for
" this purpofe he had juft then a Jhip lying ready"
\ Yet THE KING WOULD GLADLY HAVE LIVED WITH
! THE QUEEN, the letter infmuates, if fhe would have
1 permitted him. " This letter from the Earl of
; " Lenox the Queen received on Michaelmas-day
" in the morning -, and that fame evening the King
" arrived here [at Edinborough] about ten of the
|* f clock. When he and the Queen were a-bed to-
" gether, her Majefty took occafion to talk to him
'" about the contents of his father's letter, and be-
"fought
VINDICATION Of LET. I.
"fought him to declare to her the ground of his
" defigned voyage-; but in this he would by no means
" fatisfy her." " The Earl of Lenox's letter came
" to the Queen's hand on St. Michael's day ; and
< her Majeily was pleafed to impart the fame in-
" continent to the lords of her council, in order
<c to receive advice thereupon. And if her Majeily
te was fur-prized by this advcrtifemcnt from the
c < Earl of Lenox, thefe lords were no Ids aftomjhed
tc to underftand, that the King (hould entertain any
< thought of departing after fo jhang: a manner cut
" of her prefence, nor was it pojfible for them to
" form a ccnjefture from whence luch an imagina-
" tion could take its rife. The fame evening the
" King came to Edinburgh, and then her Majefty
" entered calmly with him upon the fubjedl of his
"going abroad^ that fhe might underftand from
<c himfdf the cccafion of fucb a rejolution. But lie
" would by no means give, or acknowledge that he
c had, any occajion offered him of difcontent" Yet
it WAS THE QUEENT that would not permit him to
live with her. " Early the next morning the
" Queen fent for me, and for all the lords and
** other counfellors : and the Queen prayed the
" King to declare, in prefence of the lords, and be-
*' fore me, the rettfon of his projected departure,
" fmce he would not be pleafed to notify the
" fame to her in private betwixt themfelves. She
" likewife took him by the hand, and bcfiug
"for God's Jake to declare, \t Jhe hud given him
" any occafion for this refolutitn ; and entreated hei
( might 1
2. MARV QJJEEN OF SCOTS. l6l
ff might deal plainly , and notfpare her. I likewife
(( took the freedom to tell him, that his departure
" muft certainly affect either his own or the ghteen's
ff honour ; that if the Queen had afforded any
" ground for it, his declaring the fame would affect
her Majefty ; as, on the other hand, if he fhould
" go away without giving any caufe for it, this
" thing could not at all redound to his praife. The
" King at laft declared, the HE HAD NO GROUND
" AT ALL GIVEN HIM for fuch a deliberation."
'* The lords of council being acquainted early next
" morning, that the King was juft a going to re-
" turn to Stirling, they repaired to the Queen's
" apartment, to underftand from the King, whe-
" ther, according to advice imparted to the Queen
fc by the Earl of Lenox, he had formed a refolu-
" tion to depart by fea out of the realme, and upon
ff what ground, and for what end. And here we
" did remonftrate to him, that his own honour, the
" Queen's honour, the honour of us all, were con-
w cerned. And for her Majefiy, fo far was flie
" from miniftring to him occafion of difcontent,
" that on the contrary be bad all tbe reajon in the
<< world to thank G O D for giving him fo wife
" and virtuous a f erf on, as Jhe hadjhewed herfclfin
" all her attions. Then her Majefty was pleafed
" to enter into the difcourfe, zndfpoke affectionately
" to him, befeeching him, that feeing he would not
<' open his mind in pri/ate to her the laft nighr,
rc according to her moft earneft requeft, he would at
I' lead be ^leafed to declare before thefe lords.
" where flie had offended him in any thing. But
Vor.. II.
l6z VINDICATION OF LET. I.
" though the Queen, and all others -that wepe prc-
" fent, together with IVJonf. du Croc, ufed all the
" intereft they were able, to perfwade him tp open
" his mind ; yet he would not at all 0w, that he
" intended any voyage or had any difcontent ; and
" declared f reefy, that the QUEEN HAD GIVEN
" HIM NO OCCASION FOR ANY.'* Yet he per-
fitted in it. Such was the fpirit and underftand-
ing of this wayward child of fortune ! He com-
pleatly exculpated the Queen. But the letter-
writer will not take even bis word in her favour.
He will be like his hero Darnly. He will pa-fill
when " he has no ground at all given him for
" fuch a deliberation." * And Mary fhall be con-
demned for not fuffering Darnly to live with her,
even though Darnly himfelf fays that he is refolved
to go abroad, though he tells it to Le Croc,
though he tells it to Lenox, and though he owns
before all the council he has no reafon for fuch a
refolution.
But let us attend the farther account of this
extraordinary man. " Whereupon," adds the
council, <f he took leave of her Majefty, and went
" his way *." And, as the embafiadour proceeds
to fay, <e thereupon he went out of the chamber of
" prefence, faying to the Queen, ADIEU, MADAM*
" YOU SHALL NOT SEE MY FACE FOR A LONG
cc SPACE j-." Yet, poor good man ! THE QUEEK
WOULD NOT LET HIM STAY AT HOME.
Nor was he worfe than his word. He (till per-
fvfted in his refolution of going abroad. Even
* Keith, 348349, f Ibid. 345346.
when-
CHAP. 2. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. l6j
When he abandoned this, he kept at a diftance
from the Queen. An order had been made by the
privy council on the 24th of September, for fum-
moning the nobles, gentlemen, and others, of fome
adjacent counties, to meet the King and Queen at
Melrofs on the 8th of Odober following, in their
progrefs to hold afTizes at feveral places in perfon.
But the King chofe not to attend, and fhe was ob-
liged to go without him *.
In this progrefs fhe was feized with a malignant
I fever. On the 25th of O&ober, at fix in the
morning, fhe lay for a confiderable time as if fhe
; had been quite dead, Aad in a letter from the
French embaffadour, dated the 24th, he fays, That
,the King was at Glafgow, that be bad been apprized
It her illnefs, that he had bad time enough to have
\ vifited her, if he had been willing, and that yet he
ihad never been near hen She had then been ill eight
days. " This is a fault in the King," fays the em-
bafTaclour, "for which I can make no apology."
iAnd the Bifhop of Rofs adds in a letter of the 27 th ;
c< the King all this tyme remanis in Glafcow, and
tr zit is nocht cumm towart the Quenis Majeltie."
He appeared at laft, when the crifis had been now
three days over. This took place on the 25th.
She then fell into a violent fweat, which was the
termination of the fever. Yet fhe was left in a
very weak condition. And it was not till the
28th that the King appeared. Even then he ftaid
3nly one night with her f.
| * Goodall, i. 302503. f Keith App. 133136, and
Pref. vii.
M 2 In
j^4 VINDICATION OF LET. f.
In this third period of voluntary exile from the
Queen, he continued about a month ; though the
Queen was all the while in an un-recovered ftate.
But let us fee Le Croc's account of her at this
period. " The Queen," he fays in a letter of De-
cember the 2d, " isfortheprefent at Craigmillar.
" She is in the hands of the phyficians, and I do
" aflure you is not at all well, and do believe the
" principal part of her difeafe to confift in a deep
" grief and forrow : nor does it fcem pofilble to
f make her forget the fame. Still flie repeats thefc
" words, / could wiftj to be dead. You know very
f well, that the injury fhe has received is exceed-
" ing great, and her Majcfty will never forget it.
t The King her hufband came to vifit her a?
" Jedburgh," -where fhe lay ill, " the very day
" after Captain Hay went away," who was fent
with the Bifhop's letter on Sunday October the
27th *. " He remained there but one fmgle night
fe and yet in that fhort time I had a great deal of
" converfation with him. He returned to fee the
" Queen about five or fix days ago : and the day
" before yefterday he fent word to defire me to
" fpeak with him half a league from this ; which
" I complied with, and found that things go dill
" worfe and worfe. I think, he intends to go away
" to-morrow j but in any event I'm much affured, as
" / always have been, that he ivon'f be prejent at tbt
baptifm f." Le Croc was right. Darnly would
not be prefent at the baptifm of the prince, his own
Keith App. 135. f Keith Pref. vii.
ibn;
CHAP. 2. MARY QJJ E E N OF SCOTS. 165
Ion ; which took place at Stirling a few days after-
wards. Yet, with an abfurdity which even Le
Croc did not expect from him, he thought proper
to take up his refidence at that very time in Stir-
ling 3 though he was previoufly determined not to
come near the Queen, not to have any part in the
baptifm, and not to have any fliare in the enter-
tainments. He thus expofed himfelf and her the
more confpicuouily by his conduct. The French
embaffadour was fo {hocked with his behaviour,
that he abfolutely refufed to fee him. But
let the embafladour fpeak his own fentiments
upon the occafion. c * The King," he fays in a
letter of December 23, " had ftill given out, that
" he would depart two days before the baptifm ; but
" when the time came on he made no fign of re-
" moving at all, only he ftill kept clofe within his
ft own apartment. The very day of the baptifm he
cc fent three feveral times, defiring me either to
* { come and fee him, or to appoint him an hour
ft that he might come to me in my lodgings : fb
" that I found myfelf obliged at loft to fignify to
" him, that feeing he was in no good correfpond-
" ence with the Queen, I had it in charge from the
<{ moft Chriftian King to have no conference with
<f him. And I caufed tell him likewife, that as it
" would not be very proper for him to come to my
* f lodgings, becaufe there was fuch a crowd of
" company there j fo he might know that there
!* c were two pafTages to it, and if he fhonld enter
** by the one, I would be conftrained to go out by
M " the
1 66 VINDICATION OF Ltf. .
'< the other *. His bad deportment is incurable,
" nor can there be ever any good expefted from
him. The Queen behaved herfelf admirably
" well all the time of die baptifm, and {hewed fo
" much earneftnefs to entertain all the goodly
<c company in the beft manner, tha.t this made her
" forget, in a good meafure, her former ailments.
<( But I am of the mind, however, that fhe will
" give us fome trouble as yet ; nor can I be brought
cc to chink otherwife, fo long as fhe continues to be
" fo penfiye and melancholy. She fent for me
" yefterday, and I found her laid on the bed weep-
ing fore, and fhe complained of a grievous pain
" in her fide. And for a furcharge of evils, it
tf chanced that the day her Majcily fet out from
" Edinbourgh for this place," Stirling, " fhe hurt
" one of her breads on the horfe, which fhe told
< c me is now fwelled. I am much grieved for the
ff many troubles and vexations fhe meets with f."
. Jn this mode of acting, adding abfurdity to ab-
furdity, and heaping one infult upon the head of
another, did the King continue till the 26th or 27th
of December. He then received a letter from his
father, of whom he inherited all his folly and per-
verfenefs. " For that the extrcmitie of this ilormy
" weather," fays Lenox, <c caufes me to dout of
* To this it is that Buchanan alludes, in his wild
Writing hiftory, a la mode dc Gibbon, when he fays, that " ye
** forane ambafiadouris wer warnit no; to talk with him,
' quhen zit the maift part of the day thay wer all in the fame
." caftell quhair he was." 15. Anderfon, ii. and 2+2. Jebb u
f Keith Pref. vii.
8 zour
< HAP, 2, MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 167
" zour fetting forward fo foon on zour journey
" [to Peebles], therefore I flay till I heir farther
C( from zour Majeftie, which I fall humbly befeech
" zow I may, and I fall not fayle to wayt upon zow
** accordinglie *." On the receipt of this, the King,
notwithftanding " the extremitie of this ftormy
" weather," ended his refidence at Stirling juft as
he had continued it before. He fat off, without
taking the leaft notice of the Queen, He retired
to Glafgow. And there he was taken ill f.
I have gone over this hiftory of the King's con-
duct towards the Queen, for the laft four months
before his illnefs ; in order partly to fix upon its
proper foundation, which I think has never yet
been done, the King's non-appearance at the bap-
tifm J ; and principally to lay open, in a fatisfactory
manner, another proof of the general forgery.
Thefe little incidents in the letters have not been
jfufficiendy attended to before. Yet they are deci-
* Keith Pref. vil. f Knox, 401. Goodall, I. 321,
t The abfence of the King from the baptifm and the enter-
tainments, has been accounted for differently by the friends
and the enemies of Mary. The latter have referred it to the
unkindnefs of the Queen (Detection,! 5, and Robertfon, 1.389).
The former have afcribed it to Elizabeth's private inftru&ions
to her embaffadour, not to give the appellation of King to
Darnly (Keith, 360. Goodall, i. 319. Guthrey's Scotch Hift.
vi. 373, and Stuart, i. 175 176). But both are plainly mifled
by a fpirit of refinement. The abfence was occafoned by the
King himfelf. He chafe to be alfent. This Le Croc's letter
<iecifively {hews. He had determined to be abfent, weeks be-
fore the baptifm. And he adhered to his determination at
it.
M 4 five
j68 VINDICATION OF LET. I.
five evidences againft them. And they fhould all
of them be dwelt upon particularly, as they arife.
(6) I now wilh to point out a new evidence of
the forgery, in a new fpecies of variation. The
letters, as I have Ihewn in the former volume, were
exhibited in Scotch at York and at Weftminfter.
Both thefe MSS have been tran (mined down to
us, the one in a number of extracts made by the
commiflioners, and the other in the printed copy.
But then there are fome different readings in the
two MSS, which have never been noticed. Thus
a paflage before, " he is not over mekle deformit?
as it ftands in the CODEX WESTMONASTERIENSIS,
appears thus in the CODEX EBORACENSIS, " he is
" not oer meikle fpi/t." The words immediately
following too, " zit he has re/avit verray mekle,"'
are read thus, lf bot he has gottin verray mekill."
The fucceeding words alfo are a little different,
" he has almaift flane me with his braith, it is
" worfe than [York MS war ncr~\ zour un-
<f cle's, and zit I cum na neirer unto htm [left out-
" in York MS], bot [fat, York MS] in ane^
&c. And in the next extract made by the com-
mhTioners, we have the following variations thrown
into the paffage now before us : " Remember
[bow, Weftm. MS yow, York MS] he will
(t not cum with me, except upon conditioun
" that I will prorneis to him, that I fall be at bed
" and buird with him as of befoir, and that
" I fall leif him na offer' [na efter y York],
Na ofter," Scotch, has " ne faspius," Latin,
CHAP. . MARY OJJEEN QF SCOTS.
and <f fi fou vent," French. There is fome fenfe
in the French providing, that the Queen fhoulcl
not leave the King/0 often. But there is abfolute.
ly none at all, in the Latin charging her not to
leave him oftener. Yet the Latin copy reading
c fepius," the Frenchman, with more judiciou
nefs than he generally exerts, retained the word,
and furnifhed a meaning. And the reading of the
York copy removes all the abfurdity at once, gives
us the true word, and fhews us the true meaning.
The Queen was not to leave the King afterwards. i
With fuch variations, were the very copies delivered
to the commiffioners at Weftminfier and at York !
At the firjt appearance of Mary's letters, fhe had
written " fpilt," gottin," and "naefter;" but,
at the fecond, the words were changed into de'
formit," refTayit," and na ofte r ." And this
little circumftance alone would have been fufficient,
to difclofe the whole forgery.
(7) " Upon my word," Scotch, omitted in the
Latin and French.
(8) " Quhil uther morne," till the next day but
one. This fhews the fecond half of the letter to
- written on January 25th ; as January 27th
vas actually the day, on which fhe fet out with the -
*
* See Rebel Journal in Appendix, N x.
$11.
j^jf VINDICATION OF LET.
II-
LETTER THE FIRST CONTINUED,
XXV. " He fpak verray bravely at ye begin-
" ning, as vis beirer will ichaw zow, upon the pur-
" pois (0 of the Ingliimen, and of his depart-
ic j ns ( 2 ) : bot in ye end he returnit agane to his
t< humilitie (3).
XXVI. " He fchawit, amongis uther purpo-
f ls ( 4 ) } yat he knew weill aneuch, that my bro-
ther had fchawin me yat thing, quhilk he had
fpoken in Striviling, of the quhilk he denyis ye
tf ane half, and abend all yat ever he came in his
< chalmer (5). For to mak him traift me,"
XXV. ff Valde ferociter ab initio loquebatur
" uti qui has fert tibi narrabit, de colloquio (i
cum AngHs, de fuo difceffu (2) : fed tandem re
" verfus eft ad fuam humanitatem (3).
XXVI." Inter alia confilia quz mihi retuli
(4), fe fatis fcire, quod meus frater ad me det
" liflet, quse ipfe cum eo egifiet Sterlini ; quarun
" rerum dimidium negavit, ac maxime illud, quoc
* f fratris mei cubiculum eflet ingreflus (5).
ego facilius fidem apud eum"-
xxv.-
_HAP. 2. MARY QJJEE-N OF SCOTS. JJl
XXV. ff Al1 commencement il parloit fort
:< afprement, comme vous recitera celuy qui port"
" les prefentes, du devis (i) eii avec les Anolois'
et de fon depart (2) 5 mais enfin il revinta fa
f( douceur (3).
XXVI." Entre autres fecrets qu'il me recita,
" il dit (4), qu'il fcavoit bien, que mon frere
rrfavoit rapporte ce qu'il avoit fait avec luy *
f Stirling j des quelles chofes il a me la moytie,
" et principalement, qu'il f u ft entre en la chambre
* f demon frere (5). Et aim"
^ (i) " Purpois," Scotch; colloquio/i Latin-i
fc devis/' French. But the tranflations are both
j wrong. Purpois of the Inglifmen and of his de-
ft parting," can mean only thefoixt concerning the
Engliflimen and his departure.'
(2) Hefpoke very bravely at the beginning,
^s the letter, concerning the plan of departing in
an Englifh vcfTel. But let us turn to the former
part of the letter, and there fee how very bravely
he fpeaks. The letter-writer negleaecl to do this,
and fo plunged into a contradiction. cc I afkit
" quhy he wald pas 'away in ye Inglis fchip he
?C DENYIS IT, and SWEIRIS THAIRUNTO ; bot he
" gravtis that be -fpak with the wen" All his
, bravery lay in faying the facl, and in denying it
ith an oath. So little was he refolute, at the be-~
ginning or at the end of the convention, about
is departure in an Englilh ihip ; that he denied he
ever
172 VINDICATION OF LET. I.
ever had any fuch intention, and he fwore he had
not. And fo grofs is the contradiction here ! In-
deed the line of conduct bere afiigned him, would
have fuited much better with his character, than
what was afligned before. The letter alfo would
then have agreed with hiftory. But Lethington
firft makes him deny the intention, then thinks it
beft to make him talk very bravely about it at
firft, but forgets to eraze the former when he has
inferted the latter. And thus both (land together
in the fame letter, the one to fhew a forgery from
its oppofition to hiftory, and both to fhew it again
from their oppofition to each other." And,"
Scotch, omitted in the Latin, but preferved in thq
French from the corrected Latin, " et."
(3) Humilitie," Scotch j " humanitas," La-
tin j douceur," French. The Mifcellaneous
Remarker obferves *, that, as " it would have
" been abfurd to have made Mary praife the in-
" nate and characteriftical civility of Darnly, fua
" bumanitas, hence we may conclude that the La-
<c tin tranflator ufecl the word bumilitas, and that;
" bumanitas is an error of the prefs." Yet " the
" faithful French tranflator fays/? douceur" Thq
word bumanitas was an error of the prefs or pen.
But it was altered into bumilitas in the corrected
Latin. For that reajon, the Frenchman fays " fa
<( douceur" He does not mean humanity, but hu-
mility, by the word. And he actually ufes the fame
word in the fame fenfe, a few pages before j " zc
P. 10.
CHAP. 2. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 173
* c faw him never fpeik mair humbler" being ren-
dered " nunquam vidi earn loqui humiliiis" and
(< jc ne 1'ay jamais veu -parler fi doucement"
(4) " Purpofis," Scotch, difcourfes, not con-
" filia," Latin, or fecrets," French. Dixit is
omitted in Latin, and yet ff il dit" appears in
French from the corrected Latin.
(5) What this alludes to, I know not. " His,"
Scotch j " fratris mei," Latin ; mon frere,"
French.
<c it behovit me to fenze in fum thingis with him
tf ( i ) : thairfoir, quhen he requeiftit me to promeis
" unto him, that quhen he was haill we fuld have
cc baith ane bed ; I faid to him fenzeingly, and
<f making me to beleve his promifis (2), thatgif he
" changeit not purpois (3) betwix y is and that tyrne,
" I wald be content thairwith : bot in the meane
* f tyme 1 bad him tak heid, that he let na body wit
" thairof, becaus, to fpeik arnangis ourfelfis, the
:< lordis culd not be offendit, nor will evill thairfoir
' (4) i bot thay wald feir in refpect of the boiiting
" he made of thame (5), that gif ever we"
cc affequerer, necefle mihi erat qusedam fingendo ei
obfecundare ( i ). Quamobrfem cum rogaret ut ei
" pollicerer, cum primum revaluiflet, communem
" nobis fore lectum -, ego diffimulanter dixi, ac fin-
; Cf gens
j-^4 VINDICATION OF LET. fi
" gens me bellis (2) cjus pollicitationibus fidem
" habere, me confentire, nifi ille interea propofitum
" mutaret (3) : led interea videret ne quifquam
" id refcifceret, propterea quod proceres noftris col-
" loquiis offendi non portent, nee ideo (4) male
" velle ; fed in timore futures, quod comitatus
" fuilTet (5), fi aliquando inter nos Concordes effe-
tc mus, fe daturum"
" qu'il me creuft plufto(l,j'eftoye contrainte de luy
" accorder quelque chofe en diffimulant ( i ) : par-
" quoy, lors qu'il me priaft, que je luy promiiTe, s
" qu'incontinent qu'il feroit guery, nous rie faifions
" plus qu'un lict i je luy dy par difTimulation, en
" faingnant que je croyoye a fes belles (2) pro-
" meffes, que je 1'y accorderoye, pour veu qu'il ne
" changeaft d' advis (3) : mais cependant qu'il
<f regardaft que perfonnc n'en fceuft rien, parce que
<c les feigneurs ne pourroient eftre offenfez de nos
<c propos, ny confequemment (4) nous en vouloir
" mal. Ains feroint en crainte de ce qu'il m'auroit
" fuivy (5). Et fi nous pouvions eftre d'accord
* f enfemble,"
(1) " Fenze in fum thingis witfi him," Scotch i
* quondam fingendo et obfecundare" Latin ; " de
" luy accorder quelque chofe en diffimulant,"
French.
(2) " Promifis," Scotch; " bellis pollicitationi-
" bus," Latin j " belles promeffes," French.
(3) This is a ftroke at tl;e real character of
Darnly. Truth breaks out through the cloud of
fiction.
CHA*. 2. MARY QJJ E E N OF SCOTS. t7<
fiction. And he, who has been hitherto reprefented
as a forced exile from his Queen and his family,
is here intimated to have been, as he was, a volun-
tary one. We have a fimilar ray of truth flafhing
out juft before, concerning his refolutenefs about
the Englilh fhip,'and his own departure in it ; an-
other ftill nearer, concerning Murray's enmity to
Darnly ; and others again, concerning the enmity
of the lords in general to him.
(4) " Thairfoir," Scotch ; ideo," Latin ;
" confequemment," French. The Frenchman ap-
plied ideo" to the lords being offended, when it
relates to the King and Queen converting together;
! and fo rendered it, as he does. But what poor and
i petty exertion of mind is here ! The Queen gravely
informs the King, that the lords could not be dif-
| contented, and would not form plots, though he
, and ftie did talk, that is, live, together. Was ever
fuch impertinence of words ?
- (5) " Boifting," Scotch, fignifies threatening.
So Mary's nobles fay, " in cais" they " had raifit
" ane armie" to releafe her from Lochlevin, it
lf was menafit and boiftt, that thay [the rebels]
" fould fend hir heid to thame *." And this
fenfe the Latin intended to exprefs, the comifatus
of it being plainly a mif-print only for comminatus.
Yet the Frenchman rinding comltatus, and having
Jio Scotch to dired him, he was obliged to fol-
low it. And he followed it with fome judgment,
* Goodall> ii. 355.
giving
j-*g VINDICATION of LET. i .
giving a new turn to the paflage, and refining die
blunder into fenie.
But we have here another contradiction to the
former part of the letter. Mary before " inquyrit
" him, yat he was angrie with fum of the lordis,
" and wald threittin thame : HE DE&YIS that, and
c fays be lutfis thame all, and prayis me to give
traift to nathing aganis him." Yet now it ap-
pears, that Mary believes, and Darnly does not
deny, he had threatened them much, even Jo much,
that they would be alarmed with any profpect of
union betwixt him and the Queen. This is a plain
contradiction.
But let me go on to obferve, tbat this threaten-
ing, thus mentioned twice, is undoubtedly real ;
and that the alarm fure to be taken by the lords,
on a profpect of an union between the King and
Queen, was proved to be dreadfully fo in the event.
The reconciliation took place, in confequence of
,' this ficknefs and this vifitj and the deftrucYion of
Darnly followed inftantly afterwards. This paf-
fage, therefore, becomes very remarkable. It is
pregnant with meaning. And it involuntarily be-
trays the grand fecret of the King's murder.
" we aggreit togiddcr, he fuld mak thame knaw
'* the lytill compt thay tuke of him ( i ) ; and that
" he counfallit me not to pure has fum of thame
"by
!HAP. 2. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 177
( by him (2). Thay for this cans wald be in
: jelofy(3), gif at anis (4), without thair know-
: ledge, I fuld brek the play fet up in the contrair
in thair prefence (5)."
operam ut intelligerent quam parvi eum aeftimaf-
fent ( i ) i item, quod mihi confuluifTet, ne gra-
tiam quorundam feorfum a fe expeterem (2).
Has ob caufas eos in magna fufpicione futures
(o)> fi ego (4) faciem fcense ad contrariam huic
fabulam inftructe, in praefentia, eis infciis, tur-
barem (5)."
qu'il pourroit donner ordre, qu'ils entendroient
combien peu ils Favoient eftime (i). Item, de
ce qu'il m'avoit confeille, que je ne recerchafTe
la bonne grace d'aucuns fans luy (2). Et pour
ces raifons qu'ils feroient en grand foupcon (3),
fi (4) je troubloye ainfi maintenant la face du
theatre, qui avoit efte apprefte pour joiier ur.e
autre fable (5)."
(i) Such threats, no doubt, Darnly had thrown
ut ; and they would ferve to haften his fate. The
efign of the letter-writer in mentioning them
ems to be this, that Darnly's character fhould be
lifed, as it ftands oppofed to the Queen's, but kept
own in its real ftate, as it fets itfelf againft the
rds. And, as this was a very natural mode of
ling in a forgery made by thofe very lords, and
ems peculiarly apparent here ; fo will it account
r the great opening, which is here given us, into
.e caufes of the King':; murder. Where two fuch
jrpofes were to beprofecuted at once, one of them
VOL; II. N was
f-jrg VINDICATION OP LET,
<vas fure to injure the other, and fome truths to
betrayed betwixt them.
(2) This counfel was probably true alfo. But
Could only have been true, juft after the murder of
Rizzio ; when the Queen pardoned Murray, Glen-
cairn, Rothes, &o Thefe flie l< purchafed " over
to her fide, by a pardon for all their treafons, a per-
tniflion to continue in the country notwithftanding
their exife, and a re-inftatement in offices of truft
and authority about her. Accordingly, that gauntf
and grim afTaflm Ruthven, in his own- cool ac-
count of the murder of Rizzio r reprefents the King
as declaring " to the Queen's majefty, that he had
" fent for the lords to return again - r whereunto Hie
ff anfwered, that fhe was not to blame that they
" were fo long away, for fhe could be content ttf
" have them home at any time, but for angringhim'-,
" and to verify the fame, when the Queen gave rc-
" mifllon to the Duke, he was mi/contented there-
" 'with *." And the allufion in January 1 567 to ft
fa6l that happened the March preceding, as if it
had very recently happened, and was (till a ftrong
ground for jealoufy, is a full proof of the forgery.
" Sum of thame," Scotch ; " cpjorundam," Latin,
for quorundam de Us j " d'aucuns/' French. And
the'ufc of the word " by" appears very fingular to
tis; " fiorfum a fc," Latin j * c fans luy," French:
but was common in the Scotch at that time f-
(3) " For this cans," Scotch j * has ob caufas,"
Latin ; " pour ccs raifons," French : " in jeiofy,"
Keith, App. i2y. | SeeGoodall, 11.287, 3'S 3 X 9'
Scotch )
;CHAP. 2* MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 179
Scotch j cc in magnd fufpicione," Latin 5 tc en
if grand foupcon," French.
(4) " At anis>" Scotch, omitted in the Latin
and French.
(5) ff In thair prefence," Scotch; <c in prsefen-
" tia," for in eorum frafentid, Latin; and fb ren-
jdered, as in frefentid properly fignifies, tc mainte-
l* c nant," French. " Without thair knowledge/'
Scotch ; cc eis infciis," Latin ; omitted in French.
[And " I fuld brek the play fet up in the contrair,"
Scotch, is very well tranflated into Latin thus,
f* ego faciem fcense ad contrariam huic fabulam in-
r flruclas turbarem " and very clofely copied by
pe French, "je troubloye la face du theatre qui
avoit efte app/efle pour jou'er une autre fable."
This paflage implies the King and Queen to
ave agreed at the meeting, that their reconci-
ation ihould not be fhewn to the world at pre-
ent, for fear of incenfmg the lords, Murray men
ioned before, and others who were equally minif-
ers to Mary and enemies to Darniy. Yet fuch an
mplication is contrary at once, to the truth of hit-
ory, and to the general defign of the author
-Jiftory fliews the reconciliation to have taken
>lace j and the moft ftriking proofs of it to have
een given, in the Queen's offices of tendernefs
bout him. And the defign of the author is, to
nake thofe offices appear all infidious, the refult of
dukery, and the leaders to murder. Dr.rRobert-
bn accordingly tells us, that fc Ihe not only vifited
1 Henry, but by all ffer words and adions endea-
N a <c voured
l30 V IN D I CAT IOH OF LET. t,
" voured to exprefs an uncommon affetlion for him."
Yet all this was hypocrify, he fays. For " two [he
" fliould have faid, four] of her famous letters to
" Bothwell were written during her ftay at Glaf-
" gow, and fully lay open this fcene of iniquity *."
"With fuch grofs difmgenuity does the Doctor aft,
concerning the letters. When they contradict
hiftory, he does not follow them, but befiill be^
lieves them to be genuine. He fhews he obferves the
contradiction. Yet he retains bis implicit faith
in them. His judgment is not warped. But his
probity is corrupted.
XXVII." He faid, verray joyfully, And think
^w thay will %fteme zow the mair of that?
I am verray gla;:! that zc fpcik ro m? of the
" lordisj for (i) I beleve at this tyme ze defyre
" that we fuld leif togidder in quyetnes (2) j (of
" gif it wer utherwyfe, greiter inconvenience
" micht come to us baith than we ar war of (3) :
" bot now I will do quhat ever ze will do, and
ff will lufe all that ze lufe (4) ; and defyris zow to
<f mak thame lufe in lyke manner : for, fen thay
' feik not my lyfe (5), I lufe tham all equallie.
" Upon yis point (6), this"
XXVIL " Turn ille vehementer lastus fubjecit,
" Ettu putas-ne quod pluris illi te ceftirnabunt ob
" hanc caufam ? Sed valde gaudeo quod fermonem
* Hift. i. 396 397.
" dc
CHAP. 2. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. l8l
f de proceribus injecifti ; nunc quidem ( i ) credo
f te cupere, ut una concorditer vivamus (2) : nam
f ni ita efTet, majora quam uterque timemus in-
commoda utrique poflfent evenire (3) : fed nunc,
quod tu vis volo, et quod amabis amabo (4) ; et
c cupio ut eorum fimiliter concilies amorem : quia,
c poftquam non petunt vitam meam (5), omnes
amo ex sequo. Circa hoc caput (6),"
XXVII. " Alors eftant grandement joyeux, il
adjoufta, Et penfez-vous que pour cela ils vous
en eftiment d'avantage ? Mais je fuis bien aife
que vous avez fait mention des feigneurs j main-
tenant (i) je croye, que vous defirez que nous
vivions enfemblement en paix (2) : car s'il eftoit
ainfi, beaucoup plus grandes fafcheries nous
pourroient advenir a tous deux, que nous ne
craignons (3) j mais a prefeht je veux ce que
vous voulez, et aimeray ce que vous aimere'z (4);
et defire que pareillement vous acqueriez leur
amitie : car puis qu'ils ne pourchaflent a m'ofter
la vie (5), je les aime tous efgalement. Tou-
chant ce chef (6), le"
(1) " For," Scotch; " quicjem," Latin j omit-
ed in French.
(2) This, fo far as it intimates that the fepara-
ion of the King and Queen was occafioned by her,
nd not by him, I have already fhewn to be con-
rary to faft, and confequently to be an evidence
f the forgery. Dr. Robertfon alfo acknowledges,
N 3 that
jg VINDICATION OF LET. I.
that the feparation was occafioned by his abfenting
himfelf from court. He informs us, that " Henry
" fometimes attended at court *," that he and the
Queen " palTed two nights together f," that he
" foon after took a refolution, equally wild and deft
" perate, of embarking on board a Ihip, which he
"provided, and of flying into foreign parts J;"
that he afterwards " refufed to accompany the
" Queen from Stirling to Edinburgh," and was
" abfent from court ;" and that, in fhort, " by his
<; folly and ingratitude he loft the heart of a woman;
cc who doated on him ||." But let us particularly
fee his account of the King's behaviour, on his re-
turn to court the 29th of September 1 566. " He ar-
" rived there," he adds, " on the fame day (he rc-
" ceived the account of his intended flight. But he
" was more than u^ially wayward and peevifh , at
Cf fcrupling to enter the palace, imlefs certain lord!
" who attended the Queen were difmified, Mary
" was obliged to meet him without the gates. At
c laft he fuffcred her to conduct him into her own
* c apartment. She endeavoured to draw from him
" the reafons of the ftrange refolution which he had
"taken, arid to divert him from it. In fpite, how-
<f ever, of all her arguments and intreaties, he re-
" mained filent and inflexible. Next day the
" privy council, by her direction, expoftulated with
<f him on the fame head. He perfifted nor.vith-
<c ftanding in his fullennefs and obftinacy ; and
Hift, 1.372. ti-373- t- 375-
* Ibid. |j i. 4.00.
" neither
CHAP. 2. MARY QJJ E E N OF SCOTS. iSj
" neither deigned to explain the motives of his
* c conduct, nor fignified any intention of altering it.
" As he left the apartment, he turned towards the
" Queen, and told her that fhe fhould not fee his
" face again for a long time *." This laft account
is inftar omnium, in fhewing to which fide the fcpa-
ration is to be attributed. The Doctor indeed has
not done Mary full juftice, becaufe he has fupprclfed
her taking him by the band in the council, her double
addrefs to him, the addrefs of the lords, the addrefs
of the French embajfadoury the declaration of Darnly
that he had had no reafons given him for fuch a re-
folution, and bis inftantly walking out of the council-
chamber:, which are circumftances of great mo-
ment in this tranfaction. His fupprefiion of thefe
muft reflect much upon his integrity/ as an hifto-
rian. But he has faid enough to convict Darnly,
as the moft unreafonable of all unreafonable huf-
bands. And his fo plainly attributing the fepara-
.tion to Darnly, when the letters attribute it to Mary;
and yet his adherence to the authenticity of thofe
letters, when they contain acknowledged falfhoods ;
form one of thofc glaring contrarieties of conduct,
which are too common indeed in life, but which al-
ways denote the conflicts of principle with parTion^
and betray the fhameful victories that the latter oc-
cafionally obtains over the former.
(3) This tells us an important truth, which is
plain upon the face of the hiftory; that Murray
gnd his accomplices took advantage of the King's
* i- 375376.
N 4 fooli&
184. VINDICATION OF LET. I.
foolifli and froward behaviour to the Queen, and
endeavoured to profecute their own purpofes by the
aid of it.
(4) This implies, that the King had afted fro-
wardly before, and fo far is inconfiftent with va-
rious paflages preceding. That he had, let us be .
once more Ihewn, and from a new authority, and
from one that was peculiarly hoftile to Mary. " All '
<f honour," fays Randolph to Leicefter, in a letter
of July 3oth 1565, the very day after the mar-
riage, " that may be attributed unto any man by a
" wife, he hath it wholly and fully. All praife that
Sf may be fpoken of him, he lacketh not from her-
" felf. All dignities that fhe can endow him with,
" are already given and granted. No man pleaf-
" eth her that contenteth not him. And what
" may I fay more ? She hath given over unto him
<f her whole will, to be ruled and guided as himfelf
<c beft liketh." Yet, notwithftanding all this kind-
nefs, " Jhe can Jo much prevail with him in any
*' thing that is againji his willy as your lordfhip
" may with me, to ferjwade that I fiould hang my- ;
"Jelf."
" Quod amabis amabo," Latin, is intimated by
Mr. Goodall f, and agreed to by Mifcellaneous Re- ''
marker J, to be the printer's or copier's error of;
quod for quos ; and yet to have been followed, fays
Goodall, i. 222. and Robcrtfon, ii. 347. This letter ij
dated " the laft day of July ;" but from the mention of " this
" da .y' Monday," appears to have been written oa the 301),.
t i- 96. J P. 10.
the
CHAP. 2. MARY OJJEEN OF SCOTS. lS$
the latter, " with his wonted fertility" by the
Frenchman, in his "j'aimeray ce que vous
" aimerez." And the reafon afligned for their
opinion, is the immediate appearance of " eorum."
Jut the obfervation is more nice than juft. " I
f will do quhatever ze will do, and lufe all that ze
lufe," Scotch, is naturally and properly ren-
dered, " Quod tu vis volo, ct quod- amabis amabo/'
and <r je veux ce que vous voulez, et aimeray ce
( que vous aimerez." Nor does <c eorum," Latin,
ind '* leur," French, follow more ftrangely after-
ivards, than " thame," Scotch. And it is the very
mpertinence of criticifm, to think of reducing
uch a compofition as this to the precifeft rules of
anguage.
(5) This forms one of the various hints in the
etter, that fome of Mary's minifters were plotting
igainft the life of Darnly. We are very fure that
his is true, by the legal proofs againft Bothwell
md Morton, and by that which is paramount to all
egal proofs, the full and ftrong voice of fafts
gainft Murray and Lethington. But how the let-
er-wrker could be fo abfurd as to mention it, is
urprizing. Yet the truth wouty intrude upon him,
t is plain from this and other inftances, and mingle
tfith his mafs of fiction. Thus, in the prefent let-
er, Mynto told him that fome of the council had
wrought an order to Mary for her fignature, to
end Darnly to prifon, and to flay him if he made
efiftance. Thus alfo he fays afterwards, that Ma-
y refufed to fubfcribe this order, and that, as to
he others who wanted to purfue his life, he would
fell
l86 VINDICATION Of LET. I.
fell it at a dear rate to them. Thus again, he in-
timates Murray to have told a great falfhood of
him ; and fhe fpeaks of the threats which he had
thrown out againft the lords, that, if ever he and
fhe became reconciled, he fhould make them fuffer
for the (lights which they had put upon him. And
now he himfelf hints again, that they had been
feeking his life. A train of plots had been formed
againft him by Murray probably, the engaging him
in the murder of Rizzio, the plan of a divorce,
the poifon perhaps adminiftered to him, and this
order for his commitment, though never prefented
to Mary. " O good pitiful men," fays the Bifhop
of Rofs, with a pointed fneer at Murray and Mur-
ray's aflbciates, pretending to take up the caufe of
the murdered King, <c who for the very tender love
" and finguler affection, which you did ever beare
" to the L. Darley (the which truly was fo ve-
" hement, that for your exceeding hot and fervent
" love towards him, ye ever fought his barfs blood) t
do now fo pitifully bewaile him * ! "
(6) " Upon yis point," Scotch ; " circa hoc ca-
put," Latinj " touchant ce chef," French.
" beirer will fchaw zow mony fmall thingis. BecaJL
I have over mekle to wryte, and it is lait ( i ) ; I ]
" give traift unto him upon zour word (2). Sui
" he will ga upon my word to all places (3).
* Defence, 25.
XXVII
CHAP. 1. MARY QJJZEN OF SCOTS. 187
XXVIII." Alace ! I never diflavit ony body:
ft hot I remit me altogidder to zour will (4). Send
" me advertifement quhat I fall do, and quhatfaever
" thing fall cum thairof, I fall obey zow (5). Ad-
* vife to with zourfelf, gif ze can find out ony
" mair fecret inventioun by medicine (6) ; for he
" fuld tak medicine "
f( hie tabellarius multa minuta tibi declarabit ; quia
nimis multa fuperfunt fcribenda, et jam ferum
ft eft (i). Huic adhibebis fidem juxta tuum ver-
*' bum (2). Breviter, meo juffu quovis ibit (3).
XXVIII. " Hei mihi ! nunquam quenquam
cc decepi j fed ego me in univerfum tuas voluntati
" fubjicio (4). Fac me certiorem quid faciam, et
quicunque fequatur eventus, tibi obfequar (5).
4 * Edam tecum perpende, an comminifci queas ali-
" quam occultiorem rationem per medicinam (6);"
*' porteur vous recitera plufieurs particul.aritez ;
** d'autant qu'il y a trop de chofes qui reftent a ef-
' crire, et qu'il eft defia tard (i): vous adjoufterez
<f foy felon voftre parole (2). En fomme, il ira ou
vous voudrez par mon commandement (3)."
XXVIII. " Helas ! je n'ay jamais trompe per-
fl fonne ; mais je me fubmets en toutes chofes a
voftre volonte (4). Faictes moy fcavoir ce que
te je doy faire; et quoy qu'il en puifTe advenir je
<c vous obeiray (5). Et penfez en vous mefme, ft
" pouvez trouver quelque moyen plus couvert que
" par breuvage (6) ; "
(i) This
j38 TINDICATIOIf OF LET.
1 i ) This fhews the fecond halt* of the letter to
be written in the night of the fecond day after the
arrival, January 25th.
(2) This is alfo one of the noted inftances, by
which Mr. Goodall difcovered the unknown origi-
nal of the letters in the difguife of a tranflation,
that it had now worn unobferved for nearly two
hundred years } and pointed it out decifively to the
reafon of all mankind. " Paris had been an old
" fervant to the Earl of Bothwell, and had lately
u been taken into the Queen's fervice." She
therefore fays fhe truftcd him upon the earl's re-
commendation. But Buchanan overlooking the
pronoun of the firft perfon, he necefifarily tran-
flated the fentence, " huic adhibebis fidem juxta
" tuum verbum ;" and the French tranflator, hav-
jng no other original but the Latin, followed it
clofely, " vous adjoufterez foy felon voltre pa*
* f role *." This adds one more to the many in-r
ftances that we have already had, of the wondi rl ul
negligence with which Buchanan made his tranfla*
tion. The fame took place, no doubt, in forming
the original Scotch. We have even feen fonie afr
tonifhing proofs of it, in the contradictorinefs of
parts to parts. And in this manner was cooked up
that celebrated compofition, which the faction and
the folly of fucceeding times was to raife into con-
fequence, to exalt into authenticity, and to engraft
upon the flock of hiftory.
* Goodall, i. 8990.
(3) " H<J
tHAP.2. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
(3) " He will ga upon my word to all places,"
Scotch ; fc meo juilu quovis ibit," Latin ; and, il
f ira ou vous voudrez par mon commandement,"
French j the Frenchman miftaking " quovis " for
quo vis. This was another of Mr. GoodaJPs deci-
ive proofs *."
(4) This is a third touch of remorfe. But it is
nore ridiculous than either of the two before. It
s fhorter. It goes off fooner into iniquity again.
&nd it a6b in oppofition to every principle of na-
ure, in reprefenting one, who is exprefsly declared
o have " never difTavit ony body" before, as de-
riving Darnly in the higheft manner, as mounting
it once to the very height of hypocrify, as becom-
ng by one exertion a very prodigy of malignity.
(5) What does this rrfean ? Did not the Mary
>f the forgers know full well what fhe was to do,
rfien fhe went to Glafgow ? If fhe did not, why
id the forgers write this letter ? But this very letter
lews, that fhe came to Glafgow in order to draw
im to Edinborough. So the commiflioners of
fork underftood it, as I have noticed before;
vhen they faid in their account of it to Elizabeth,
lat " fhe toke her journey from Edinburghe to
Glafco, to vifite him [the King], being theare
ficke, and purpofely of intent to bring him
with her to Edenbttrghe" And this they no-
ce, ^as they tell us themfelves, " for the decla-
ration of the confpiracie, and her procurement
and confent to the murder of her faid huf-
* . 9697-
"band."
t$O TINDICATION OP LET. I A
" band *." But is not her particular intention
very plain ? It is. " I anfwerit," fhe fays, " that
" I wald tak him with me to Cragmillar, quhair 1
c< the medicincr and I micht help him, and not be
<c far from 'my fone." " Bot he hes prayit me,'*
fhe adds in another place, ff to remane upon him
" quhil uther fnorne." And in the next letter flie
fubjoins dius : " howbeit I have na farther newia
<c from zow, according to my COMMISSIOUN I bring
" the man with me to Cragmillar upon Monoun-*
" day." She therefore had her commifTion, before
Ihe fet out* And thefe repeated calls for direc-
tions are mere impertinence, the oftenfible reafon*
for writing the letter, but in direct contradiction to
the defign and contents of it.
(6) This is a very remarkable pafTage. It car-
ries a murderous tendency in the very tone of it*
And it is accordingly pointed out twice to Eliza-
beth, by her commiflioners at York f. But how
are we to' underftand it ? The word by we have
juft feen to fignify, not with, but withouf. Does iC
fo fignify here? The authority of Buchanan is,
that it does, and that it does not. This is extraordi-
nary. From a written copy of his Detection, which
is thought to be the very copy that he prefented to
Elizabeth, he appears to have originally translated
the words, " occultiorem rationem quam per medi-
" cinam." The French remains accordingly at
prefent, " moyen plus couvert qnt par breuvage."
/But he afterwards altered his verfion, leaving out
* Appendix, N ri. f Ibid. N vi. and vii.
9 the
CHAP. 2. MARY QJJEEtf OF SCOTS. 1 9!
the word quam, and fo making the whole to ftand
as it does now, " occultiorem rationem per rriedi-
cc cinam." He did this likewife in a paffage of
his Detection itfelf, in which he quoted the letters.
And there he reafoned flanderoufly againft Mary,
upon the credit of his new verfion *.
This exhibits Buchanan to us in a fingular view,
correcting his own Latin verfion in the interval, be-
tweeen writing out, a copy for the eager curiofity of
Elizabeth, and publifhing it in print to the world.
This alfo proves the French verfion to have been
made, not from the printed copy, but from the
MS ; not after the publication of the Latin, but
before, though the Latin was publifhed about the
end of October 157 1, and the French in the middle
of February afterwards f. I have hiftorically
proved the French copy, to have been formed long
before the publication of either. But it here ap-
pears to have been fo,'from a (light incident in the
language of it; even before the publication of the
letters in any language, and when they were merely
|in MS, in the hands of Elizabeth, or in the hands
of Murray. And the French tranflation was left,
by this extraordinary double in the Latin, differing
from it even where it had adhered to it ; the cor-
rected Latin here following Buchanan's clofely,
: even when Buchanan himfelf had deferted it.
Which then are we to follow, the original, or
the corrected, Buchanan r If we confider the words,
* Goodall, i. 326327. Detection, xi. 51. Anderfon, ii. and
jebb, 1.255. t Goodall, i. 37 38.'
"ony
i 9 2 VIN DI C ATI ON OF LET. t,
dny mair fecrdt inventioun ly medicine," to mean
witbovt medicine; then the paffage muft be fup-
pofed to intimate, that the King had been poifoned
already in fome medicine, and that the next at-
tempt fhould be without the ufe of medicine, and
in a way which would not fhew itfclf fo openly.
But if we confider the words as they found to our
ears, then Bothwell is defined to think of fome
mode of difpatching the King, that fhould be more
fecret than that of gun-powder, and that might be
given him in his phyfic. Mr. Goodall adopts i
the former fenfe; " for the words, in the Scots;
" language in Buchanan's days, fignified without
" medicine*.'" But the commifiioners of England
plainly took them in the latter f. Buchanan him-
felf alfo, upon revifal, took them in this view. And^
the context plainly confines them to this. " Advife
with zourfelf," it fays, " gif ze can find out ony
" mair fecreit inventioun," than what had been al-
ready proje&cd, " by medicine } FOR hefuldtak me-
< dicine and the bath at Cragmillar, he may not
" c cum furth of the houfe this long tyme."
But why was this hint concerning poifoning
him in his medicines thrown out? No calumny-
was ever ftarted by the rebels, of Mary's attempt-.
ing to poifon him pqfteriorfy to this period. Ife
was thrown out therefore, to give the ftronger credit
to their (lander, of her having poifonfd him before*
Yet it wholly refutes it. If poifon was now to be
tried by her and Bothwell, it had not been tried
* i. 326 327. | Appendix, N* vi. and vii.
before
CHAP. 2. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 93
l/^n? by them. And the paflage preceding, that
hints at his having been poifoned by them, is as
much.oppofed to this, which infinuates that he was
\fo be poifoned j as it is to the other, which inti-
mates that he was not poifoned, but poxed. So
Strangely contradictory is the letter to itfelf !
F c and the bath at Cragmillar. He may not curii
f furth of the hous this lang tyme (i)."
c fumpturus eft enim et medicinam et balneum ad
Cragmillarium. Noh poteft domo egredi ad mul-
tos dies (i).*'
car 51 doit prertdre medicine et eftre baigne a
Cragmillar. II ne peut fortir du logis d'icy a
' plufieurs jours (i)."
(i) The meaning of the words ff he may not
cum furth of the hous this lang tyme," is this;
hat the King cannot leave his confinement, and
lingle with the world again 3 for a long time. But
ie Frenchman reitraining the meaning to the
ling's houfe at Glafgow, fays he cannot leave that,
^d'icy," for a long time. He left that two days
fterwards. But he was confined to his houfe at
.irk-a-field, for many afterwards.
This being noticed, let me here afk, What was
lary's view, in the opinion of her flanderers, for
ringing Darnly to Edinborough, The vulgar
oL ' II > O
19 4. . VINDICATION OF L2T. U ~
herd have always fuppofcd it to be in order to
murder him there. With this the letters agree
' And murdered he certainly was, in a few days afti
Ihe brought him to Edinborough, But Dr. R
bertfon has found out a better reafon. it was /*
frcvcnt bis going abroad, She was affured, that
he refolved inftantly to leave the kingdom ; tha
a veflel was hired for the pirj ok, and lay in the.
" river Clyde ready to receive him, Keith, Pref,
" viii." This." was what Mary chiefly dreaded.
While he refidc'd at Glafgow, he might witli
" more facility accomplifh his dcfigns. In order,
therefore, to prevent his executing any fuch wild
" fcheme, it was neceffary to bring him to fome
place, where he would be more immediately un-
der her own eye *." This is a pafiarc aftonifh-
ingly replete with folly. The dtfign of going
abroad, I have already fhcwn to have exifted long
before. The very author whom he cites for it,
Keith, proves it plainly; though not in the place to
which he refers, " Prcf. viii/' but in Hift. 345-
351. The very intelligence referred to m Keith,
was received by Mary fo long ago as September
29th, very nearly FOUR months before. N
Robertfon has even acquainted iis with it before;
telling us, that loon after" Darnly's writing tt
the Pope, &c. " he took a refolution equally w
*' and defperate, of embarking on board a Ihip,
-usbicb he provided, and of flying into foreigt
parts f." This was in September. He had
* Hilt i. 39"-399- t Ibid -375-
therefori?
CHAP. i. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
.therefore provided a fhip in September. Had he
a.lib in January ? He had, according to Dr. Ro-
bertfon. Yet it is one and the fame (hip, provided
at one and the fame time 3 though the Dr. has
fo ftrangely fpiit it into two. He refers to Keith
for his" January veffel. But this is the fame veffel
that was provided in September. He commu-
nicated the defign," fays Dr. Robertfon, to
" the French embaflador Le Croc, and to his father
" the Earl of Lenox. Lenox inftantly cornmuni-
nicated the matter to her [the Queen] by a let-
" ter. Henry arrived there [at court] on the fame
" day ihe received the account *." This, Le Croc
himfelf affures us, was on September 2pth f. But
the Dr. has, with more judgment than integrity,,
fuppreffed all the dates and forne circumftances;
particularly one which appeared from Lenox's let-
ter, that then " he had a fliip lying ready to fail,"
or, as the privy council exprefles this part of the
letter, " he had jujl then a ihip lying ready ;" in
order to give himfelf the liberty, with a better air,
of producing the intelligence again at a new period,
and with a new glofs upon it. He has alfo fup-
prdled another circumftance, or rather a train of
circumftances, which equally appears in Le Croc's
letter ; that the latter had fmce feen the King, that
he had ufed every argument which he could think
of to diffuade him from his projecl, that now he
believed the King would not go, and that he had
umsd the Queen with the whole J. This, if
'** 375- t Keith, 346. t Ibid. 347.
O 2 . noticedj
VINDICATION Of LtT. 1,
noticed, would have precluded his re-mention of
the project and the Ihip ; and was therefore kept
under cover. He chofe to follow Buchanan and
flander, even when he had Le Croc and the truth
before him. Buchanan (as I have previoufly no-
ticed) has juft made the fame anachronifm, for be
alfo has engrafted hiftory upon the lettefs ; and fo
brought down what happened in September, to the
January following. " Ibi," at Holyrood-houfe,
' cum refcitum cfiet," he fays, " Regem convalef-
<f cere, ac vim vcncni setatis vigore et corporis
" firmitate naturali fuperatam, novum de eo tol-
" lendo confiHum initur ; cum interea ad Reginam
" delatum efict, Regem de fuga in Galliam aut
tf Hifpaniam cogitare, eaque de re cum Anglis,
* c qui navem in aftuario GlottjE (lantern habebant,
" collocutum : confulunt omnes feftinandum, an-
" tequam plane convalefceret*." This was plainly
the authority, upon which Dr. Robertfon proceed-
ed ; though he formally refers to Keith. That
coincides with him. This is directly againft him. 3
Only the Doctor has enhanced the wilful miirepre-
fentation of Buchanan, by giving us the truth (ir>
part at leafl) before, and then giving us the falfhood
afterwards. And he has alfo heightened the abfur-
dity of all, by afligning fuch a boyifh reafon for
Mary's drawing Darnly from Glafgow, That he
might not embark there.
On the 3oth of September Darnly went out of
the council-chamber, and told the Queen, that Ihc
* IlUt, xviil 350,
(houkl
CHAP. 2. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOT'S.
ihould not fee his face again for a long time.
After this, fays the council, " by a letter which
" the King has fince wrote to the Queen in
" a fort of difguifed ftile, it appears that he flill has
" it in his head to leave the kingdom j and there
<f is advertifement otherwife, that he is fecretly
" preparing to be gone*/' Le Croc alfo adds thus:
ft he is not yet embarked ; but we receive adver-
* c tifement from day to day, that he ftill holds on
* f his refolution, and keeps a fhip in readinefs."
Yet all this time Mary never goes to him when he
was gone from her > and never tries to bring him
back to Edinborough, though he was then at Glaf-
gow, at that very port fo formidable to Mary, and
fo clofe to his ready-prepared veffel. Then Darnly
fent to Le Croc to confer with him. " The King,
" who had gone to Glafgow," fays Le Croc, f * fent
<f me word to come and meet him half way, betwixt
" LiQebourgh.," Edinborough, " and Glafgow. I
(f obeyed him, and found his father, the Earl of
'" Lenox, with him. We had much communing to-
" gether; and I remonftrated to him every thing that
(< I could think of: and now I believe he will not
ft go out of the kingdom, though I can perceive,
" that he ftill entertains fome difpleafure j\" Mary
ftill went hot to him. at Glafgow, to draw him
from thence. She even went another way, towards
Berwick. And, while he was holding his confe-
rence with Le Croc, fhe was refiding at Jed->
borough.
* Keith, 349350. f Ibid. 347,
O 3 I am
VINDICATION OF LET.l,
I am furprizcd, however, at the reprefentar
this 'wild project in all our hiilorian
derecl by them as a fcrious one. But u app,
me nothing more than a feint, a low aft of cunning
to extort the matrimonial crown from Mary, by
the fear of his going abroad. Hence Lenox
to him at Stirling, immediately on tl
abjtnce. Hence he himfelf came back to Holy-
rood-houfe, tie very evening of the day on
{he had received bis father s letter of
concerning it. Hence he would not, becaufe he
could not, tell her, either in private or in \
&R grounds of his intended departure. lie;
went out of the council- chamber fo abruptly in his
manner, and with fo rude a menace. on his lips,
that {he Ihould not fee his face again for a long
time. Hence he wrote the letter to her aftc
<f in a fort of difguifed ftile," intimating his rcfo-
lution to go. Hence fhe received advcrtifements,
from day to day, of his intending to go, and of his
preparing to depart. And hence alfo, when he ancj
his counselling father found that the Queen fo little
heeded his intentions, as never to attempt to flop
him, to draw him from the port and the veflVl, and
to fecure him " immediately under her o\v
at Edinborough j as even to leave him to t'
cution of his own devices ; and even to L-.r. e him
ft ill greater opportunity for it, by her it ill
diftance from him : then, then, his father and he
fought a conference with Le Croc; he wante
difiuaded, from what he had never intended in
; and he faltered himfelf at luft to be
I?-
CHAP. 2. MARY QJT E E N OF SCOTS. *$$
brought, apparently, very near to a conviction. Ac-
cordingly I find the whole privy-council of Scot-
land at the time, concurring with me in this idea.;
though it has been fo little attended to by our hif-
lorians. After a full narration of all -that pafled
at the council-table, on September the 3oth ; they
fpeak of the King's departure, and fay, " fo that
* c we were all of opinion, that this was but a fe.lfe
-r,i the Earl of Lenox was willing to give her
Yet, more than three months after this, Buchanan
and Dr. Robertfon ; and the latter with a ipirit (I
fear), that wotild have made him fralf a Buchanan
in times lefs civilized, and lefs inquifitive, than the
prefent -, reprefent Darnly as ftill perfifting in his
project, and as perfifting in it, even when he was
reduced by ficknefs to the utmofr, extremity of
weaknefs, And Dr. Robertfon adds to all, by de-
fcribing the Queen, who had never gone near the*
King from the day of his departure to Glalgow,
September jpth, till nearly the end of January fol-
lowing ; who had particularly not gone all the
time, that fhe received daily intelligence of his
preparing to embark ; as now going, when fhe re-
ceived no fuch intelligence at all ; when fhe had
been fully certified abo-ve three months before, that
in all probability he had given up the delign ;
when the length of time, elapfed fince, had fully
proved that he had , and when his fuper-added
* Keith, 349.
O 4
VINDICATION OF LET. I.
illnefs rendered it impoflible for him to go, for
fome time to come. But it is hardly worth the
labour, to difcredit fuch impertinencies as thefe.
Only they ferve to fhew the impofition that has
been put upon the publick, when hiftories, fo lit-
tle founded on truth, and fo little conduced by
judgment, have taken advantage of the factious
madnefs of the times, and raifed themfelves to an
high degree of authority among us. Yet I fhall
juft purfue the fubjeft, to fhew the Doctor equally
contradicting himfelf and the letters at once.
He has already told us, that Mary drew Darnly
from Glafgow to Edinborough, to prevent him
from embarking, and to keep him under her own
eye. He tells us however in a few lines after-
wards, that this was not the defign in drawing him,
that fhe meant to murder him, and that for this pur-
pofe fhe lodged him in a lonely houfe at his arri-
val. " In order to prevent his executing any fuch
<f wild fcheme, it was neceflary to bring him to
" fome place where he would be more immediately
? e under her own eye. For this purpofe, fhe firft
? e employed all her art to regain his confidence, and
" then prppofed to remove him to the neighbour-
<f hood of Edinburgh. The Kingwas weak enough
<f to fuffer himfelf to be perfuaded" ^not difiuaded.
from flaying at Glafgow, and embarking on board
a fhip, as the chain of ideas requires us to fuppofe
at firft ; but, from a new fet of ideas that have here
ftarted up fuddenly in the author's mind, perfuaded
jo go to Edinborough in order to be murdered] \
" and was carried to Edinburgh. The place pre-
" parcel
CHAP. 2. MARY QJJ E E N OF SCOTS. 2OZ
f f pared for his reception was" fuch, as " the foli,
' e tude of the place rendered extremely proper for'
(< the commiffion of that crime, WITH A VIEW TQ
" WHICH IT SEEMS MANIFESTLY TO HAVE BEEN
'< CHOSEN *." What was only an innocent and
ridiculous purpofe at firft, that of preventing
rDarnly from embarking at Glafgow, as if this wa^
[the only port in the kingdom, or as if he could
mot elope from Edinborough to Glafgow again;
becomes at laft a ferious and important plan of
concerted murder. The tranfition from the one to
the other is totally unmarked. And to our afto-
bifhment we find ourfelves engaged in a murderous
broject, when we thought we were only employed
In preventing a voyage. So ftrangely does the
Doctor contradict himfelf ! It is no wonder there-
fore, that he contradicts the letters. They, with
b much confiftency as fuch felf-repugnant writings
tan have, intimate the vifit to be for drawirTg
Oarnly to Edinborough, in order to be murdered.
This is indeed the plan, upon which the Doctor
nmfelf has ultimately proceeded. But then the
ther plan, of preventing the embarkation by
:eepmg him in her own eye, cannot be reconciled
.nth this or with the letters. In thefe, as we have
Jready feen, the King is even made exprefsly to
eny, that he ever had any fcheme of embarking,
.'his undoubtedly is falfe in fact. But then this, and
! ae general drift of the letters, concurring together,
tio doubly and trebly preclude in thofe who believe
399,-
the
202 VINDICATION OF LET. t,
the authenticity of the letters, all poffibility of fup-
pofmg, that Mary came to Glafgow in order to
prevent the fcheme, and to hold him directly under
her own infpection. If the fcheme never exifted, j
it could not be prevented. If Ihe fetched him I
from Glafgow in order to murder him, fhe did not ]
mean to confine him within the immediate fphere I
of her own obfervance. And to Dr. Robertfoii
the argument is decifive. Yet the good Doctor hat
fticwn us in fome inftanccs before, and will perhaps |
{hew us in others hereafter, how little lie min
letters at times, though he profefles his firm belief I
of their genuinenefs. He treats them, as PapHNH
treat their legends. He reverts them in g.
as true. Yet lie is obliged by the power of truth,
to leave them at one time. He is induced by th
iblicitartons of flander, to defert them at another
He thus treats them repeatedly as falfe, A -.
lie ilill believes them to be tnic
'
CHAP. 2. MARY QJJEEN Of SCOTS,
111,
.ETTER THE FIRST CONTINUED,
XIX. Summa, be all that I can feirne, he
'is in greit fufpicioun (i), and zit, notwithftand-
ing, he gevis credit to my word (2) ; but zit not
fa far that he will fchaw ony thing to me (3) :
hot nevertheles I fall draw it out of him, gif ze
will that I avow all unto him (4). Bot I will
never rejoyce to difTaive ony body that traiftis in
me : zit, notwithstanding, ze may command -me
in all thingis (5). Have na evill opinioun of
me for that caus, be reflbun ze ar the occafion of
it zourfelf -, becaus, for my a win. particular re-
yenge, I wald not do it to him."
XIX." Breviter, quantum intelligere pof-
fum, in magna fufpicione vemtur (i), nihilo
tamen minus magnam habet fidem orationi
mefe (2) ; nee tamen ufque adeo, ut quicquam
mihi effutiat (3) : nihilo minus ego ex eo, fiqui-
dem tu vis, omnia apud eum profitear et agnof-
cam (4). Sed nunquam gaudebo in quovis ho-
mme, qui mihi fidit, decipiendo : nihilo minus tu
mihi potes omnibus in rebus imperare (5). Noli
ideo fmiftram opinionem de me concipere j quia
;u ipfe hujus rei mihi author es -, nunquam enim
" iftud
VINDICATION OF LET. J,
iftud in cum committerem, mcas propria: uhionis I
caufa."
XXIX." Brief, a ce que j'cn puis entendre, ilj
' eft en grand foupcon (i) j neantmoins il adjoufte
" beaucoup de foy a ma parole (2) j mais non en-
< cores tant, qu'il n'en defcouvre quelque chofe (3) :
cc toutesfois je confefieray et recongnoiflra tout deJ
ee vant luy, ft vou* le trouvez bon (4). Mais fi ne
<c m'efiouiray-jejamais a troinper celuy qui fe fie en
" moy : neantmoins vpus me pouvez commander en
<f toutes chofes (5). Ne concevez done point cJ
c< moy aucune fmiftre opinion, puis que vou;
<f mefmes eftes caufe de 6ela ; car je ne le feroyejz
< e rpais contre luy popr ma vengeance particuliere."
1 i ) The " greit fufpicioun" of this pafiage is
directly contrary to another before, in which tl
King himfclf fays, that " he fufpedit na body,
<f zit wald not."
(2) His " fufpicioun" cannot be " griet," wl
he gevis credit to her word," " magnarn fidem,' : ;
fays the Latin, and " beaucoup de foy," fays
French,
(3) He Is in great Jufyic; en, yet be believes
ix}ord> and yet be will not ftew her any tl
Thefe are three claufes, following fucceffively
order, and contradicting one the other.
(4) What did Mary want Darnly to fhew
rven upon the plan of the letters ? Nothing fu
\Vhat then was fhe to draw out of him ? Not
. Am! what is the aU> that flic afks Bothwell'
rCHAP. 2. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
"kave to avow to him ? Nothing Jurely." Draw
< it out of him," Scotch ; ex eo," Latin, W -
te*//>< or expifcabor being omitted by the pen
br prefs; and all therefore being omitted by the
rench. This was one of Mr. Goodall's famous
rc Avow," Scotch i profitear et a^
f ( nofcam," Latin i and confefTeray et recon^
f noiftray," French.
I (5) Thefe fits of remorfe are fo petty and fo
jrequent, that they appear plainly to be aSled.
XXX. ff He gives me fum chekis of yat
ij quhilk I fear, zea, evin in the quick (i). He
| fayis this far, yat his faults wer publeift (2) :
I bot yair is that committis faultis, that belevis
Ithay will never be fpokin of (3); and zit thay
|;, will fpeik of greit and fmall (4). As towart the
Lady Reres (5), he faid, I pray God that fcho
[' may ferve zow for zour honour : and faid, it is
f'thocht,"
. Interim me attingit in loco fufpeclo;
ad vivum (i) haclenus proloquutus
|*eft, fua crimina efTe palam (2): fed funt qui
fmajora committant, et opinantur ea filentio tegi
i*(^) ; et tamen homines cle magnis juxta ac par-
?vis loquuntur (4). D. Rerefia ait (5), Deum
ce precor>
206 VINDICATION OF LET. f.
" precor, ut officia quae tibi praeftat fint tibi ho-
<f nori : ait etiam quofdam credere,"
XXX." Cependant il m'a donne attainte du
" lieu fufpect j et a jufques icy difcouru bicn au
c v if (j), que fes fautes font congneiies (d) :
" mais qu'il y en a qui en commettcnt de plus -
Sf grandes, encores qu'ils eftiment qu'elles foient
" cachees par filence (3); et toutesfbis que les
" hommes parlent des grands aufii bien que de
" petits (4). Qu^it a Reres (5), il dit, Je pric
" Dieu que les fervices qu'elle vous fait, vous
" foient a honneur."
(i) This means the adultery. Concerning this,
he gave her (flie fays) fome pointed ftrokes. " For
" certanetie," flie fays almoft immediately after-
wards, " he fufpeftis of the thing ze knaw," tlie
adultery, " and of his lyfe : bot as to the laft t
" how fone that I fpak twa or thre gude wordis
<f unto him, he rejoyfis, and is out of dout." As
to the adultery therefore, he ftill fufpeclcd -, and fo
gave her fome fevere checks about it. Yet how is
this to be reconciled with other pafiagcs ? Had he
fufpefled the adultery; had he even fo ftrongly
fufpefted it, as to intimate his fufpicions to her, and
touch her to the very quick about it ; could he
have been impofed upon by her, as the v.-hole te-
nour of the letter implies he was ? Accordingly,
Dr. "Robertfon reprefents him as unfufpecling and
credulous. This," her kindnefs, " made irr.pref-
" fion on the credulous fpirit of her hulband."
4
CHAP. 1. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 2O >
She firft employed all her art to regain his con-
< fidence, and then propofed to remove him to the
" neighbourhood of Edinburgh , though the pro-
ppfal appears before, to have been made the very
evening of her arrival, and very early in the converfa-
twthen And the King was weak enough to
ffer himfelf to be perfuaded *." Interim "
Latin, and cependant/' French/ are both added
to the Scotch.
(2) The Latin not obferving the full flop at
'< vivum," the French has altered the fenfe mate
ally. P bleift; > Scotch . - u pajam; , ^
eadof fublicata; and fo congneiies," French
nftead
(3) "Is, committis, belevis,' r Scotch; funt
' qui committant, et opinantur," Latin; commet-
c tent, eftiment," French. Faultis," Scotch 5
<majora," Latin; and plus grandes," French.
'Never be fpokin of/' Scotch; filentio tegi,"
Latin ; and Cf cachees par filence," French.
(4) w Thay," Scotch; homines," Latin; and
1 les hommes/' French.
(5) The Latin leaves out de before cc D. Rere-
fia." But the French preferves it, reading the
nitial letter for Domina into de," quant a Reres/ 1
nd fo omitting madamoiJcUe.
* i. 396 and 399.
VINDICATION 6 if LET. t.
tc and he belevis it to be trew, that I have not the!
" power of myfelf into myfelf, and that becaus of
" the refufe 1 maid of his offeris (i). Summa,
" for certanetie he fufpeftis of the thing ze knaw,
" and of his lyfe (2). Bot as to the laft, how fone
" that I fpak twa or thre gude wordis unto him,
" he rejoyfis, and is out of dout (3).
XXXI. " I faw him not this evening for to end
" zour bracelet (4), to the quhilk I can get na
<c lokkis (5). It is reddy to thame (6) : and zit I
"feir that it will"
" ac fe id vcrum exiftimare, me non habere potef- j
" tatem mei intra me, idque quia recufaverim con-
" ditiones a fe oblatas (i). Breviter, certum ell
"quod de eo quod fcis fufpicetur, ac de vid
<f etiam (2). Quod ad pofterius, cum primurh
" ego duobus aut tribus bonis verbis cum compelloj
<c gaudet, ac timere defmit (3).
XXXI. " Non vidi eum hac vefpera, quia tuam
** armillam conficiebam (4), cui nullam poflurrt
<c ceram invenire (5), idenim unum ad perfectio*
" nem ei deeft (6) ; et adhuc vereor ne aliquod fc
" ofFerat infortunium, ct"
I
" II dit auffi, qu'il y en a qui croient, et que de fa
*' pait il Teftime veritable, que je n'ay point en
mo/
MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 209
" moy la puifiance de moy-mefme, d'autant que
Cf j'ay refufe les conditions qu'il avoir offerees (i).
c< Brief, il eft certain qu'il fe doute de ce que fca-
" vez, et de fa vie mefmes (2). Quant au refte,
< foudain que je Juy propofe deux ou trois bonnes
" paroles, il fe refiouit, et n'a point de crainte (3).
rc Je ne 1'ay point veu cefle apres-
<c difnee, parce que je faifoye voftre braflelet (4),
" auquel je ne puis accomoder de la tire (5) ;
"car c'eft ce qui defaut a fa perfection (6); et
encor je crain qu'il n'y furvienne quelque incon-
^ (i) That he made no fuch offers as are here
imted at, has been already fhewn. Dr. Robert-
fon himfelf does not pretend that he did. And yet
the letters are genuine. " Offeris," Scotch; con-
( ditiones oblatas," Latin i conditions ofFertcs,"
Drench.
^ (2) His life," Scotch; vita etiam," Latin;
5 vie toefmes," French, from the corrected
(3) " Laft," Scotch; pofterius," Latin;
efle," for pofterieur, French. tc Dout," Scotch j
timere," Latin ; cramte," French.
(4) This aggravates the abfurdity of the letter
the conduft of Mary. She is come to fee the
lmg in his ficknefs, and to nurfe him. This is
Acknowledged by all -to have been done by her.
pr. Roberrfon f a>Sj that fhe not only vifited
Henry, but, by all her words and aftions, endt-a-
VOL ' IL P "vcured
210 VINDICATION OP LET. 1.
" voured to exprefs an uncommon affe&ion for
" him *." Yet, by the letters, this Is not true. She
is employed a great part of her time in abftnces
from him. She is writing a very long letter to her
adulterer. She is making a pair of bracelets for
him. She could not fit up late with Darnly the
firft night, becaufe Ihe was tired with her journey.
She could not the fecond night, becaufe (he was
writing to Both well. She could not the third
night, becaufe (he was making bracelets for Both-
well. And (he fpent all the morning of this day
till two, in the fame employ. So ridiculoufly has
the letter engaged her, on this vifit to her fick huf-
band j in order to give fcope to its own (landers !
Evening," Scotch; " vefpera," Latin;" apres-
f difnee," for/w'r, French.
(5) This is an amazing contradiction to a pre-
ceding paflage, which runs thus : " I wrocht this
" day quhill it was twa houris upon this bracelet,
" for to put the key of it within the lock thairof,
quhilk is couplit underneth with twa cordounis ;
I have had fa lytill tyme, that it is evill maid/ 1
Wen the bracelet was " maid," yet it is now to be
ended." Then it 'had a " key" and a " lock"
to it, but now (he can get " na lokkis" for ii
Then the " key of it" was " put within the lock
" thairof," and tc couplit underneth with twa cor-
" dounisj" but now the bracelet is only " rcddy to
cf thame." This is fuch a grofs and mafly contra-
diction, in fo plain a poin^and at fo little a dif-
* i. 396.
tancc,
CHAP. 2. MARY QJ7EEN OF SCOTS. 2H
tance, as fpeaks out loudly the infinite negligence
of the author in this work of forgery. Lokkis "
'Scotch; <f ceram," a mif- print for feram, Latin;
and yet followed implicitly by the French in cire/*
This is one of the proofs, which Mr. Goodall ufed
' fo fuccefsfully for the inveftigation of the true cri-
j ginal *. And furely this and the other blunders of
I the French tranflation, muft have -given a ftrange
! appearance to that pretended original, at its exhibi-
tion to the commifiioners in Weftminfter.
(6) " It is reddy to thame," Scotch -, " id enim
<c unum ad perfedionem ei deeft," Latin -, and
car c'eft ce qui defaut a fa perfection," French.
r bring fome malheur, and may be fene gif ze
>!" chance to be hurt ( i ). Advertife me gif ^e will
f c have it (2), and gif ze will have mair filver(?),
^ f and quhen I fall returne (4), and how far I may
'"fpeik(5). He inragis when he heiris of Le-
r 1 thingtoun, or of zow, or of my brother (6). Of
f zour brother (7) he fpeikis nathing. He fpeikis
c of the Erie of Argyle (8). I am in feir quhen I
f heir him fpeik ; for he affuris himfelf yat he
n evill opinioun "
11 et confpici poffit, fi te contingat Isedi (i).
1 me certiorem nurn earn velis habere (2), et
Pa * plufcu
2I2 VINDICATION OF LET. I,.
plufculum pccuniae veils habere (3), et quando
14 debeam redire (4), et quern in loquendo modum
w mihi ftatuam (5). Infanit ad mentionem de Le-
" thintonio, de te, de fratre meo (6). De tuo
" fratre (7) nihil loquitur. De Comite Argathc-
lisE(8) in timore verfor, quotics cum audio lo-
" quentem ; pro certo habet "
" et qu'il foit recogncu, s'il advcnoit que vous fuf-
fiez blefle (i). Faiftes moy entendre fi vous Ic
" voulez avoir (2), et fi avez affaire dc quelque peu
plus d'argent (3), et quand je doy mourner (4),
et quel ordre je tiendray a parler a luy(s).
" II enrage quand je fay mention de Lethington,
" de vous, et de mon frere (6). II ne parle point
de voftre frere (7). Quant au Conte d'Ar-
" gathley (8), je fuis en craintc, routes It-s fois
" qu'il en devife "
(i) When the letters were/r/? projefted, on the
24th of July 1567, hopes were entertained of feiz-
ing and flaying Bothwell immediately. On the
Ilth of Auguft 1567, Sir William Murray of
Tullibardin, and Sir William Kirkcaldy of Grange,
were commiflioned to purfue him by fea and land,
with fire and fword * i though one of thefe very
gentlemen, Kirkcaldy, on Mary's preparing to pafs
with him to the rebels upon the fatal 15* of June
before, e< tuik the Erie Boythwell be the band, and
n laid kirn depart, promifmg that na man fbouM
* Keith, 442.
"fob*
CHAP. 2. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 213
'* ( fo!ow mrperfew him ; and fwa by thair awin con-
!" fent he paft away*." For the fame reafon now,'
! if Bothwell Ihould be taken alive, they had power
j to hold courts, to condemn, and to execute imme-
diately. Well therefore might it be remarked in
I the Memoirs of Crawford, that if Grange had
" taken him, it is more than probable (left he had
" betrayed his accomplices) that he had been fa-
;" crified on the fpot f." Then this pair of brace-
Jets, Jo -particularly defended in the letter, would
Wave been produced as found upon him. And this al-
Jufion to the expected fad, at once evinces the ge-
jieral forgery of the letters, and fhews the prefent'
part of them to have been forged in the original
moments of projection. Lethington fat down, it
'eems, while the new ideas were Ihooting ftrong in
lis mind j and fketched out fome parts of the let-
ters immediately. Thefe Iketches he naturally laid
Before him, when he entered upon the completion
M" the work in the winter following. And he as
aturally incorporated them all into itj and, in the
''urry and negligence with which the whole was
-mined, inferted this temporary expectation alono-
Ijpi the reft.
:| (2) Here is another contradiction concerning
is ill-fated bracelet. Mary now afks Bothwell, if
!? will have it. She had previoufly informed him,
it fhe Ihould fend it to him by the bearer of the
tter. I wrocht this day, quhill it was twa houris
* Goodall, il. 164^65. t Crawford, 54.
p 3 " upon
VINDICATION OF LET. I.
upon this bracelet : I have had fa lytill tyme
that it is evill maid ; hot IfaU mak am fairer. In
THE MEANE TIME," &c. All this plainly implies
her to fend it with the letter. Yet now, before (he
clofes the letter, fee direftly contradifts herielt, and
afts him if fee (hall fend it. And the hint con-
cerning the cc evil making" was thrown in plainly, ;
to account for the inelegance of the work from fo j
elegant a workwoman as Mary, when the bracelet'
feould come to be produced. We have the fame
hint, and with the fame view, concerning the pen-, j
manfeip of the letters.
(3) This implies that fee had given BothweU
fome money before. Accordingly Paris is made
to fwear, that on the road betwixt Kalendar and i
Glafgow, and confequently on January 2^d, fee fent
Bothwell a purfe with three or four hundred crowns I
in it *. It has been afked, why fee did not give it ;
to Bothwell himfelf, who left her at Kalendar only
that very day f- For this plain reafon, that Parit
might carry and tell of it afterwards. But having,
given him three or four hundred crowns on tf
23d, would fee afk him on the 25th if he wanted
more ? She certainly would not ! With fuch pro-
fufion, Mary's treafury would have been drained to
the bottom, in a few days only. " Silver," Scotd
pecuniae," Latin ; " argent," French. This con-
curs with other inftances to feew, that many coin-
cidences between the French and the Scotch are
* Goodall, ii. 76. t Keith, 366, and Tytler, 138-
'39-
purely
HAP. 2. MARY QJJ E E N OF SCOTS. 2If
purely cafual, the refult of a fimilarity between the
two languages.
(4) But the return was already fixed. The
King," fhe 'fays before, " hes prayit me to re-
mane upon him quhil uther morne." And at
" uther morne," or on January the 27th, fhe actu-
ally fet out. Bur, even if this had not been the
cafe, what could Bothwell advife about the day of
(jer return ?
(5) Concerning what does fhe want to know
low far Hie may fpeak ? This is like her defire to
know, whether Ihe might "avow all" to Both-
well. A myfterious air is thrown round fome un-
difcernible points, in order to lend a confequence
to nothing. " How far I may fpeik," Scotch;
* quern in loquendo modummihi ftatuam," Latin i
quel ordre je tiendray a parler a luy," French.
(6) "Or," Scotch, omitted in Latin j " et,"
French, from the corrected Latin. But this fhews
lainly, who the lords were that he confidered as
frile to him. Murray he has even noticed be-
qre, as an enemy.
(7) This means Huntley, whofe fifter had been
larried to Bothwell.
(8) The Latin omitting by accident one word,
Comite Argathelias [loquitur] the French
uts it too, and the two claufes are run into each
' m both. " Argathelise," Latin ; " Argath-
ley," French, for " Argyle."
VINDICATION OF LET.!,
" of him. He fpeikis nathing of thame that is
"out (i), nouther gude nor evill, hot fleis yat
<c point (2). His father keipis his chalmer (2), I
" have not fcne him.
XXXII. ff All the Hammiltounis are lieir,
<c that accompanyis me verray honorabilly. All
" the friendis of the uther [the King] convoyis me,
" quhen I gang to fe him. He defyris me to cum,
" and fe him ryfe the morne betyme (3). For to
" mak fchort, this beirer will tell zow the reft.
" And gif I leirne ony thing heir, I will mak zow
" memoriall at evin (3). He will tell zow the oc-
<f cafioun of my remaning (4). Burne this letter,
" for it is ovir dangerous (5), and nathing weill
" faid in it (6) ; for I am thinking upon nathing
" bot fafcherie. Gif ze be in Edinburgh "
" eum nihil de fe male opinari. De eis qui exi
" funt (i) nihil, neque boni neque mali, loquiti
" fed femper hunc locum vitat (2). Pater cjt
" domi (2) fe continet, nondum enim [cum]
" yidi.
XXXII. '< Omnes Hamihonii hie adfunt, et
" me comitantur valde honorifice. Alterius om-
e f nes- amici me comitantur quoties eum vifo. Petit
" a me ut eras tempori adfim, ut eum furgentem
c< videam (3). Ut paucis abfolvam, hie tabella-
f( ^iu relkjua tibi narrabit. Si quid novi hie dif-
" earn,
CHAP. 1. MARY OJJEEN OF SCOTS. 2iy
" cam, vefperi (3) faciam commentarium. Ille
" tibi explicabit mese morae caufam (4). Crema
" has literas, flint enim periculofe (5), nee quic-
" quam bene in eis diftum (6); ego enim nihii
" cogito nifi moleftias. Sf fueris Edinburgi cum"
f< II s'aiTeure qu'il ne penfe point de mal de luy.
*' Quant a ceux qui font de dehors (i), il n'en
* f park ny en bien ny en mal, feulement il a evite
fs tousjours ce lieu (2). Son pere fe tient tous-
" jours au logis (2), et ne 1'ay point encores veu."
XXXII." Tous les Hambletons font icy, qui
*' me font compagnie afiez honorable. Tous les
" amis de 1'autre me fuivent lorfque je le vifite.
v II me prie, que je voye demain (3) affez a temps
a pour le voir lever. Afin que le face court, ce por-
ff teur vous dira le furplus. Si j'appren icy
w quelque chofe le foir (3), je le mettray en me-
w moire. II vous declarera la caufe de mon re-
ft tardement (4). Bruflez ces lettres, car elles font
'* dangereufes (5), et s'il n'y a rien qui foit bien
" couche ] je ne penfe que chofes fafcheufes (6). Si
" vous eftes a Edinbourg "
(i) " Thame that is out," means the men that
had been banifhed the kingdom, for their fftare in
the murder of Rizzio the March before. So Ruth-
ven calls Murray and his affbciates in exile, " the
" lords which were fugitive V So Buchanan,
with a nearer approach to the language of the
* Keith, 3 3 2.
letter,
US VINDICATION OF LET. I.
Utter, ftiles them the lords that were abfent, " nobi-
" litas quce aberat * -," and, with an approach ftill
nearer in another place, denominates them thofe
that are abfent, " abfentibus f." So likewife the
Earl of Bedford, in a letter of Auguft the ^d 1566,
fpeaks of fome of thefe very rebels in the letter, as
thofe " who were abroad with Morton t." And
this ferves, as almoft every allufion to known facts
has hitherto ferved, to detect the forgery. With fo
carelefs a hand was this idol of Dr. Robertfon's
put together. The banifhed confpirators had been
pardoned and reftored, a little while before the pe-
riod of this letter. Upon Chriftmas Eve preceding,
the Queen had granted a pardon to the Earl of Mor-
ton and feventy-five of his accomplices, for that
horrible fact . But the forger, writing the letters
in the November and December afterwards, with
his ufual carelefihefs confided in his memory, and
was deceived by it.
(2) " Fleis yat point," Scotch; "Jemfer hunc
" locum vitat," Latin ; " il a evitc tcusjctrrs ce
"lieu," French. " Chalmer," Scotch , " domi,"
Latin -, " logis," French.
(3) This means the morning and evening of the
next day, January 26th.
(4) This is another of the myfterious involu-
tions of nothing, fo frequent in this letter. The
* Hid. xvii. 344. f IhiJ. - 4 j. i Goodall,
i. 305. $ Ibid. i. 321, Robcrtfcn, i;. 434, Keith, 429,
Pref. xi. and Melville, 76 and 77.
rcafon
CHAP. 2. MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS.
reafon of her ftay, as fhe has told us already, was
the King's defire. And the reafon of his defire
muft have been his weaknefs of body.
(5) What a ridiculous precaution to Bothwell,
when fhe fends this very letter, <c ovir dangerous "
as it is, unfealed, by the hands of Paris !
(6) This is thrown in to account for Mary, the
accomplifhed and the lively Mary, writing fuch a
dull and ftupid fardle of folly, under the name of
a love-letter. And Buchanan has inflamed the ab-
furdity of the precaution, by aflerting it to have
been given in almoft every one of the letters,
ff Pene in fingulis fcriptum erat," he fays, either
wildly inattentive to the letters, or boldly daring to
foift any thing into them, " ut letse ftatim crema-
* f rentur *.'*
t( at the reflait of it (i), fend me word fone.
XXXIII. - (( Be not offendit, for I gif not ovir
" greit credite (2). Now feing to obey zow, my
tf deir lufe, I fpair nouther honour, confcience, ha-
" farde, nor greitnes quhatfiimevir(3) ; tak it, I
|CC pray zow, in gude part, and not efter the inter-
: (< pretatioun of zour fals gude-brother (4), to
| tc quhome, I pray zow, gif na credite aganis the
" maift faithful luifer that evir ze J^ad, or ever fall
;c have.
' * Hift. xviii. 364.
XXXIV.
22O VINDICATION OF LET. I.
XXXIV. " Se not hir, quhais fenzeit tciris fuld
" not be fa mekle praifit nor cftcmit, as the trew and
" faithful travellis (5) quhilk I fuftene for to merite
(f hir place. For obtening of the quhilk, aganis
tt my natural I betrayis thame that may impefche
* me (6). God forgive me, and God give zow,
" my only lufe, the hap and profperitie (7)
" quhilk zour humble and faithful lufe defyris
" unto zow, quha hopis to be fchortly ane uthcr
" thing to zow (8), for the reward of my irkfum
< travellis."
f< cum has accipies ( i ), fac me certiorem.
XXXIII. "Noli ofFendi, quia non nimiimv
<c ndo(2). Nunc poftquam ob ftudium tibi obil-
" quendi, mi chare amice, neque honori, neque
" confcientisc, nee periculis, neque quanticvis mag-
" nitudini parco (3) ; rogo in bonam partem acci-
<f pias, ac non juxta interpretationem fallacis fr.i-
" tris tixoris tuae (4), cui rogo nullam adhibeas fi-,
" dem adverfus fideliflimam omnium quas aut ha-
" buifli, aut habebis, amicam.
XXXIV." Noli earn intueri, cujus fidae la-
<c chrymas non debent tanti efle, quanti fidi la-.
" bores (5) quos ego perfero, ut merear in ejus
" locum fuccederej quern ut obtineam, ego eos
<c prodo, idque adverfus ingenium meum, qui im-
" pedimento effe pofifent (6). Dens mihi det ve-
" niam, et Deus tibi det, mi unice amice, eum fuc-
'* ceflum, et felicitatcm (7.), quam tua humilis et
" fidclis
CHAP. 2. MARY QJJ E E N OF SCOTS. 2ll
tf fidelis arnica tibi optat, quse brevi fperat aliud
" de te in (8) prasmium mei molefti laboris."
<c quand vons recevrez ces lettres(i), failles Ic
<f moy fcavoir.
XXXIII." Ne vous offenfez point, fi je [ne]
" me fie par trop (2). Maintenant done, mon cher
amy, puis que pour vous complaire je n'efpargne
f ny mon honneur, ny ma confcience, ny les dan-
c gers, ny mefmes ma grandeur quelle qu'dlc
( puifie eftre (3) j je vous prie, que vous le pre-
* niez en la bonne part, et non felon Finterpreta-
f tion du faux frere de voftre femme (4), auquel
f je vous prie auffi n'adjoufter aucune foy centre
* la plus fidele amye, que vous avez euc, ou qu
c vous aurez jamais.
XXXIV. Cf Ne regardez point a celle, de la-
c quelle les feincles larmes ne vous doivent eftre de
f fi grand poix, que les fideles travaux (5) que je
c fouffre, afinqueje puiffe meriter de parveniren
fon lieu. Pour lequel obtenir, je trahi, voire con-
tre mon naturel, ceux qui m'y pourroient empef-
c cher (6). Dieu me le vueille pardonner, et vous
doint, mon amy unique, tel fuccez et feli T
cite (7), que voftre humble et fidele amye le
fouhaitte, laquelle efpere en brief autre recom-
de vous, pour ce mien facheux labeur."
(i) But how could he be in Edinborough at the
eceipt of this letter, when he appears from the
rebel
-222 VINDICATION OF LET. I.
rebel journal itfelf, to have left Edinborough on the
evening of January 24th, and not to have returned
towards it till January 28th *.
(2) " For I give not ovir greit creditc," Scotch ;
" quia non nimium fido," Latin, very errone-
oufly j and ftill more erroneoufly, "Jije me fie par
trop," French. I have added the loft negative.
(3) The French here has added " mon, ma,'
" les," and " mefmes," to the text.
(4) Huntlyj called here in French, by a literal
tranflation from the Latin, " frere de voflre
" femme," but hereafter, with more precifion,
" beau-frere."
(5) " Sa mekle praifit nor eftemit," Scotch;
" tanti," Latin j " fi grand poix," French. " Trew
and-faithful," Scotch i M fidi," Latin -, " fidelcs,"
French.
(6) " Natural" and impefche me," Scotch ;
" ingenium " and " impt- dimento," Latin ; " na*
" turel " and " me impcfchcr," French.
-(7) " Hap and profperitie," Scotch; ff fuccef :
ff fum et felicitatem," Latin i " fuccez et felicitc,"
French.
(8) " Hopis to be ane uthcr thing to zow,'
Scotch ; " fperat aliud de te in premium,"
" and efpere autre recompenfe de vous," Fi
, * Appendix, NO x.
XXXV.
CHAP. 2. MARY QJJ E E N OF SCOTS. 22 J
XXXV." It is kit (i); I defyre never to
" ceis fra wry ting unto zow ; zit now, after the kif-
" fing of zour handis, I will end my letter. Ex-
K cufe my evill wryting (2), and reid it twyfe over.
" Excufe that thing that is fcriblit, for I had na
" paper zifterday quhen I wrait -that of the memo-
f riall (3). Remember upon zour lufe, and wryte
unto hir, and that verray oft (4). Lufe me as I
* fall do zow."
XXXV. <f Serum eft (i) ; tamen nunquam
' cupio ceffare a fcribendo ad te ; tamen nunc,
poft ofcula manuum tuarum, finem meis literis
imponam. Excufa meam in pingendo imperi-
tiam (2), eafque relege. Excufa curfionem cha-
raderum, quia heri chartam non habebam, cum
id quod in commentario erat fcriberem (3). Re-
minifcere tuae amicse, ac fepe ad earn refcribe (4).
Redama mej uti ego te amabo."
XXXV. "II eft tard(i); neantmoins je ne
defire jamais ceffer de vous efcrire; et touftesv
fois, apres vous avoir baife les mains, je feray fi*
a mes lettres. Excufez mon ignorance a efcrire
(2), et relifez mes lettres. Excufez la brief-
uete des charafteres, car hier je n'avoye point de
papier, quand j'efcrivi ce qui eftau memoire (7).
Ayez fouvenance de voftre amye, et luy refcri
uez fouvent (4). Aimez moy, comme je vous
aime."
(0 This
VINDICATION OF LET*, i
(1) This fhews the fecond half of the letter to
be pretendedly written in the night of the fecond
day, as the firft pretends to have been in that of the
firft day.
(2) This is thrown in a fecond time, to account
more ftrongly for the diffimilarity of the forger's
writing to Mary's." Evill wryting," Scotch j " in
" pingendo imperitiam," Latin ; " ignorance a
" efcrire," French.
(3) This whole claufe (hews " the memoriall "
or memorandums about the middle of the letter, to
have been written " zifterd.'.y," or the day before
the fecond half of the letter was; and to have been
written in a particular manner, becaufe her paper
failed, as ftie actually mentions at the time that it
was failing. And it concurs with that mention to
prove, that the firft half of the letter terminates
with thofe memorandums." Erat," Latin, wrong;
and " eft," French, right, from the corrected Latin.
But there is another point to be confidered here.
That " the memoriall " means the memorandum^
preceding, is plain from what I have juft noticed,
and from theufe of the word memorial before in the
fame fenfe. " Gif I leirne ony tiling heir," fhe
fays, " I will mak zow memoriall at evin." Thefe
memorandums were written, it appears, " fcriblit,'
Scotch j " curfione characlerum," Latin ; " brief-
" uete des characteres," French ; or in words
fhortened and abbreviated, lecauje her paper begun
to fail. Yet are the memorandums in comraftec
terms at prefent ? No ! They arc not, in the
Scotch
i <!HAJ. 2. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 22$
Scotch *. They are nor, in the Latin f. They
: are not, in the French J. They are at full length
in all. They are even at more than full length.
Each memorandum makes a diftindt paragraph in
all. So different are the copies at prefect, from
j what the originals pretend to have been !
(4) "rerray oft," Scotch; fepe," Latin*
fouvent," French. But how wA/Bothwdl write
jto her either " oft," or verray oft ?" This letter
could not be difpatched till the next morning, and
could not reach Edinborough before the day after-
fward. And that day, as fhe has told us already
and will tell us again, fhe intends to fet out, and
Dually does fet out. The words are plainly thrown
jm from a wanton imitation of a real love-letter,
iwithout confidering the particular circumftances of
the cafe. But they ferve ufefully at prefent, to ex-
fe the abfurdity of thefe fictitious epiftles. And
hey add one more to the many proofs which we
uve noticed already, concerning that abfurdity.
XXXVI." Remember zow of the purpois
of the Lady Reres (i).
"Ofthelnglifmen(2).
"Of his Mother .
ML ' > and
1*6 *IN DIC AT ION OF
Of the Erie of Argyle (4).
Of the Erie of Bothwell ( 5 ).
Of the ludgeing in Edinburgh (6)."
XXXVI. " Reminifcere fermonis de
" fia(i).
DeAnglis (2).
" De Matre ejus (3).
" De Comite Argathelias (4).
De Comite Bothueliae (5).
< De hofpitio Edinburgi (6)."
XXXVI. " Et ayez memoire du propos
" darnoifelle Reres (i).
" Des Anglois (2).
De fa Mere (3).
Du Conte d'Arghley (4).
" Du Conte de Bothwel ( 5 ) .
" Du logis d'Edimbourg (6)."
(1) This relates to the immediately preceding
half of the letter, in which Lady Reres is meiH
tioned. "Lady Reres," Scotch; Rerefm,"
tin j " MadamoifcUe Reres," French, from I
corrected Latin.
(2) This relates both to the firft and the fccond
half of the letter, in both which die defign of em-
barking on board an Englilh veffel is mentioned.
(3) This refers to neither the firft nor the fecpnc
.half. The Countefs of Lenox, mother to the King
w noticed in neither.
( 4 )Th-
HAP. 2. MARY QJJ E E -N OF SCOTS.
(4) This Earl is fpoken of in the fecond half.
'Argyle," Scotch; <f Argathelia" again, Latins
" Arghley," a mif-print for Argathley," French.
(5) In the former volume I have marked the
ftrangenefs of mentioning Bothwell as a third per-
fon, when the letter is fuppofed to be aadreffed to
him NPF does the ftrangenefs cpnfift merely in
e form. It is equally in- the fubftance. The
Earl of Bothwell is defired to remember about
Earl of Bothwell. .This is-fo excentric and
unnatural in itielf, as could never come from the
3en of Mary. And the forger appears from this
troke, as I have previoufly obferved, to have origi-
jally addreiTcd the letter to fome perfon " different
rom Bothwell, and to have left the ftroke unaltered
tfhen he altered the addrefs.
(6) How flrongly does tins fet of memorandums
wove the abfurdity of Dr. Robertfon's and Mr.
fume's refpedive hypothefes, concerning thepre-
Kng ! Tbefe cannot be hints for the jubfequent
arts of her letter, becaufe they are abfolutely at
he end of the whole. Thefe cannot be the con-
nts of ^ the letter preceding, becaufe they refer to
)me points which are not in the letter at all ; that
oncerning his mother, and this concerning the
)dging at Edinborough.
But how comes the latter point to be mentioned ?
'he King by this letter is to go to Cragmillar,
Idinborough. By the next alfo he is. How
>mes then a hint to intrude here, about his lodg-
" at Kirk-a-fieldi for thofe are plainly meant f
Q^ 2 From
4 $ VINDICATION OF LET. I.
From this circumftance only. The rebel journal
(hews the letter originally to have carried the King,
by Kalendar and Linlithgow to Kirk-a-field. This
route was afterwards changed into another for
Cragmillar. But a folitary reference to the origi-
nal route, was accidentally forgotten to be altered.
It had been originally anfwered by this paffage of
the journal: " Bothwell this 24th day [of Ja-
"nuary] wes found verray tymus wefeing the
Kyng's ludging, that wes in preparing for him *."
And it ftill remains at the tail of the whole, to con-
firm the account of the journal, to betray the altera-
tion made in the letter, and to demonftrate the for-
gp ry in the cleareft manner.
* Appendu, N x.
CHAPTER
CHAP, 3. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
CHAPTER THE THIRD.
SI-
LETTER THE SECOND (i).
I. " It appeiris, that with zour abfence thair is
alfwa joynit forzetfulnes, feand yat at zour de-
parting ze promyfit to mak me advertifement of
zour newis from tyme to tyme (2). The wait-
ting upon yame zifterday (3), caufit me to be al-
maift in fie joy as I will be at zour returning,
quhilk ze have delayit langer then zour promeis
was (4)."
I. " Videtur cum tua abfentia conjun&a efle
oblivifcentia, praefertim cum in tuo difcefTu pro-
miferis, quod me certiorem faceres, fi quid inci-
difTet novi, per fingula prope momenta (2).
Eorum exfpedatio (3) propemodum in tantara
Isetitiam me conjecit, quam [quantam] in tuo re-
ditu fim acceptura, quern diflulifti ultra quam
promiferas (4)."
I. (< II femble, qu'avec voftre abfence foit
joind 1'oubly, veu qu'au partir vous me pro-
O 3 miftei
VINDICATION OF LET. 2.
miftes de vos nouvelles, et toutesfois je n'en puis
apprendre(2); de'quoy 1'efperance (3) m'a
quafijette en auffi grandejoye, que celle que je
" doy recevoir a voftre venue, laquel vous avez
<c differee plus que ne m'aviez promis (4)."
(i) Wben this letter pretends to be written, will
appear hereafter. But it may be proper to remark,
at prefent, that, plainly as thfs fhews itfelf to be
one in fuccefiion to another, yet it was publifhed
in Buchanan's Englifh .Detection, as the firft of
all *; The title of it ran thus ; " ane letter writtin
'* be hir from Glafgow to Both well, proving hir
* c hait to hir hufband, and film fufpiciounis of
<c pradifmg his deith, quhilk letter was writtin in
" French, and heir cnfcwis tranflatit worde fof
<f worde." Then comes the firft letter, which is fo
apparently the firft from the contents of it, pub-
lifhed as the fecond, and with this title to it, " ant
* f uther letter to Bothwell, concerning the hait of
" hir hufband, and practice of his murtherf." The
eighth letter is put third, with this infcription to it,
<c ane letter to Bothwell concerning certane takinU
" that fcho fent him j." The third fucceeds in the
fourth place, called " ane uther letter to Bothwell,
" of tyir lufe to him." And then we have the
real fourth. So negligently are they arranged, even
under the eye of Buchanan himfelf ! Yet the three
firft were arranged in 'their natural order, by the.
* Anderfon, ii. 129. f IbiJ, 131. JlbiJ. 144'
\ Ibid. 147.
Latin
CHAP. 3. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. ^l
, Latin edition of them. And the feven firft were*
equally arranged fo, by the French.
(2) This it was impoffible for Bothwell to have
done. He left her at Kalendar on January 23d,
and returned to Edinborough. The next day in
the evening, he fet out for Lydifdale. And on
[anuary 2Sth, and not before, he fet out from Ly-
difdale on his return *. He was gone therefore in
the evening of January 241)1, when Ihe wrote the
brmer half of hex letter preceding. He was abfent
n the evening of January 25th, when fne wrote
the latter half. He was abfent, when Ihe wrote the
>refent and the two next letters. They were all
written, fays the journal, on the 24th 26th of Ja-
nuary. {f 24. The Quene remaynit at Glafcow,
lyck as fhe did the 25th and the 26th, and in
this tyme wrayt hir BYLLE [the former letter]
and uther letteris to Bothwell." Nor let it be
fufpected, that his departure from Edinborough
was fudden, unexpected by himfelf, and unknown to
the Queen. She peculiarly knew of it. ^his ap-
jears from feveral ftrokes in the very letters them-
elves. Thus in the preceding fhe fays ; <f gif ze
be in Edinburgh at the reflait of it," her letter,
fend me word, &c." Thus alfo in the prefenc
he wants to know what fhe fhall do, " in cace ze
be not RETURNIT quhen I am cum thair," to
Edinborough. This is a plain intimation concern-
ing his journey to Lydifdale. But foon, afterwards
Appendix, Nx,
Q_ 4 iht
$32 VINDICATION OF LET. 2.
flie fpeaks of it in direct terms. " I pray zow,"
fhe fays, " to fend me gude newis of zour VOY-
" AGE." She therefore knew of his " voyage " or
journey. She was doubtful, whether he would be
returned from it or not, by the time of her arrival in
Edinborough. And fhe was previoufly doubtful,
whether he could be at Edinborough at the com-
ing of her letter. He therefore could not have
promiffd her, and fhe could net have expected him,
" to mak her advertifement of his newis from tyme
<c to tyme." Hence alfo fhe could not have
charged him now with forgetfulnefs. Thofe re-
peated addrefles too, which we have feen before
and fhall fee hereafter, in which Mary requires ad-
vice and requefts intelligence from him, are as im-
poflible to have been made, as I have previoufly
fhewn them to be abfurd in the making. And all
concur to make Murray's letters, for the twentieth
time, betray his and their own villainy.
Stat contra dicitque tibi tua pagina, FUR ES.
The Latin here is very ftrange. It interpolates
" prsefertim," but is not followed by the French.
" Zour newis" it renders " fiquid incidifiet novi,"
in oppofition to the whole tenor of the fentence.
And f from tyme to tyme" it tranflates, in oppo- 4
fition to itfelf, " per fingula prope momenta j" as
if fomething new was to befall him, nearly every
moment For this reafon perhaps, the French drops
the laft intimation entirely, and then gives us thefe
words, " et toutesfois je n'en puis apprendre.'-
Yet this is one of the three fentences, which Doctor
Robertfon, fighting in the very breach for his af-
faulted
CHAP. 3. MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS.
faulted hypothecs, fondly fancied to be the laft vi-
fible remains of the real original in French, and to
have a " fpirit" and an cf elegance" in them, which
neither the Scotch, the Latin, nor the prefent
French, have attained *. The "proof for this pafTage
is - what ? That it has the words " et toutesfois je
<f n'en puis apprendre" in it, when neither the
Latin nor the Scotch have them ; and, as ought to
have been added, that it leaves out the words
" from tyme to tyme," which both the others have.
iAnd, if there is a " fpirit'' and an fc elegance" in
the interpolation, there muft be a double " fpirit"
land a double " elegance" in the fuppreflion. But
findeed the claufe, " et toutesfois je n'en puis ap-
r prendre," is not properly an addition at all. It is
kmerely a blundering tranflation of a claufe in the
Latin. It was intended by the Frenchman, to an-
ifwer fome words which he did not underftand. For
f :t promiferis fi quid incidiflet noyi," we have
b c promiftes de vos nouvelles j" and for cc quod me
r certiorem faceres," we have " et toutesfois je n'en
i f puis apprendre," He underftood not the latter.
He guefled at the meaning. He was unhappy in
lis guefs. And by fupplying the negative which
ic thought to be wanting, and fliaping the whole to
lis own conceptions, he produced the prefent fen-
ence.
(3) " Zifterday," an important note of time
I irangely omitted in Latin and in French, could
32 and 34.
not
234
Vllf DIG AT ION Of
LET. 2.
not be the day in which (he wrote the fecond halt"
of her letter, becaufe of the joy which fhe fays Ihe
felt in expecting a letter from him. Had fhe then
been in this expedition and this joy, it would
have appeared in what fhe then wrote. " Zif-
<c terday" therefore was the day afterward, or Ja- ' |
nuary 26. And confequently the day, on which fhe
wrote this, was January 27. Accordingly in this
very letter fhe fays thus ; " gif Paris bringis me
" that quhilk I fend him for, I traift it fall amend
" me." If " fend" here means the prefcnt time,
Ihe fent him off the morning after fhe had fi-
nifhed the letter, and this muft then be January
26th. But if it means the paft, as it ftands equally
for Qurfend and Jent ; then it refers to what fhe had
done the morning before, and this muft then be the
syth. And that it does mean the paft, Buchanan
is a ftrong witnefs; he rendering it <f miferam,"
and the French accordingly, " j'avoye envoye."
(4) This is alfo impofllble to be true. He had
gone into Lydtfdale on the evening of the 24th.
It was a long journey, through the worn; of roads,
and in the worft of feafons. She knew he was to
take it. He went, no doubt, upon fome bufmefs of
his office, He was lord- warden of the marches 1
An object, that required fuch a journey in fuch
feafon, would be important enough to detain him
day or two. In fact it did detain him till tl
?8th -j-. And yet Mary is moil abfurdly made
* Goodall, i. 303,
Appendix, N x,
complain,
CHAP. 3. MARY QJJEEN Of SCOTS.
complain on the 26th or 27th, whichever day we
| fix the date of this letter, that he had then delayed
his return (not to Edinborough, but to Glafgow)
longer than he had promifed ; when in fact he
fould not have gone and returned, by either of thofe
days.
11 cc As to me, howbeit I have na farther
f< newis from zow, according to my commiflioun, I
' bring the man with me to Craigmillar (i) upon
< Monounday (2), quhair he will be all Wednek
day (2) ; and I will gang to Edinburgh to draw
f blude of me, gjf in the meane tyme I get na newis
f' in ye contrary fra zow."
<f Quod ad me attinet, quanquam nihil
I" audiam prasterea ex te novi, tamen, juxta partes
." milii commiflas, hominem adduco mecum ad
r Cragmillarium (i) die Lunse (2), ubi erit toto
" die Mercurii (2) ; ego autem ibo Edinburgum,
" ut mittam ex me fanguinem, fi nihil interea novi
in contrarium de te audiam."
"ut
IT. " Quant a moy, encor que je n'oye rien de
;" nouveau de vos, toutesfois, felon le charge que j 'ay
i :f receue, j'ameine 1'homme avec moyLundy (2) a
; :< Cragmiilar (i), ou il fera tout le Mecredy (2) ;
:' ct j'iray a Edimbourgh pour me faire tirer du
I " fang,
2^6 VINDICATION OF LET. 2.
" fang, fi je n'enten [entend] rien de nouveau dc
" vous au contraire."
(i) To fhew again the important alteration
which has been made in this and the preceding
letter, concerning the defigned route of the QueeQ
towards Edinborough j let me once more produce
the words of the journal. " The Quene (conforme
" to hir commiflion, as fhe wryttis) broucht the
" King from Glafcow to the Kalendar, towards
" Edynbrough ;" as the next day " the Quene
" broucht the King to Linlytbquow" and on the
third day " remained all day in Linlythquow with
" the King." And on the fourth " the Quene
" broucht the King to Edynbrough, and put him in
" bis ludging quhair he endit" that very " ludgeing
" in Edinburgh" noticed at the end of the laft
letter *.
(2) This paflage points out the days of the week,
as the date at the bottom of the letter alfo does,
" From Glafgow this Setterday in the morning."
Let us appropriate the days of the month to them.
And then we fhall gain from both, one of the
ilrongeft marks of forgery that we have yet feen.
The Queen, by the Rebel Journal, reached Glaf-
gow on January 23d, 1566-7. Now January 2jd
in that year was a THURSDAY \. On THURSDAY
* Appendix, N x. f Goodall, i. 120; Robertfon
Di<T 40; Goodall, ii. 249, Rebel Journal, for April 1 2th be-
ing Saturday ; and Goodall, ii. 244, compared with ii. 248, for
February 5th and 7th being Wednefday and Friday.
2 evening
i *HAP. 3. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 237
evening fhe fat with him after fupper. On FRIDAY
evening, January 24th, fhe wrote the former half of
I the firft letter. And on SATURDAY evening, Ja-
nuary 25th, fhe wrote the other half. The'evi-
dences for this have been produced again and again
.before. There is no error pofiible in them. The
i frjt letter could not be finifhed till SATURDAY
i night. It could not be fent off before SUNDAY
morning. And yet tix Jecand letter is dated on
SATURDAY MORNING. This is exceedingly grofs
i indeed.
But let us trace fome of the principal notes
of time once more, to pin down convidion more
; ftrongly on the mind.
In the former half of the letter preceding, fhe
j'fpeaks of fomething that happened " the morne
efter my dimming." This again fhews the/*r-
\rner half to be written on FRIDAY January 24,
-; Nor let difmgenuity pretend to take flicker in a
; fuppofed interpolation *. Interpolations muft be
proved, before they are allowed. And, if argu-
f'ments were to be anfwered by fuppofitions, all rea-
foning would be at an end, and the human mind
left to drivel on in the chimaeras of a dream.
All the other notes of time alfo coincide with
I this. They all concur with it, to prove that half of
:the letter to have been written, in the evening of the
\day after her arrival. Thus, the firft or THURS-
DAY evening, January 23, he " defyrit," fhe fays,
:c yat I fuld walk," that is, wake, " with him; I
* Robertfon, Difl*. 28,
**' excufit
VINDICATION
<e excufit myfelf for this nycht that I culd not
walk." tffcw /&/ therefore Jhe retired to bed,
as fhe well might after her journey. The 7;<?xf
day, being " the morne efter her dimming," he
confefled fomething concerning Willie Hiegait,
which he had not confefled in the converfation the
night before. And in the evening of that day fhe is
employed in writing, what fhe calls her " firft jor-
" nay," which (he " fall end the morne" or next
day i being now " ganging to fleip." So plainly
was the/r/? half of the preceding letter, written in
the night of FRIDAY January 24th. The other half,
we fee, was intended to be written " the morne," or
next day, SATURDAY January 25th. So alfo fhe
fays in another part of this former half; " I am
" gangand to feik myne [repofe] till the morne,
e< quhen I fall end my bybill," bylle, or long letter.
But when does fhe end it ? On the morrow, or SA-
TURDAY January 25. " I wrocht this day," fhe
fays, u quhill it was twa houris," or two o'clock,
" upon this bracelet." She alfo adds afterwards,
fc I faw him not this evening, for to end zour brace-
" let." And Jhe finally adds, that <: it is lait."
All this demonftrates the falfe chronology of the
letters, in the plaineft manner. Their own notes of
time refute them. They carry their own paper of
infamy difplayed upon their breafts. And yet they
have been believed to be genuine, by a manly and
thinking nation. They have been defended by a
Hume. They hive been admitted as hiftory by a
Robertfon.
III.-
CHAP. 3. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS, 239
III. ff He is mair gay then ever ze faw him (i );
ft he puttis me in remembrance of all thingis yat
w may make me beleve he lufis me (2). Summa,
" ze will fay yat he makis lufe to me (3) : of the
(< quhilk I tak fa greit pleifure, yat I enter never
" where he is, hot incontinent I tak ye feiknes of
*' my fair fyde (4), I am fa troubillit with it (5).
" Gif Paris bringis me that quhilk I fend him for,
I traift it fall arrfend me (6)."
. III. fc Eft hilarior ac vegetior, quam unquam
eum videris (i) i fubjicit mihi in memoriam (2)
" omnia, quas efficere queant ut me credam ab eo
" amari. In fumma, diceres quod me cum fumma
<f obfervantia colat et ambiat (3) j qua de re ita
*- f magnam capio voluptatem, quod nunquam ad
?f eum ingredior, quin dolor lateris mei infirmi (4)
" me invadat, ita me male habet (5). Si Paris ad
I"- me afFeret id cujus caufa eum miferam, fpero me
:" melius habituram (6)."
III. <f II eft plus joyeux et dilpos, que vous ne
f f Tavez jamais veu (i) ; il me reduid en memoire
i" (2) toutes les chofes, qui me peuvent faire enten-
l r< dre qu'il m'aime. En fomme, vous diriez qu'il
l'* m'honnore et recherche avec grand refpecl: (3) :
: f en quoy je pren fi grand plaifir, que je n'entre
i'jamais vers luy, que la douleur de mon cofte
/ malade (4) ne me faififlfe, tant il me fafche (5).
( Si Paris m'apportoit ce pourquoy j'avoye envoye,
: 'j'efpere que je me pcrteroye mieux (6)."
(i) This
VINDICATION OF LET. 2*
(1) This is extraordinary. The King is yet
very weak. He was to rife, as fhe tells us in the fe-
condhalfofher letter written in the evening of Sa-
turday January 25th, " the morne betyme," early
on Sunday January 26th. This was the firft time
of his leaving his bed. He therefore defired the
Queen Cf to cum and fe him ryfe." Yet now, on
Saturday morning, he is very gay. But let us fup-
pofe it to be the morning, on which he was to rife ;
and let us fuppofe him, on finding himfelf rifen from
the bed of dangerous ficknefs, full of fpirit, full of
courtefy, full of gallantry. Yet he could not poflibly
" be mair gay," than ever Both well had feen him. He
had however/0/K ted every body, even to the loweftper-
fonSy and had made piteous carejjing unto them y to draw
down their pity upon him -, at a time when he kept
his bed and faw no one. And in the fame drain he
is now " mair gay then ever ;" when he is fo weak,
as to be carried to Edinborough in a litter. " Mair
" g av >" Scotch } " hilarior ac vegetior," Latin ;
" plus joyeux et difpos," French.
(2) "He puttis me in remembrance of," Scotch?
" fubjicit milii in memoriam," Latin j " il me re-
<c duift en memoire," French. " The word me-
" moire" fays the Mifcellaneous Remarker *, " has
" enabled THE SCOTTISH TRANSLATOR to give the
" general meaning of this fcntence. It is plain,
" however, that he did not comprehend the particu-
" lar import of the phrafe, " c il me reduift en me-
<cf moire,"' which means to draw up a lift or inven-
"P 9.
" tory.
J. MARY Q^JEEN OF SCOTS. 24!
u tory. The expreffion, as here ufed, is highly
:c farcaftical and infuking. He makes out for my
:f ufe a catalogue of all the eircumftanees in his con-
:f duel, which may make me underftand that he
:c loves me/ 7 I have cited this pafiage, merely to
lold up the author of it once more to the merited
idicule of the public. " Mr. Goodall," he acknow-
edges, " has proved beyond poffibility of cavil,
c that theory? letter, as we now have itj was tran*
f dated into French from the Latin copy*." This
icknowledgment was furely fufficient to have fet-
led the gentleman's faith. If one letter is proved
jo be a tranflation, when it pretended to be an ori-
;inal ; then an impofture is detected. If one letter
.iflerted itfelf to have been written by Mary in the
"rench language, and yet appears from its own in-
ernal evidence to be merely a tranflation from the
, cotch at fecond hand j then a forgery is proved,
ind if one of the letters is proved to be a forgery
beyond poflibility of cavil," he muft be a caviller
ideed, who will ftill maintain the authenticity of
ic others. Yet this gentleman does maintain it*
lejuppofes it. He fpeaks of the Scotch as a trail-'
ation, in direct contradiction to his own confeflion.
le fays, that this tranflation has not given us the
recife import of the French original here. And
lus any difference between the two copies, without
I roof that the French is the original, and even
.jainft proof that the Scotch is, is to be afcribed to
ic inaccuracy of the Scotch as a tranflation. I
* P. 34-
VOL. n. R hay*
242 VINDICATION OF LET. 2
have already confirmed the internal arguments of
Mr. Goodall, hy an hiftorical evidence,, that goes to
all the letters, and that proves aU to have been.
Scotch many months before they were French. But
to what I U/e laid I wifa to fubjoin one brief re-
mark, on this gentleman's reafoning concerning the
French of this paffage. " Reduire en memoire,"
he fays, 'fignifies " : to draw up a lift or inventory."
This, is not true. Nor would it be available, if it
was. " Reduire en mernoire" fignifies to make a
memorandum of a thing. So " r.iemoire" is ufed'
for memorial," in Let. i. Sett. XXXV.
'* mettr.e en memoire" is ufed for " making me-
morial" in Seel:. XXXII.. Yet even this is onl]
frejccondary fenfe of the exprefnon. The prim
is fimply " to recall into memory." So we have
"ayez memoire" in Let. i. Sett. XXXVI. for
'.' remember, zow." Indeed " reduire en memoire'
is purely the Latin " reducere in memoriam,"
twined in the French. And, as- we know -the Frem
of all thefe letters to be merely the Latin tranflated,
we know " il me reduidt en memoire" here to be
merely the " fubjicit mini in memoriam" of the
Latin, or, as the corrected Latin perhaps ran, " re-
" ducit mihi in memoriam ;" and both to be a
tranflation of the Scotch, " he puttis me in re-
<c membrance." Bifhop Lefley fays, in preface to
his Negotiations,. " I have reduced to theyr remem-
" brance *."
. (3) At York the words were thefe, " fumma, ye
"will fay he makis the court to me -fv" And the
P. xix, Ande/fon, iiL f Appendix, N vii.
|CHAP. 3. MARY QJJEEtf OF SCOTS.
: Latin verfion appears to have been formed upon
this reading, " cum fumma obfervantia colat et
if* ambiat," fo faithfully retained in the French,
F honnore et recherche avec grand refpet." And
:a variation of a fingle word only, in a letter pre-
. tend ing to be an original of Mary'i, evinces the
forgery of the whole.
(4) Dr. Robertfon was impnident enough, to
:bvell upon this as a mark of authenticity. The
bain in her fide, he fays *, " is mentioned in a
if p manner fo natural, as can fcarce belong to any
;; c but a genuine production/' An argument of
i;his kind, from its very feeblenefs of nature, cart
jiiever be of any confequence. But let us examine
!t. Such a writer, even in his weakeft efTays o?
l:-eafon, is not unworthy of a refutation.
"The Queen,'* fays Le Croc, "behaved her-
l felf admirably well all the time of the baptifm;
f and fhewed fo much earneftnefs to entertain all
' the goodly company in the beft mannei 1 , that this
f made her forget in a good meafure her former
e ailments. But me continues to be penfive and
i c melancholy. She fent for me yefterday/' De-
:ember 22d, " and I found her laid on the bed
- weeping fore, and fhe Complained of a grievous
: pain in her fide. And, for a furcharge of evils, it
' chanced that the day her Majefty fet out from
' Edinburgh for this place," Stirling, " fhe hurt
: one of her breads on the horfe, which fhe told
r me is now fwelled |." The intimation in the
* DifT 17, t Keith, pref. vii.
R 2 text
*44 VINDICATION OF LET. 1
tcxfwas plainly intended, as a kind of burlefque" j
upon this incident in Mary's life ; and, as a bur-
lefque is lure to be, is greatly overcharged. She ,
was " weeping fore" at the ftrange conduft of the
King. And the itrong'anguifh of her fpirit, which,
fhe had thrown off during 'her appearance before
her fplendid guefts, and which, for that very reafon;
returned with the greater force upon her in retire- :
ment, had occafioned, as ftrohg anguifli frequently
did in her*, and frequently does in others, a violent
pain in her fide. But what parallel can there po
fibly be, between fuch a caufe for the pain, and the
prefent; between the mere fight of her hulband,
whom Jhe went to fee, whom fhe knew fhe fhould
find fick, whom fhe has repeatedly feen in his fick-
nefs already, and to whom Ihe wifhed to fhew
every mark .of attention ; and this great burft of
confined forrow ? None furely. And nothing, but
the monfter-making fpirit of forgery, could have
thought of ranking them as equivalent. Mary ap-
pears not to have been generally " fubjedt to a vio^
" lent pain in her fide," as Dr. Robertfon infer>
fhe does from the embafladouHs letter f- He might
as well have concluded from it, that Ihe was gene-
rally fubjeft to " penfivenefs and melancholy," to a
habit of " weeping fore," or to " a hurt and
" fwelled bread." Thefe were complaints ajl
equally incidental. 1'he weeping, from the flurp-
nefs of the paroxyfin, occafioned the pain. And
the letter-writer, willing .to catcli at any circura-
* Biff. 27. f Guthry'* Scotch Hijh vii. 211.
ft.incc
CHAP. J. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 245
(lance that fhould feem to appropriate his forgeries,
and acting under the peculiar promptitude of for-
gers to generalize incidents, tock up an occafional
pain, made it an habitual one, and even gave it to
:he Queen at a time, when the moft habitual could
lever have been given. He has thus made the
sain in the fide completely farcical. He has thus
)etrayed the over-doing hand of impofition in the-
vork. He has thus turned Dr. Robertfon's mark
>f authenticity, into a full proof of forgery *.
(5) <c I am fa troubillit with it," Scotch; " its
1 me male habet," Latin ; <c tant il me fafche,"
r rench. This is brought as another inftance by
tfifcellaneous Remarker-j-, of the Scottijh tranjlation
lifting the fenfe of the French original. " The.
: Scot(?h," he obferves, " fays with if, the French
/'/ ; the fenfe is, he fo troubles or vexes me." But
le real fenfe in both is, that it, French il, troubles
le. "He makis lufe to me," fays this transformed.
lary, " of the quhilk I tak fa greit pleifure, yat I
enter never where he is, bot incontinent I tak ye
feiknes of my fair fyde, I am fa troubillit with
it .
But here let me notice another proof of the
irgery, in another variation of the text. " I am fa
troubillit at it," as Mary writes in the Weftminfter
iginal of this letter, was primarily written by her
* Tu fiiew the eternal fhiftings of falfhood, Buchanan has
ken this intimation, and varied it thus; " quhais ftomack
turnit at the ficht of him. quha is fuddanely taken with pangij
jit his prefence." 144. Anderfon ii, and 252. Jebb, i.
t P. 39-
& in
246 VINDICATION or LIT. a,
in the York original, c ? I am foe fafcbit with it *."
And the French " tant il me fafche" which could
not be derived from the Scotch, becaufe it is not in
the Scotch of the Weftminfter letters, (hews very
plainly the cafual coincidences betwixt the Scotch
and the French of the letters.
(6) This is one more of the anachronifms, that
betray the whole. Paris, the bearer of the lad letter,
could not go with it before it was finifhed. But it
was not finifhed till late in the night of Saturday,
January the 25 th, He therefore could not fet out
till Sunday morning, January 2-6th. Yet " zifter-
" day" fhewas in full expectation of an anfwer, and
to-day {he thinks an anfwer would cure her of her
ficknefs. And yet to-day, by the date of this
very letter, is Only " Setterday in the morning." She
therefore expected an anfwer to her letter before
it was fent, and even before it was written. Even
if we overlook this, and fuppofe this to be the
morning after fhe had finifhed her letter ; the
bearer can be but juji gone with it, as the letter
f ould not be fent before the morning. Even if we
pafs over this too, and again fuppofe one whole
Hay to have elapfed between difpatching the
firft letter and writing the fecond ; {he could ex-
pect no anfwer yet, and ftill lefs could fhe expect
one " zifterday." Even if we once more addrefs
purfelves to the work of creating time, and throw
in two whole days betwixt the firft and fecond let-
ters f ftill no anfwer could be expected to-day, none
* Appendix, N vii.
could
:CHAP.-3. MARY QJ2EEN OF SCOTS. $47
.could be expected yefterday, and none could come
in lefs than one whole day more. And when we
i confider further, that all this is faid upon the fuppo-
fition of Bothwell being then at Edinborough,
i.though he was actually at Lydifdale all the while j
[and reflect alfo, that the letter- writer knew he was ;
Lwe fee the difficulties increafmg upon us in fpite of
all our endeavours. We fee the chronology hang*
;ing like a mill-ftone around the neck of the letters.
And we behold them finking under the weight,
With loader ruin to the gulphs below.
The fact is, that the letters fuppofe the Queen to
'have continued longer at Glafgow, than the journal
ijdlows her to have done. That fuch a variation
fhould have been introduced into letters, which were
to be modelled upon the dates of LI-J journal ; is
moil extraordinary. The very exiftence of the
[journal, the very difcovery of it among the other
papers of Cecil's, fbews it to have been intended as
the key and the companion of the letters. On that,
.30 doubt, were they formed at firft. But from
:hat were they made to deviate afterwards, by thofe
alterations and corrections, of which we have feen
!b many in the preceding parts of this work, and of
; ,vhich I have fhewn an additional one at the end
,>f the laft letter. And thus mention was inciden-
tally made of a variety of days in the letters, while
here were only three, and one evening belides, in
,:he journal. Thus, the firft letter is written in two
nkys after thq day of arrival. A third day is re-
erred to in thefe words of it, " he defyris me to
* cum and fe him ryfe tbe morns betymej gif I
R 4 " leirne
24 VINDICATION OF LET. 2.
" ieirne ony thing heir, I will mak zow memoriall
" at evin." On this third day, the firft letter is dif-
patched. An anfwer could not return, even from
Edinborough only, under three days. Murray ac-
tually makes Paris to be three days, in bringing
back this very anfwer*. " Zifterday" therefore,
when Mary expected an anfwer, muft have been
ihcjiftb day at leaft. And to-day muft be the
fatb. This is very like FalftafTs " eleven buck-
" ram men grown out of two," and refults from the
very fame fpirit, the carelefs confidence of habitual
falfhood. It is certainly very wonderful, that the
rebels fhould have fo far indulged their confidence
and their falfhood, as to depart boldly from the
very line which they had prefcribed to their con-
duct. But it is certainly more wonderful, that, after
they bad departed, they fhould either not fee or not
mind their own anachronifms - t and ftill give in to
the commifTioners of England that very journal, by
which, of all pofiible papers in the world, thofe
anachronifms were moft fure to be detected. And
all ferves to fhew, what cannot be too often incul-
cated, the amazing infatuation of fucceeding times.,
in catching up with profound refpect this haftily and
clumfily carved block of wood, fancying it " an
c ' image that fell down from Jupiter," and fo giv-
ing it a moft honourable niche in the temple of
hiftory.
* Goodall, ii. 7778.
IV.
CHAP. 3. MARY QJUEEN OP SCOTS. 249
IV. " I pray zow, advertife me of zour newis
*' at lenth, and quhat I fall do in cace ze be not re-
*' turnit quhen I am cum thair ( i ) ; for in cace ze
" wirk not wyfely, I fe that the haill burding of this
<f (2) will fall upon my fchoulderis. Provide for
" all thingis, and difcourfe upon it firft with zour-
" felf. I fend this be Betoun (3), quha gais to ane
" day of law of the Laird of Balfouris (4). I will
" fay na farther, fairing that I pray zow to fend me
( gude newis of zour voyage (5). From Glafgow
" this Setterday in the morning.*'
IV. " Oro, fac me certiorem de tuis rebus pro-
" lixe, et quid mihi fit faciendum, fi tu non eris re-
" verfus cum ego illuc venero (i) -, quia, nifi tu
" rem ger prudenter, video tom onus (2) in
''-meos humeros inelinaturum. Profpice omnia, ac
Cf prius tecum rem expende. Hsec tibi mitto per
" Betonem (3), qui proficifcitur ad diem dictum
?' D. Balfurio (4). Non dicam plura, nifi quod te
'' rogo ut de tuo itinere me certiorem facias (5).
" Glafcua hoc Sabbato mane."
IV. " Jc vous prie, faic~r.es moy fcavoir bien
" au long de vos affaires, et ce qu'il me faut faire,
^ c fi vous n'eftes de retour quand je feray la ar-
." rivee (i) ; car fi vous ne conduifez la chofe fage-
" ment, je yoy que tout le faix (2) retournera
I** fur mes efpaules, Regardez a tout, et premiere-
" ment
^Q VINDICATION OF LET. 2.
<c ment efpluchez le faict en vous mefmes. Je vous
fl envoye ceci par Beton (3), qui s'en ira aii jour
" affigne au Sieur Balfurd (4). Je ne vous en di-
" ray d'avantage, finon pour vous prier que me fa-
" ciez entendre de voftre voyage ($). A Glafcow
C ce Samedy matin."
(1) This is one of thofe many addrefies for
intelligence, which could not poflibly be granted,
even upon the forger's own chronology. By this
very letter it was now Saturday in the morning. By
ibis very letter, fhe was to fet out on Monday,
And he was to fend her a long letter of news, be.
twixt the one and the other. But where was he
then? Not at Edinborough. This is plain. He
might not be returned thither, even by the time
fhe reached the city. From whence then was he to
write her this long letter ? From Lydifdale, very
plainly. And betwixt Saturday and Monday
morning he was to receive her letter from Glafgow,
and to write a long anfwer from Lydifdale, con-
taining a full account of himfrlf, and inftrufting
her how fhe was to aft in cafe he mould not be re-
turned at her arrival. So wonderfully do the in>
poffibilities multiply upon us, at every furvey of the
chronology !
(2) " Of this," Scotch, omitted in Latin and
French.
(3) This is " Archibald Betoun," as Thomas
N-elfon's depofitions inform us, " quhilk wes ef-
t* cheare of the Quenis chalmer-door *."
* Goodall, ii. 244.
(A) " Day
CHAP, 3. MARY QJJEBN OF SCOTS. 251
(4) " Day of law," Scotch ; " diem didum,"
Latin ; and " jour afiigne," French. The French^
man, not underftanding the peculiar impdrt
of the exprefllon " dies di&us," tranfiated it lite-
rally, &nd therefore unmeaningly. When <f day of
" law" occurred before, the Latin rendered it para-
phrafticajly, " in cum ipfum diem ut caufam dice-
** ret accerfitum," and the French, " ce jour-la
" mefme il eftok adjournee." And the Mifcel-
laneous Remarker appears to have been as ig-
jiorant of the Scotch, as the Frenchman was of
the Latin. " f A day of law of the laird of
*" Balfouris,"' he fays, " is an unintelligible
" phrafe : the meaning of the French feems to be,
* c who will go on the day appointed to Mr. Bal-
*" four."' (< We know not to what circumftance
f this alludes *." And thus the very Mary, who
fays (he fends this letter by a bearer that goes to one
of the I^ord of Balfour's courts, is made by the
Frenchman and the Remarker to fend it by a man,
that will go on fome future day with it, and to
Mr. Balfour inftead of Bothwell. " A day of law"
is an exprefllon, which was very common formerly
for a court-day. The Earl of Lenox defires
Mary tc to differ this day of law" for Bothwell's
trial f, and points out fome ridiculous inconve-
nience, " gyf your Majeftic fuffer this fchort day
of law to go forwart J." And " the day of law"
'fays the Englifh embafladour Randolph to his
Queen, <f againft the four burgefles, men of thi$
< P. 39. f Anderfon, \. 53. t Ibid. 54.
452 ' VINDICATION OF LET. 2,
town, is like to hold, for any thing that flic,"
Mary, " can be peifuaded to the contrary*."
The terni law-day -, alfo, appears in all the old char-
ters within our own kingdom. It appears even in
Sir Nicholas Throgmorton's difpatches to Eliza-
beth from Scotland- j he faying in one of them, that
" the law-day for the murder of the late King doth
" hold f." And " the laird of Balfouris" was the
well-known Sir James Balfour, called by our Wal-
fingham " Sir James Baford J," as he is here called
by the French tranflator " Sieur Balfurd."
(5) The mention of the " voyage" here con-
firms the hint above, of Bothwell's being gone to
Lydifdale, and of the Queen's knowing it. Yet
flie ftill continues her clamours for news from himi
when from that very " voyage" they were doubly
impofiible to be gratified. " Send me gude newis,"
Scotch} " me certiorem facias," Latin j and " me
" faciez entendre," French. She wanted not merely
to hear news of his journey, but good news. Yet
Mifcellaneous Remarker, with a flrange turn of
thought, objefts to the Scotch for being wifer in
its meaning than the French .
* Goodall, i. 246247. f Keith, 451. J Ro-
bertfon, ii. 463. P. 39.
CHAP. 3. HAJR.Y OJJEEN OF SCOTS. 235
IL
LETTER THE THIRD.
I." I have walkit [waked] laiter thairup then
I wald have done (i), gif it had not bene to
" draw fum thing out of him (2)/quhilk this beirer
" will fchaw zow j quhilk is the faireft commoditic
" that can be offerit to excufe zour afFairis (3). I
" have promyfit to bring him [the bearer] to him
[the King] the morne (4). Put ordour to it, gif
" ze find it gude (5).
I." Diutius illic morata fum quam volebarrt
" (i), nifi id factum fuiflet ut aliquid ex eo ex-
5* fculperem (2), quod hie tabellarius tibi indica-t
" bit j qua: eft belliffima occafio ad excu&iidurh
noftra negotia (3). Promifi me ipfum eras ad
" eum adducturam (4). Tu rem cura, fi tibi com-
" moda videtur (5)."
I." J'aye vcille plus tard la-haut, que j'encufle
fait (i), fi ce n'euft efte pour tirer (2) ce que ce
" porteur vous dira; que je trpuve la plus belle
commpditc pour excufer voftre affaire, qui fe
pourroit prefenter (3). J'ay promis, que je luy
' meneray demain ceftuy-la ( 4 ), Vous aiez en foin,
" fi la chofe vous femble commode (5).
(i) Buchanan read the words, as'they leemingly
ought to be read, walkit up there," not walkit
" thair-up,"
VINDICATION O* LET. 3.
thair-up," as Dr. Robertfon reads them *.
But he carelefsly rendered walkit up," by " mo-
" rata fum." And fo the whole became " illic
" morata Turn." The corrected Latin faw the er-
ror, amended it, and made another. It turned
morata fum" into vigilavi, and " thair-up," as it
read the words with Dr. Robertfon, into illic furjusi
and fo produced in its reflection, the French, " j'aye
veille plus tard Ifrbaut" And thus the paffage,
as I fliall fhew more at length hereafter, implied
Mary to be, as fhe is aftually faid in the rebel
journal to have been, when fhe wrote the non-
apparent letter concerning " the abbot of Haly-
ruid-houfe," writing in a room below the King's*
Yet (he now lodged in a different houfe. " All the
" freindis of the uther," the Stuarts, the adherents
of Darnly, " convoyis me quhen I gang to f
xf him," fhe fays in her firft letter. And there
(he " wrayt hir by lie and uther letter is to Both-
cc we lL" This paffage, however, (hews the third
letter, like the two parts of the firft, to be written
late at night. On what night, will appear here-
after.
(2) Out of him," Scotch; " ex eo/' Latin>
omitted in French.
(3) "Faireft occafioun," Scotch; " belliflim*
<f occafio," Latin; and " la plus belle commodite,"
Trench. " Zour," Scotch ; " noftra," Latin; " yof-
" tre," French, from the corrected Latin. Mifcel-
laneous
CHAP. J. MARY QJJEEN- OF SC'OTS.
laneous Remarker fufpeds, " that the French has
* been erroneouQy tranfcribed, and that the origi-
nal word was exetufer*." But has the Scotch,
alfo been fc erroneoudy tranfcribed ?" This how-
ever he will prefume to be only a verfion from the
French, and fo to copy the erroneous reading there.
He may prefume it was. But others have proved it
was not. And was the Latin alfo tranfcribed erro-
neoufly, or will he prefume the Latin to be equally
a, verfion from the French ?. The word being the
fame in all the three copies, and good fenfe in all ;
i every conjedural reading iurely is precluded for
ever.
This is the lad of the three fentences, from which,'
as connoiffeurs in ftatuary pretend to judge of an
p Apollo by a finger or a toe, Dr. Robert/on attempt*
:to prove the exiftence of a French copy, different
i&om that very copy in which thefe very fentences
I are found. But what: is the proof from the prefent
i afiage ? It lies, according to the Dodor himfelf, in
f j'aye veille plus tard la-haut" being plainly no
:ranflation of " diutius illrc rrtorata fum," and
'pour excufer vofire "affaire" heihg." very" dif-
erent from "adexcufandum^r^negotiat." The
iVhole therefore is reduced to two variations be-
wixt the French and the Latin, Are fuch varia-
| ions, then, confned to the firft fentence of each of
,-iefe three letters ? Are they not extended to other
mtences ? And are they not diffufed all over the
* P. 40- t BiiT. 53.
JO - letters ?
VINDICATION Or LET. >
letters ? They are. I have (hewn them to be fo, in
the two letters preceding. I fliall fhew them to be
fo in this. And the Dorter's argument will thus,
in bis mode of proving, demonftrate the prefent
French, and every fentence in it to be that very
original, which it primarily pretended to be, which
Mr Goodall has fo powerfully proved it not to be,
and which even the Doftor dares not aflcrt it is.
The truth is, as I have already ftiewn and (hall
Ihewftill farther, that from thofe pofterior correftions
of the Latin, which we have even feen Buchanan
himfelf making, from inattention- at one time, and
from ignorance at another, the French and the La-
tin vary frequently ; though they are ftill fo clofe in
general, and the French ftill adheres fo particularly
even to the blunders of the Latin, that the confel
fion of the French tranflator was hardly neceflary
to (hew he tranflated from the Latin. He con-
fefled however, that he did. Nor does he make the
ridiculous exceptions, which Dr. Robertfon chufe
to make for him ; and fay he tranflated all frorr
Latin, except the frjl fentence in each of the letters,
which he took from- the French original. He
that he trandated all, all of the firft three letter
and all of the other four too. Let him come, and
fpeak for himfelf again. Au refte," he tells w
" epiftres mifes fur la fin," which were all but i
eighth, " avoient efte efcrites par la Royne, partfe
en Francois, partie en Efcoflbis, et depuis trar
' duites ENTIEREMENT en LATIN : mais, n'ayant
cognoiffance de lalangue EfcofToife, j'ay mieux
If iim/>
fcHAP. 3. MARY QJJEEN Of SCOTS.
\" aime exprimer TOUT ce que j'ay trouve en LA-
" TIN, que>" &c. This confeffion takes a compre-
henfive fweep. It makes all the feven letters, and
the whole of each of the feven, to have been tranf-
lated into Latin, and from thence to have been
rendered into French. It ftarts no piddling objec-
jtions about fentences or half-fentences, at the head
or at the tail of any. It embraces all within its
*vide-fpread arms. And it proves the fancied exift-
ence of a French copy at the time, to be all a fairy
irifion, the creation of minds that have fubjected
:heir judgments to their imaginations, the invited
preams of felf-delufion. Nor let this be thought
too fevere upon a very refpectable writer* He is
acre, I believe, all that I infmuate. He has no-
iced two variations in this very palTage, of the
French from the Latin. But he omits a third, be-
caufe it is a variation from the Scotch as well as the
,'^atin, and becaufe it makes nonjenje of the claufe.
? { To draw fum thing out of him, quhilk this beirer
: will fchaw zow," Scotch ; " ut aliqilid ex eo ex-
' fculperem, quod hie tabellarius tibi indicabit,' ?
^atin ; " pour tirer [hors de luy> fhould have
' been -added] ce que ce porteur vous dira,"
r rench. And the Doctor ought, in honefty, to
ave produced this, as a third proof of the origina-
: ty of the French here ; or, as he faw the abfurdity
Jf that, to have given up his hypothecs entirely, to
-ave owned his convictions, and to have remitted
jic letters to the fcorn and deteftation of man-
ind.
V*L. II. S (4) The
258 VINDICATION OF LET. 3.
(4) "The morne," Scotch. What day this,
was, I -ihall endeavour to fhew hereafter. At pre-
fent I remark, that this letter was not to go away,
before the bearer had been carried by the Queen to
the King the next day.
(5) What this was, we know not. It was never
intended, that we fhould know. It is only one of
the many nothings, which are veiled up in a myfle-
rious obfcurity, in order to rife into confequence j as
a hill, feen through a fog, fwells up into a moun-
tain. " Putordour to it," Scotch, that is, put the
matter in a train for action j " tu rem cura," Latinj
and ^ vous ayez en foin," French.
II. " Now, Schir, I have brokin my promeis;
" becaus ze commandit me nouther to wryte nor
" fend unto zow (i). Zit I have not done this to
" offend zow (2). And gif ze knew the feir yat I
" have prefently, ze wald not have fo many oon-
" trary fufpiciounis in zour thocht (3) ; quhilk
" notwithftanding I treit and chereis (4), as pro-
" ceeding from the thing in the warld (5) that I
" maift defyre, and feikis faded to haif (6), quhilk
" is zour^gude grace j of the quhilk my behaviour
"fallafiure me (7). As to me, I fall never dif-
" pair of it j and prayis zow, according to zonr
c< promeis, to"
II.-
"HAP. 3. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
II. " Nunc, Domine, ego paftum violavi ;
quia tu vetuifti ne vel fcriberem vel mitterem ad
te (i). Non tamen hoc feci quo te offenderem
(2). Et fi fcires quanto in metu ego fum in
prsefentia, non tot in ammo haberes contrarias
fufpiciones (3) ; quibus tamen egofaveo, et boni
confulo (4), tanquam profeftis ab ea re, quam
ego omnium quas fub coelo funt (5) maxime
cupio et diligentiffime perfequor (6), qui efttuus
favor ; de quo mea me officia certam et fecuram
facient. Quod ad me attinet, nunquam de eo
defperabo > ac te rogo,"
II. " Maintenant j'ay viole Faccord -, car vous
aviez deffendu que je n'efcrivifle, ou que je n'en-
vOyaflfe, par devers vous (i): neantmoins je ne
1'ay faift pour vous ofFenfer (2). to -Et fi vous
fcaviez en quell crainte je fuis a prefent, vous
n'auriez point tant de foupc.ons contraires en vof-
tre efprit (3), lefquels toutesfois je fupporte, et
pren en bonne part (4), comme provenans de h
chofe que je defire le plus de toutes celles qui
font foubs le ciel (5), et que je pourfuy avec ex-
treme diligence (6), a fcavoir, voftre amitie,
dont tant de devoirs que |e fay me rendent cer-
taine et afruree (7). Quant a moy je n'en defef-
pereray jamais j et vous prie,"
( i ) Mary now appears to have made a f ' pro-
meis," becaufe Bothwell required one from her,
nouther to wryte nor fend unto" him. This is
amazing. She has never mentioned it be-
S 2 fore.
VINDICATION OF LET. J.
fore. Yet fhe has actually written TWICE. And
this gives the very ftamp of abfurclity itfelf to thefa
ill-copitrived forgeries. Nor let it be faid, in
order to evade the cenfure, that he fo " comman-
" dit" her in a letter fince his departure. She
fpeaks not merely of his " command," but of
her own " promeis." This could not be given by
ktter, even if the " command" could , as to give it'
fo, would be to break the command in promifing to*
obey it. And the ftamp mud ftill remain fixed, in'
one of its deepeft imprefTions, upon the face of the
forgeries. " Schir," Scotch $ " Domine," Latin,
omitted in the French.
(2) Why then did fhe write at all ? She has no-
thing particular to fay. Even if fhe had, fhe war
commanded, and had promifed, neither to write ndr
lend unto him. But when botli realbns concur to
keep her hand from the pen, in the name of pro-
priety why does fhe write at all ? She was bl-iiged
to write.
Is it in equilibrio,
Whether the Gods defcend or no?
Then let th' affirmative prevail,
As requifite to form my tale.
(3) What fufpicions were theft ? Of Mary's fi-
delity to Bothwell, I fuppofe. But wly fhould
Bothwcll entertain fuch ? And bow comes Mary to
know, that he does entertain them ? Neither ap-
pears. She cannot have heard from him, though
flie was fo impatient for hearing in the laft letter.
He is in Lydifdale all this while. She docs not
fay that ihe has heard from him, and yet has !
ker
CHAP. 3. MARY QJLTEEN OF SCOTS. 26 1
her impatience. How is all* this ? This letter in-
deed is apparently unconnected with the foregoing.
All intimation concerning the King is nearly fup-
prefTed. There is no hint of Paris or the firft letter.
There is no hint of Beton or the fecond. And I
take it, from all the features of it, to have been one
Riper-added to the original number from Glafgow,
fuper-added fometime after the number was finifhed,
but before the mention of the letters in the journal
was finally fettled. The journal fpeaks of Mary
writing " hir bylle and uther letteris" from Glaf-
gow 3 plainly implying her to have written two or
three letters befides her bylle.
(4) " Treit and chereis," Scotch ; ff faveo et
" boni confulo," Latin -, " fupporte, et pren en
<c bonne part," French.
(5) " The thing in the warld," Scotch 5 " om-
<c nium quas fub ccclo funt," Latin , " toutes celles
u qui font foubsle ciel," French.
(6) " Maift defyre, and feikis fafteft to haif,"
Scotch j " maxime cupio et diligentiffime perfiquor"
Latin ; " je pourfuy avec extreme diligence" French,,
omitting the former claufe.
(7) "My behaviour fall afllire me/' Scotch;
" mea me officia certam et Jecuramfacient" Latin j
" tant de devoirs que je fay me rendent certaine et
Cf aJTuree" French. The wordinefs of the French,
and even of the Latin, compared with the Scotch, is
very evident. And the French has additionally
turned the future time of the Scotch and Latin
into the prcfenr.
S 3 difchargc
VINDICAT r-O NOT LET.
" difcharge zour hart unto me(i): utherwayis I
" will think that my malhure, and the gude hand-
" ling of hir(i) that hes not ye third part of the
" faithfull nor willing obedience unto zovv that I
" beir (3), hes wyn, aganis my will, yat advantage
S over me, quhilk the fecond lufe of Jafon wan (4) :
u not that I will compair zow unto ane fa unhappy
" as he was, nor zit myfelf to ane fa unpietifull ane
<f woman as fcho (5)."
" ut juxta tua promifTa animum tuum mihi expo-
f( neres ( i ) : alioqui fufpicabor fieri malo mco fa;
tc to et fiderum favore erga illas (2), quae nee ter-
<c tiam habent partem fidelitatis, et voluntatis tibi
" obfequendi, quam ego habeo (3) j ut ipfae, velut
" fecunda Jafonis arnica, me invita, priorern apud
" te locum gratiae occupaverint (4): nee hoc eo
<f dico, quo te cum homine, ea qua ille erat infeli- '
." citate, comparem, nee me cum muliere tam aliena
" a miiericordia (5) quam"
f< que fuivant vos promeiTes, vous me faciez en*
?' tendre voftre affecl:ion (i): autrement j'eftimeray
ff que cela fe faict par mon malheureux deftin, et
" par la faveur des aftres envers ccllcs (2), quj
" toutesfois n'ont une tierce partie de loyautr, et
" volonte que j'ay de vous obcir (3); fi elles, comme
" fi j'cfloye une kcond amyc de Jafbn, nialgrc-
2 moy
CHAP. .3. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
" moy, occupent le premier lieu de faveur (4) : cc
" que je ne dy, pour vous a comparer a cet homme
en 1'infelicite qu'il avoit, ny moy avcc une
femme toute efloignee de mifericorde (5), comme
<c eftoit celle-la. Combien que vous"
.(i) "Difcharge zour hart unto me," Scotch;
animum tuum mihi exponeres," Latin ; " me
faciez entendre voftre affection," French. The
Mifcellaneous Remarker obferves, that it is diffi-
cult " to fay how fo plain a French phrafe fhould
have been disfigured in a tranflation *;" he being
one of thofe logicians who choofe to beg the quef-
tion, when they cannot make it their own by their
prowefs; and fo fuppofing the Scotch to be a
tranflation from the French. But are the Scotch
and the French then different ? They certainly are.
And the French is 'wrong. Mary does not want
Bothwell to difclofe his affection to her. She
wants him to lay open his heart, and to tell her the
ground and reafon of his fufpicions. Accordingly,
the Latin renders the words, " animum tuum mihi
" exponeres." And the Frenchman, miftaking the
import of the Latin, turned " animum" into " af-
" fection."
(2) c< My malhure, and the gude handling/'
.Scotch; " malo meo fato, et fiderum favore," Latin j
and " mon malheureux deftin, et par la faveur des
" aftres," French. This is a very extraordinary
tranflation, in the Latin. It is fubftituting one
* P. 40.
S 4 thing
264 VINDICATION OF LET. 3.
thing for another. Yet how faithfully does the
French adhere to the Latin, even when this departs
moft widely from the Scotch ; marking carefully
the print of its fteps, and treading exactly in them !
" Veftigia nulla retrorfum" But the Mifcellaneous
Remarker informs us, that " par la faveur des
" aftres" is certainly right, for " par mon mal-
<f heureux deftin" goes before *. He might as well
have faid, that the Latin " fiderum favorc" is cer-
tainly right, for " malo meo fato" goes before.
The French is derived entirdy from the Latin.
And both are wrong, becaufe both are different
from the Scotch, the true original. This has " the
ic gude handling of," &c. But the Mifcellaneous
Remarker adds, and in the fame ftrain of unfortunate
argumentation, " there mud be fomc blunder here.*'
He did not comprehend the meaning of the words.
He therefore very naturally chofe rather to impeach
the fenfe of the text, than affront his own under-
ftanding. The meaning is this : Mary defires him
to lay open his heart to her j or elfe ihe fhall fuf-
peft, that her own evil fate, and Lady BothwelPs
cunning management, have drawn Bothwell from
her. c < The gude handling of hir" plainly means
the good management of Lady Bothwell. So we
have in the fixth letter, tc quhat he defyris for the
" handling of himfelf;" meaning what inftruclions.
he wants, for the proper management of himfelf.
And the fame claule was actually in the letter, at
jts original appearance in York ; v.'ith another
* P. 40.
CHAP. 3. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 26$
word in it inftead of " handling," but precifely to
the fame purport. I pray zou," the fentence
then ran, " to difcharge your hart to me, uther-
" wayis I will think, that my malheure, and the
(t guid com^ofing of," &c*.
But from this variation in the readings at the
York and the Weftminfter conferences, and from
the words of the Latin verfion, I fufpecl: another
variation to have taken place in the pafTage, and
the original words to have been as the Latin read
them. The Latin is too wide from the Scotch at
prefent, to have ever proceeded from mif-printing,
mif- reading, or mif-underftanding the terms of the
after. The Scotch alfo appears plainly to have ua-f
dergone a change, fince the conference at York.
And the Latin feems to ft and as a powerful wit-
nefs at prefent, that the Scotch underwent a
:hange preceding this, and that the Latin verfion
was made from it in its primary ftate. This feems
ilfo to be confirmed by another inftance of the
4ine nature, but of which the evidence is more-po-
itive. (( I cum na neirer unto him," fays our pre-
eht copy, " bot in ane chyre at the bed-feit f."
I cum na neirar," faid the copy at York, " bot
SAT in ane cheir at the bed-fute J." Yet the
,atin was made from the York copy, running
lus, " non accedo propius ad eum, fed in cathedra
' SEDEO ad pedes ejus." And the French runs ae~
ordingly, " je n'approche pas pres de luy_, artlis je
Appendix, N vii, f L. i. . xx.
ix, N' vii.
m'ASSIEDS
*66 V I N^D I C A T I fJ OF LET. $.
" ITI'ASSIEDS en une chaire a fes pieds." Thefe
fafts concur with others to point out a train of wr-
&al variations, that were continually made in the
letters, and that were much more numerous pro-
bably than ti\t fubftantial alterations which I have
noted before. On any fuppofition, however, THE i
FORGERY is PLAIN. Mary could not write both
<f gude handling" and " gude compofing." And I
ftill lefs could fhe write " gude favour of the ffors,"
jnftead of both.
"Hir," Scotch; " illas," Larn ; " cellc.s, "
French. Mr. Goodall obferves, that the Latin I
has rendered " hir" by " illas," as if it read tblr for
(heir j and fubjoins to his obfervation, that " there
" are writings of thole times flill extant, in which i
" here and there it is hard to diftinguifh betwixt the j
" b and the tb." And the Mifcellaneous Remarker j
concurs fo far with him, as to fay, that " them in
" the Scottifh dialect would be tbir*." But this \
is a miftake in both. Thir in old Scotch does not j
mean them, but tbefe. Accordingly, in thefe very
letters we have always tbame for them. And in the ;
fifth letter we have tbir twice for tbefe. <c I dar not *
" traift zour brother," fays the mif-reprefcnte4 -;
Mary, " with tiir [thefe] letteris." And tc judge ;
" ze," fhe adds, " quhat amendment yir [thefe] ;
" new ceremonies have brocht unto me." But the j
original word in the Scotch of this claufe was not -j
" hir," but <f thame." So it was at the exhibition r
of the letters in York. " Utherwayis," fays this
oldeft qf all exifting M^S concerning the letters, ,
<c I will think that my malheure, and the gukl
* Ooodall, i. 90 and 91 ; and Remarker, 37.
* compofing >
CHAP. J. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. Z&j
compofing of tbame that hes not " & c I t
this reading, which made the Latin run equally i,
the plural number, and drew the French after it
.And, as this word concurs with the word adjoin"
mg it to prove other variations in the very terms
>f thefe pretended originals of Mary's writing and
thus to convidt them of forgery at every variation
fo the exiftence of thame" in the original, *
fork and when Buchanan made his tranflation
and the appearance of hir" in the copy '
foited at Weftminfter, and afterwards public I by
Cecil, prove Buchanan to have made his tranflation
PV the exhibition at Weftminfter. He accord
ngly prefented his tranflation in MS to Elizabeth
1 her commiffioners, at the very time the letters
jrere exhibited in Weftminfter * The letters were
lermincd to be publiihed, at leaft three of them -
d I the infamous Deteftion was adually drawn up*
h three of them in it; AT THE VERY MOMENT
ien Murray, and his comparers in villainy
e by a folemn proteftation to the commiffioners
:lanng their unwillingnefs to accufe the Queen
backwardnefs which they had hitherto uWn to'
it, and the necefTity which now forced them
;pon it at laft f. The preceding half of this note
yen implies Buchanan to have made his verfion,
: the firft three at leaft, before the conference at
rk A determination had probably been then
>rmed for the publication. And with a view to
fuppofe it was, that Buchanan was namec} an
7 . and orig. H4 . f G ~^ ^
afiiftant
VINDICATION OF LET. Ji
afliftant to the commiflioners, and fo made to rank
with perfons much fuperior to himfelf in confe-
quence.
( 3) Faithfull nor willing obedience unto zow
"that I beir," Scotch; fidelitatis, et volunt, '
tibi obfequendi, quam ego habeo," Latin ; j
loyaute ct volonte que j'ay de vous obeir,|
French.
(4) f< Heswyn yat advantage over me," Scotch?
priorem apud te locum gratiae occupaverintJ
Latin j and " occupent le premier lieu de f
French. How does every inftance ferve to demon-
ftrate the great point laid down by Mr. Goodall,
that the French is only a trandation from the La
tin! I have not urged the evidence upon the
leader. I have left it to fpeak for itfelf. It has
fpoken loudly. And the point is clear, beyond
poffibility of being obfcured by all the powers
fophifby. Hiftory (hews the French to be a tra
lation. The language of the letters (hews it to
a tranOation frm the Latin. And the trandatoi
himfelf, the beft witnefs in the world for fuch a
fad, acknowledges exprefsly that he made it from
the Latin, becaufe he was ignorant of the Scotch.
The inftances then, that incidentally occur in
the French verfion, of a deviation from the Lum
and a correfpondence with the Scotch, can never b
attributed to the Frenchman himfelf. He who had
no .knowledge of the Scotch, " n'ayant cognoitunce
de la langue EfcoiToiie," could not catch any ex-
prelTion from it. He might take names, but he
could
RAP. 3. MARY QJTXEN OF SCOTS.
could not borrow words. He could not even confult
what he did not at all underftand. He exprefsly
tells us, indeed, that he made his tranflation from
the Latin, and entirely from the Latin, tout ce
" que j'ay trouve en Latin." And the few corref-
pondences that are not merely accidental between
the Scotch and the French, when oppofed to the
thoufand between the French and the Latin, can be'
referred only to the hand of a revifer j who went
j over the French verfion, juft as another or the fame '
went over the Latin, to make it more conformable
to the Scotch ; but went with a wanton and care-
lefs flep, and made fome flight and random cor-
rections of fmgle words, while he left an infinite va-
riety of words and of combinations of words, to
ftand as they flood before, all different from the
Scotch, and all limilar to the Latin.
. (5) cc Not that," Scotch j cc nee hoc eo dico," La-
tin ; " ce que je ne dy," French. " Ane fa unhappy as
<( be was" Scotch; " homine, ed qua ilk erat infeliri<*
Cf fate" Latin; " homme en I'infelicite quil avoit"
( French. " Sa unpetifull ane woman as fcho,"
Scotch ; ff muliere tarn attend a miferfcordid quam
" ilia erat," Latin ; and " une femme toute ef-<
:s lolgnee ds mifericorde, comme efloit celle-la,'*
French.
* Howbeit, ze cans me to be fumthing lyke unta
hir in ony thing (i) that tuichis zow, or yat may
" preferve
VINDICATION OF LET. 3.
preferve and keip zow unto hir, to quhome only
" ze appertene (2) ; gif it be fa (3) that I may ap-
" propriate (4) that quhilk is wyn throch faithfull,
" zea, only luifing of zow (5), as I do, and fall do
" all the dayis of my lyfe (6), for pane or evil that
" can cum thairof (7). In recompenfe of the
* e quhilk, and of all the evillis quhilk ze have bcne
" caus of to me, remember zow upon the place
heirbefyde(8)."
<r ilia erat : quanquam tu me cogis aliqua ex parte
<r ut illi fim fimilis omnibus in rebus (i) quae ad tc
" pertinent, aut quae te fervare et cuftodire queant
tl illi, cujus unius jure totus es (2) : fiquidem (3)
" id tanquam meum mihi vindicare pofium (4),
" quod paravi, te unum fideliter, imo unice aman-
" do (5), quod et facio, et faciam dum vixero (6),
" fecura omnis laboris et periculi, quas illinc im-
" pendere poterunt (7). Et ob hasc omnia mala,
* quorum tu mihi caufa fuifti, hanc repende gra-
" riam, ut loci memineris qui hie vicinus eft (8)."
" me contraignez eflre en aucune partie femblable &>
" elle, en toutes les chofes (i) qui vous concernent,,
" ou qui vous peuvent garder et confervcr a cclle,
" a laquelle feule vous eftes entierement de droift'
" (2) : car (3) je vous puis m'attribucr comme
" mien (4), qur vons ay acquis fcul loyaumcnt,
" en vous aimant aufli uniquement (5), comme je
" fay, et feray tant que je vivray (6), me rendant
" alturee centre les travaux et dangers qui en pour-
< ront
CHAP. 3. MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. fi-j
ront advenir (7). Er pour tous ces maux, def-
" quels m'avez efte la caufe, rendez moy ceite fa-
veur, que vous ayez fouvenance de lieu aui eft
"prochain d'icy(8)."
(1) "One thing," Scotch; "omnibus ia re-
' bus/' Latin; routes ks chofes," French.
(2) To quhome only ze appertene," Scotch -
: cujus unius jure /r w es," Latin; a laquellc
fcule vous eftes entierement de droicV' French.
- (3) Cf Gif it leja that-," Scotch, was thus when
: the letters made their firft appearance upon Engliih
t ground, yf it ^ ^ /^ r th at * The j^
renders this by < fiquidem," and the French ab-
; furdly fubftitutses car'* for fiquidem. J>
(4) "Appropriate," Scotch; tanquam meum
w mihi vmdicare," Latin ; m ' atribucr CQmme
"mien," French. The Scotch verfion/' fays
Mifcellaneous Remarker, is incorreft, and does
"no more than aim at the fenfe of the French f "
This gentleman has thrown all his ideas into confu-
fion, by embracing the ridiculous hypothefis of Dr.
Robertfon concerning a double copy in French*
one an original, and the other a tranflation ; and by
: embracing it without attending to bis diftmdions.
The prefait French, except only -a few claufes at
ie beadvi the letters, the Doftor himfelf allows to
= all a tranflation, and a tranQation from the
^ Scotch through the Latin. Yet the MifcelJaneous
* Appendix, N vii. f P. 4 o.
Remarker,
VINDICATION OF LET. j.
Rcmarker, without knowing it, overleaps all the
bars and bounds, that the Doftor had fet up ; and
fpeaks of thofe paffages'm Scotch as a verfion from
the French, which die Dodor himfelf allows to have
been an original, a mediate original to the French,
and an immediate one to the Latin. So thoroughly
confounded and loft is he in the mazes of his owft
indiftinftnefs ! And thus the French here, which is
apparently nothing more than the Latin reduced
Into French, he fets up for the original itfelf.
deviation of the French from the Scotch, particu-
larly in tranflating " fiquidem" by car," which
makes nonfenfe of the whole, he attributes to
the departure of the Scotch from the French ; juft
as children, moving in a coach, attribute their pro-
grefs to the fields and the houfes flying backward
from them. And he overlooks entirely the inter-
pofition of the Latin, betwixt the Scotch and
French} which (hews dcmonftrably to our very
fenfes, the level by which the French was fabri-
cated.
(5) " That quhilk is wyn throch faithfull, zea,
" only luifing of zow," Scotch. She means this :
if (he may appropriate to hcrfelf, without any riva
in Lady Bothwell, that heart of Bothwell's, which
(he herfclf had gained by a faithful love of him,
and of him only. Accordingly the pafliigc is ren-
dered thus in the Latin, " quod paravi, te unum
" fideliter, hno nnicc amando." But the French
has made flrange work of the Latin, " qui vous a
" acquis feul loyaument en vous aimant aufli
" uniquement
2HAP. 3- MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
5 uniquement comme je," &c. The words fhould
lave run thus, " qui vous ay acquis, en vous aim-
f ant auffi loyaument et uniquement, comme," &c.;
aking a new arrangement, and throwing out the
.uperfluous " feule." The translator was per-
)lexed by the native obfcurity of the claufe.
! (6) <f All the dayis of my lyfe," Scotch ; fc dum
f vixero," Latin; " tant queje vivray," French.
J (7) " For pane or evill that can cum thairof,"
cotch j " fecura omnis laboris et periculi qus
r illinc impendere poterunt," Latin ; cf me ren-
I dant afluree centre les travaux et dangers qui en
j pourront advenir," French. The brevity and
prce of the Scotch is ftrikingly apparent in this,
hid ibme preceding paiTages; when contrafted
:ith the laxity of the Latin and French.
(8) What evils had Bothwell now drawn upon
:.;lary ? None certainly. This is therefore a proof
,f forgery, fpeaking from fofterior ideas. " Ob
hasc omnia mala hanc repende gratiam," La*
n ; " pour tpus ces maux rendez moy cefte fa-
veur," French; both different from the Scotch
i the turn of the words.
I III. " I craif with (i) that ze keip promeis to
' me the morne (i) - y but that we may meit togidder
1 (2), and that ze gif na faith to fufpiciounis with-
'out the certanetie of thame (3), And I craif na
VOL, II. T * "uther
VINDICATION Of LET. 3,
" uther thing 'at God, but that ze may knaw that
"thing that is in my hart, quhilk is zouris (4);
c and that he may preferve zow from all evil), at
ft the leift fa lang as I have lyfe , quhilk I repute
" not precious unto me, except in fa far as it and I
cc baith ar agreabill'unto zow. I am going to bed,
and will bid zow gude nicht (5). Advertife me
<f tymely in the morning how ze have fairin (6) f
"for I"
III." Non (i) poftulo ut eras (2) mini pro-
mifla ferves, fed ut congrediamur (2), et ut nul-
" lam fidem fulpicionibus adhibeas, nifi rebus ex-
" ploratis (3). Ego vero nihil aliud a Deo peto,
cr nifi ut ea intelligas quae funt in animo meo, qui
** eft tuus (4) ; et ut te prsfcrvet ab omni malo r
" faltem durn mihi fupererit vita, quam et ego non
<f duco mihi caram, nifi quatenus et ego et ilia tibi
' placemus. Ego eo cubitum, et tibi valedico (5).
f Fac me certiorem fummo mane de tua valcty-
- dine (6) j
HI.-'? Je ne (i) demande pas que vous me tc-
" niez promefle demain(2); ains que nous nouj
" aflfemblions (2), et que n'adjouftiez point dc foy
* aux fufpicions, fmon Texperience faifte (3). Je
ct ne 'demande autre chofe a Dieu, fors qu'entendiez
< c ce que j'ay en IVfprit, qui eft voftre (4) ; ct
46 qu'ii vous garentilVc dc tout mal, au moins pen-
" dant que je feray en vie, laquelle je ne tkrnt
point chere, finon en tant que moy et elle vous
agrcabks. Je m'en vay coucher, ct
CHAP. J. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 2jf
vous dy a Dieu (5). Faites moy certaine de boa
" matin de voftre portement (6)"$
(1) "With," Scotch, which is equally in
GoodalPs and Buchanan's editions, is plainly a
mif-print for <f not." The fenfe requires- it. The
Context demands it. And the two translations have
it; cc non," Latin, and " ne," French,
(2) This is the day after the evening of the pre^
pit letter, and the day on which fhe was to meet
Bothwell. It was therefore the Cf Monounday," on
Miich fhe has already told us Hie will fet out, if fhe
does not hear to the contrary from him. She has
iirot heard to the contrary. She therefore fays no-
thing of having altered her intention. And fhe ac-
tually fet out, as the rebel journal itfelf mews us, on
Monday the 27 th of January. She fet out agree-
fibly to her previous refolution. To this very refo-
ution the journal refers us. And on that very day
$f the week does it make her to fet out *. This it
: s of confequence to note.
S' (o) ff Without the certanetie of thame," Scotch;
* nifi rebus exploratis," Latin ; " fmon Pexperience
: faicle," French.
(4) ^ Hart," Scotch; animo," Latin; ef-
prit," French; both wrong, but]the laft peculiarly
b. Her " fpirit" could not be faid to be his. Her
' mind" could not. But her " hart" might.
(5) This adds to the evidence before, that the
* Appendix, N c x
T a third
^76 VINDICATION OF LET. J.
third letter pretends to be written late at night.
And the night appears above to be that of Sun-
day, January 26th.
(6) This is very ftrange. It is now late at night.
She is going to bed inftantly. Her letter therefore
could not be fent till the morning. And yet fhe
defires him, in this very letter, and in the very next
words of it, to apprize her " in the morning," and
" tymely," or early in the morning too, how he is.
This is fuch a fudden dafh of inconfiftency in the
letter, as is fcarcely to be paralleled, I believe,
within the regions of fanity.
" will be in pane unto I get worde. Mak
" watch, gif the burd efchaip out of the caige,
" without hir mate. As the turtur I fall rema
" alone for to lament the abfence, how fcliort yat
" ever it be (i). This letter will do with ane gudc
" hart, that thing quhilk I cannot do myfelf, gif it
" be not that I have feir that ze ar in fleiping (2).
" I durft not wryte this befoir Jofeph, Baftiane, and
" Joachim, that did bo: depart evin quhen 1 began
"'to wryte (3)."
" ego enim ero in moleftia donee inteltigam. Si
* avis evaferit e cavea, aut fine compare, velut
" turtur ego remanebo fola, ut lamcnter abfentiam
" tuam
CHAP. 3. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. ^J
" tuam quamlibet brevem(i), Haec epiftola li-
" benter faciet quod ego ipfa facere non potero,
" nifi forte tu, quod metuo, jam dormias (2). Nen
" fum aufa fcribere praefentibus Jofepho, Sebafti-
" ano, et Joachimo, qui nihil aliud [facerent] quam
" difceflerant, cum ego csepi hxc fcribere (3)."
<f carje feray en peine jufques a ce que jel'entende,
* Comme 1'oyfeau efchappe de la cage, ou la tour-
tf tre qui eft fans compagne, ainfi je demeureray
f< feule, pour pleurer voftre abfence, quelque brieve
'** qu'elle puiffe eftre (i). Cefte lettre fera volon-
;w tiers ce que je ne pourray faire moy-mefmes, fi
;** d'adventure, comme je crain, vous ne dormez de-
'" fia (2). Je n'ay ofe efcrire en prefence de Jo-
'** feph, Sebaftian, et Joachim, qui ne faifoient que
r de partir qnand j'ay commence a efcrire ce$
chofes (3)."
1 (i) " He who fancies," fays the Mifcellaneous
Remarker, " that there is here a Scottifh original
:' r< and a French copy, may enjoy his opinion in pri-
* vate, but he will hardly venture to expofe it to
if the world *." Such is the confidence of confu-
'ion ! But mark how a 'plain tale /ball put him down.
'* Mak gud watch" is omitted in the Latin, and
; vas therefore unknown to the French. It bids Both-
vell to take good care of himfelf, for the reafon
iiggefted before and after it ; that fhe fhould be in
sain till fhe heard how he was, and that, without
* P. 40.
T him,
378 VINDICATION OF LET. ^t
him, fhe fhould be a iblitary turtle. This cautious
admonition given, a new fentence commences,
which goes to the end of the next. And, fo pointed,
the whole (lands thus : " Mak gude watch. Gif
" the burd efchaip out of the caige, or without
" hir mate, as the turtur I fall remane alone for to
" lament the abfence, how fchort vat fa ever it be." I
If I am feparated from you, fays the after of Mary;
I fhall be like a bird efcaped out of a cage, of
like a bird that has loft her mate ; and I fhall re*> (
main folitary as the widowed turtle, to lament you*
abfence from me, let it be as fhort as it will. This
then is the ff Scotch original." Let us now turn
to the " French copy." But we muft firft look ar
the Latin, a copy which this gentleman is repeat-
edly forgetting, though the only original to thtf
French." " Si avis evaferit e cavea, aut fine com-
" pare, velut turtur ego remanebo fola, ut lamented
" abfentiam tuam quamlibet brevem." This, we
tee, is precifely juft. The punctuation particu-
larly is the very fame, that I have introduced intrf
the Scotch ; and fhews it to have been in the
Scotch originally. But let us now fee the French*
tranflation of the Latin. ' Comme 1'oyfeau efv
" chappc de la cage, ou la tourtre que eft fans com-
" pagne, ainfi je demeureray feule pour pleurei 1
" voftre abfence, quelque brieve qu'elle puifTfr
" eftre." This, we fee, has retained the pundua-r
tion. It has alfo retained the general fenfe and
imagery. But it has altered them in one circum-
ftance. The words " vclut turtur" it chofe to
read, as prefixed to " fine compare," in order, for-
i foothj
CHAP. J. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 27.9
footh, to preferve the unity of the allufion. And
thus it came to be what it now is, plainly not an
original, plainly a verfion of the Scotch, plainly a
verfion of it through the medium of the Latin.
But let me add one more obfervation concerning
this remarkable paflage. It was obfcure. It was par-
ticularly fo. It carried a more " vifible" kind of
" darknefs" in it, than mod of the paffages about it.
And it contained a hint of caution o Bothwell. For
thefe reafons the commifiioners at York fingled it
out, as a part of the letters peculiarly charged viti*
villainy. " Finally fhe wrote to Botnaill," they fay,
" that according to her cornrnifTion Hie wolde bringe
<f the man with her; praying him to worke wifely, or
|" elfe the whole burden wolde lye on her fhouldersj
tc zndfpecially to make good watche, that the bird
.*' efcaped not owt of the cage*." This (hews us
very ftrongly, how lively and powerful their fufpi-
! cions were, and how unfit they were to fit in impar-
tial judgment upon the letters. Their imagination,
i" in a fine frenzy rolling," could ".glance" from
one letter to another, could fee bloody fpectre$
^where a common eye can fee only love, and could
give " a body and a form" at once to thefe their
<c airy nothings/'
(2) This paflage undoubtedly imports, that the
! letter was to go to-night, and was to reach Both-
well, perhaps before he flept, but certainly before
!tb? morning. This therefore may feem to excufe
* Appendix, N vi.
iSO VINDICATION Of LET. 3.
the abfurdity preceding, of her defiring him to
fend word early in the morning how he is. But let
us confider all the circumftances ; and then we
fhall fee, that it is only an additional abfurdity.
She has fat up late with the King. She has re-
turned to her own lodgings. She has difmiflcd all
her attendants there. She has begun to write a let-
ter to Bothwell. And at the clofe of it fhe fays fhe
is going to bed. Who then is to carry the letter *
Nobody to-night. She has indeed a particular-
carrier. He is mentioned in the beginning of the
letter. She there hints at fomething " quhilk this
" beirer will fchaw zow." But then this bearer
was not to fet out that evening. He was not to fet
out till the next morning. He was even to wait
upon the King firtt. And " I have promyfit," fays
Mary, " to bring him [the bearer] to him [the
" King] the morne." Nor let it be fuppofed, that
as " the morne" means not merely the morning,
but the whole of to-morrow, the bearer was to go
that night, to return the next day, and then be in-
troduced by Mary to the King. The whole con-
text reprobates the fuppofition. " I have walkit
" laiter thair up," it fays, <f then I wald have done,
<f gif it had not bene to draw fum thing out of him,
" is tbefaireft commoditie that can be offerit to excufa
" zour affairis. I HAVE PROMYSIT TO BRING HIM
fc TO HIM THE MORNE. Put ordour to if, gif zi
"find it gude." The bearer was firft to fee the
King upon the bufmefs, then to relate all that had
pafled to Bothwell, and Bothwell was then to aft
upoq
CHAP. 3. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 2$I
upon his information, if he found it expedient.
And all concurs to mew, that the requeft to hear
early in the morning from Bothwell, when the re-
quefting letter itfelf was not to go till the very
morning, is as ridiculous as I have ftated it to be ;
and that the hint of the letter kiffing Bothwell that
night, if he is not afleep before it reaches him, is
even more ridiculous, if poffible, than the other. It
was very ridiculous, even if the letter and the bearer
were to fei off inftantly. At a late hour Ihe had
I begun to write. At a later it was to be difpatched.
I It had to go fome way to him. Yet it might per-
I haps reach him, before he had gone to fleep. And
the aftonifhing extravagance of the whole is heigh-
\ tened over and over by the confideration, that Both-
well was at this very time in the diftant region of
j Lydifdale, that this was Sunday January 26th, that
| he did not Jet out on his return from Lydifdale till
Tuefday January 28th, and that he did not meet
her till Thurfday January 3<Dth*.
" This letter will do with ane glide hart, that
" thing quhilk I cannot do myfelf, gif it be not that
ct J have feir that ze ar in fleiping," Scotch.
i " Here," fays Mifcellaneous Remarker, " the reader
r" is entreated to try, whether he can make any fenfc
\ *' of the Sccttifh copy f." But is not the fenfe
; very obvious for one of thofe allufive fentences, in
iwhich the principal point is underftood and not ex-
t'preffed ? It certainly is. And now let us try the
rfrench. " C'eft lettre fera volontiers ce que je ne
* Appendix N* x. f P- 4 1 -
c < pourraf.
VINDICATION OF LIT. fr
" pourray faire moy-mefme, fi d'advfttturf, comme
" je crain, vous ne dormez defia." This is plainly
the fame in expreflion and in meaning. Only it
adds one word, " d'adventure." Shall " the
" reader" then be " entreated to try, whether he
" can make any fenfe of the trench copy ?" He
needs not. Every reader, except the Mifceliane-'
ous Rcmarker, can make fcnfc of" both. Yet, " for
" my own part, I am perfwaded," fays the Re-
marker, " that the tranflator rendered into the
" Scottim language words and phrafes, which he
" underftood when feparately taken, but not when
" taken altogether." But his own evidence fays di-
rtftly the contrary. This very pafiage fhews the
Scotch to be exactly as the French, one word ex-
cei't.'d ; and not merely in words " feparately taken,"
but in phrafes " taken altogether." And he to-
tally forgets the Latin, though the French was de-
rived from it, and though it betrays its derivation
by its additional word : " haec epiftola libenter fa-
" ciet quod ego ipfa facere non potero, nifi forte tu,
" quod metuo, jam dormias."
(3) " Did bot depart," Scotch j " nihil aliud
" [facerent] quam difceflerant," Latin } and " nc
faifoient que de partir," French. The prefs ha4
omitted " facerent" in the Latin. But it was in
the MS. And from this the French took it, as it
took " que par breuvage" from " quam per medici.
" nam," when the printed copy was only " per me>
" dicinam."
Of the three perfonshere mentioned as attendants
upoQ
IAP. J. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 2$i
upon the Queen, Jofeph was brother to that David,
whofe murder muft have fixed fuch a deep ftain of
difgrace upon the reputation of Scotland, in the
eyes of all foreign nations, at the time. He en-
tered Scotland the 2oth of April after the murder,
in the train of the French embafTadour */ He firft
afted as fecretary in his brother's place f. He af-
terwards became the Queen's goldfmith J. Hence
I Darnly is made to afk, whether -Mary meant to dif-
I mifs Jofeph from her fervice|| ; as if his Majefty had
I taken fome diflike to him. And he, together with
tf Francis Badiane" here mentioned, whofe full
! name was Francis Sebaftian de Villars, and with
" John de Bourdeous [Bourdeaux]," the " Joa-
*^chim" perhaps of the letter, as John was equally
f with Joachim one of the Queen's houfhold; was ac-
cufed on fufpicion of the King's murder by Lenox,
I under the title of Jofeph, Dauryis [David's]
" brother ." He alfo appears, from Paris's fecond
i mock-confefllon, to have been frightened at a real
or pretended fummons to appear before the parlia-
ment; and, with a prudence that was quickened
.probably by the unhappy fate of his brother, to
have left the regions of barbarifm and of murder by
a hafty flight j.
But, before I clofe my remarks upon the prefent
Better, let me advert again to an expreflion at the
'head of it. I have," fays the mimicker of Mary
there, " walkit laiter thair up then I wald have
* Keith, App. 129. f Robertfon, ii. 359. t An-
derfon, ii. 157 II T " & 6 K A A c c
and Crawford 41. See alfo Spotfwood, 200. 4 Gcodall'
, "done."
VINDICATION OF LET. 3.
" done." Thefe words carry a more than ordi-
nary fignifkation with them. They mean not, as
at firft we are apt to fuppofe they do, I have waked up
later there, but with a fenfe much more emphatical,
I have waked there-up later. TH AIR-UP is the very
fame form of exprefiion, with our UP THERE; when,
with a reference to our own ideas, or to the conver-
{ation at the moment, we fay of a place, that we >
have been up there. It therefore means not, that
the Queen had " waked up" with the King in the
King's apartment. It means more fpecifkally, that
{he had " waked" with him in his apartment
above. This the very arrangement of the words
{hews us j "I have walkit latter thair up then I
" wald have done." This therefore the corrected
Latin, the French, and Dr. Robertfon, all under-
ftand them to import. And the French, " j'aye
veille plus tard la-haut" is particularly expreffive.
This then being the fenfe of the words, how are we
to apply them ? To the relative fituation of the
King's and Queen's apartments at Glafgow ? But
lee us fee, where they refpeftively lodged. I hava
already fhewn, that they were not in the fame houfe.
The Queen, no doubt, lodged- in the archi-epifco-
pal palace ; while the King certainly lay at Lord
Lenox's. She was attended to Glafgow, as I have
{hewn before, by " all the Hamiltons." She was
accompanied from Glafgow, as Buchanan (hews, by
the Hamiltons again, and by the archbifliop of St,
Andrew's, for one of them. She therefore lodged
with her train in the palace at Glafgow, the archi*
epifcopal owner being at that time her embafiador
in France. This is upon the higheft ground of the
CHAP. 3. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 1$ f
city, being clofe to the cathedral ; while the houfe,
in which Darnly lodged, is ftill pointed out by tra-
dition, and lies upon the defcent from it. And
therefore Mary could not poflibly allude to the
King's lodgings at Glafgow, by the words " thair
w up ;" as fhe could not poflibly call them the
apartments above. To what then does Ihe refer
by the words ? She refers to this. The forger of
the letter, with all that careleflhefs of confidence,
which I have noted fo frequently before, and fhall
note fo frequently hereafter, laboured here under a
Confufion of ideas from the perplexities of his me-
mory. He imagined himfelf to be writing a letter
for her at Kirk-a-field, while he was actually writ-
ing one at Glafgow. He did write her one after-
wards from Kirk-a-field. She then " ludged all
i " nycht under the King, in the chalmer quhairin,"
i &c. j " and from thence wrayt that fame nycht" to
r the King, ^ben therefore fhe might with the ut-
moft propriety fay, as Ihe fays here, that fhe had
waked to a late hour " thair-up," up there, or in the
apartments above, ^hen only could fhe point at
the King's apartments, by fuch a relative allufion.
And, as the forger has thus placed the Queen at
Kirk-a-field, when by his own account fhe was at
Glafgow ; he has fufficiently betrayed his forgery
by his forgetfulnefs again *.
Detection, 15 and 65, Anderfon, ii. 242, and Jebb, i.
259 ; Keith, 330 j and App. N x. And Buchanan, Hift. xviiL.
35 i, fays of Kirk-a-field and Mary, " Ibi ipfa aliquot," " noc-
*' tus, extraSo in longum col/ofuio, concjuievit."
in.
VINDICATION OF LET.
ni.
LETTER THE FOURTH(i).
I. jviy hart, alace ! muft the foly of ane wo-
" man, quhais unthankfulnes toward me ze do fuf-
" ficiently knaw, be occafioun of difplefure unto
" sow, confidering yat I culd not have remeidit
" thairunto without knawing it (2) ? And fen that
" I perfavit it, I culd not tell it zow, for that I knew
" not how to governe rnyfelf thairin (3) ; for nou-
" ther in that, nor in ony uther thing, will I tak
" upon me to do ony thing without ktiawkdge 01
<f zour will, quhilk I befcik zow let me underftand
" (4) ; for I will follow it all my lyfe, mair willingly
" than zow fall declair it to me :"
* I. " Mon coenr, helas ! flint- il que la folic
* c d'une femme, dont vons cognoiffez aflez 1'ingra^
" titude vers moy, foit caufe tk vous dontier dcplai-.
c< fir, veu que je n'y pouvoye rnettre remede, fan*
cc le uonner a cognoiftre (2) ? Et depuis t ;
" m'en fuis appercue, je. nc ie vous pouvoye dire,
"pour ce que je ue f,;avoye pas comme m'y gou-
" verner (3). D'autant qu'en cecy, ny en autre
".chofe, je ne veux point entrepreadre dc ricn
" faire, fans que je cognoiiTe quelle eft voUre vo-
" lontc
CHAP. J. MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. $>J
lonte ( 4 ) j que je vous fupplie me faire entendre,
" car je 1'executeray tout ma vie, voire plus volon-
" tiers que ne me le voudriez declarez [declarer] :"
(i) When and where does this letter pretend to
written ? It is one of the four from Glafgow.
The rebel journal fays, that Mary there " wray & t hir
f bylle andsitber letteris to Bothwell." The bylle
we know to be tke firft. The uther letteris" muft
be two or three at lead. And 'as this letter fhews
itfelf to be one of the four, by mentioning fome-
thing " quhilk micht be hurtfull to that quhairunto
baith we do tend," the marriage by means of the
murder ; fo the next, or fifth, letter Ihews itfelf
clearly to be written from another quarter. Yet
when was it written at Glafgow ? The Queen ftaid
at Glafgow from Thurfday January 2jd, when fhe
arrived there, till Monday morning January 27th,
when fhe fet out on her return. Of this time the
frft letter has occupied Friday and Saturday nights,
January 2 4 th and 2 5 th. The fecond is perhaps
written on Sunday morning, January 2 6th ; though
tt pretends to be written on Saturday morning Ja-
nuary 25th, which is impoffible to be true. The
third is written late at night, and on Sunday
night, January 26th. And where then is there any
room for the fourth ? NOWHERE CERTAINLY. The
rebels had once calculated their letters from
Glafgow, to be three for the three days. Their owp
journal makes them only three or four. JUST
THREE WERE ACTUALLY PRODUCED AT YORK.
intimation alfo in the third, of meeting Both-
well
i3 VINDICATION or LET. 4*
well the next day, fhews this to have been THE
CLOSER OF THE 'WHOLE. Thus the firft was de-
figned for Friday evening j the fecond for Satur-
day morning, as it flill is dated ; and the third for
Sunday evening, as in the evening it pretends to
have been written. And the letters appear, from
the rebel journal, to have actually been fo once.
" January 24th (Friday]," it fays, " the Quene re-
< maynit at Glafcow, lyck as fhe did the 25th [Sa- ,
<c turday] and 26th [Sunday] ; and IN THIS TYME
cc wrayt hir bylle and uther letteris to Bothwell."
But Hyperion crojfed the forgery afterwards. He
blafled it with the humour of correction. Altera-
tions were made in the original letters. The origi-
nal plan was overlooked in the amendments. Even
a fourth letter was fubjoined to the reft. And the
whole chronology was thrown into fuch confufion,
that the firft letter extended itfelf into the place of
the fecond as well as its own ; that the fecond was
apparently written on Sunday, while its date af-
figned it to Saturday; and that the fourth was
added when there was no room for it in time. Thii
prefents us with a fine picture of the natural con-
fufednefs of villainy. Confounded by the work-
ings of its own guilty fears, the cleareft underftand-
ing becomes muddled. A Lethington finks into a
driveler. And even the large intellect of an angel,
is fhrunk up into the narrow comprehenfions of a
devil.
(2) The ftory alluded to in this letter feems to
tell us the reafon, why it was written. It hints at
one
CHAP. J. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
one of the Queen's gentlewomen, who had been un-
grateful to her, now proving pregnant by a gen-
tleman of her train. And ihe intimates that flie
will make him marry her. Now Francis Sebaf-
tian, a Frenchman whom fhe mentions in her third
letter as then prefent at Glafgow, was actually mar-
ried the Sunday but one afterwards.. His coming
marriage is alfo hinted at in the firft letter, when it
is faid of the King, that " he fpak evin of the mar-
Tf riage of Baft lane. 1 ' And what makes it the more
memorable, and is, I apprehend^ the leading clue to
the fourth letter, he was married at Holyrood-houfe
that very -night in which the King was blown up, and
the Queen gave a -banquet and a mafque that night
\ in honour of >jthe wedding. " Upon the Sounpiay
<c at nycht/' fays Thomas Nelfon in his depofitions
before the commiflioners of England, " efter fche
" [the Queen] had taryd lang, and intertened the
<f King very familiarlie, fche tuk pyrpois (as it had
" bene on the fuddan) and departed, as fche fpak,
" t gtf the majk to Baftyane> quha that nicht wes
" mareit *," Mary confirms the fubftance of this
account, in a letter which fhe wrote the next day ;
as fhe fays, that Hie " of very chance taryit not all
* f night, be reafon of Jum majk in the abbaye-\."
And, after two fuch teftimonies, I may venture to
quote Buchanan, who fays, that " this Sebaftiane
<c was ane Arvernois, a man in greit favour with the
'" Quene for his cunning in mufike and his merie
"jefting, and was maryit the fame dayj." But
* Goodall, ii. 245. f Keith, Pref. viii. J Ander-
jfon, ii. 22, and Jebb, i. 244.
. U. whom
'.
VINDICATION OF LET. 4*
whom did he marry ? The laft author will tell us, if
we fuppofe Sebaftian to be the man of this letter.
The 'woman of it, fays Buchanan *, was " Mar-
" garet Carwood." And a fourth letter was added
after the York conference, in order to dwell upon 1
the incident which produced this marriage, and fo
lead the thoughts of all who recollected the tranfac-
tions, and remembered their connection, to the very
night of the murder at once.
The Latin verfion by Buchanan going no farther,
I wifii to obferve concerning it, that the numerous
errors in it coincide exactly with the hiftorical
evidence, which I have given in the former vo-
lume j and prove it impoffible for Buchanan, how-
ever he has been almoft invariably fnppofed to the
prefent day, to have been the original author of the
letters. He could not have mif-underftood what
he wrote himfelf. He peculiarly could not fo re-
peatedly and fo grokly have mif-undcrftood it, as
he does. And the blunders of the Latin letters
concur directly with the teftimony of facts, to lay
the guilt of this mod impudent of all impudent
forgeries upon the head of another.
We have thus, however, loft the very beneficial
afliftance -of the Latin. But we have made fuch
ufe of it already, that we can very well fpare it at
prefent. It is made demonftrably clear from die
very collation of the two verfions, Latin and
French, that the French is only a verfion of the
Latin. It has appeared fo in all the three letters
* Anderfon, ii. 150, and Jcbb, i. 342.
before.
CHAP. 3. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 29!
before. It muft be fb therefore, in the remaining
Jive. And the very tranflator himfelf acknow-
ledges exprefsly, that it was fo in all. Yet the
Miicellaneous Remarker labours hard to prove, he
is miftaken ; to prove the tranflator did not tranjlate
from the Latin, as he faid he did ; to prove he did
not tranjlate at all ; to prove he unknowingly wrote
down the original^ when all the while he thought he
was tranflating. This is of all ridiculous hypothefes
the molt ridiculous. It is an extravagance beyond
the flight of lyioorrields. And yet it is literally fuch
as J have defcribed it -to be. The author indeed
overlooks entirely the Frenchman's confeffion. tfc
feems to be ignorant of it. But he flies diredly in
the .face of it. And he_thus becomes chargeable
with all the \vildnefs of execution, that I have im-
fefl to him. With this wildnefs has he gone over
the fecond and third letters. With this does he alfo
o over the remaining five. " There is no evi-
dence," he fays, " .that they were ever tranflated
xc into Latin at all ; an important circumftance,
" which Mr. Goodall anjd the author of the En-
" quiry [Mr. Tytler] have in great, meafure over-
looked *." That they were tranflated, however,
has been decifively proved, I truft, in the antece-.
dcnt f j)arts ,of die prefent work. But, for greatei
laiisfaction, I have lately produced the proving paf-
fage again. It is in that very confeflion of the
Frenchman's, which is of fo much confequence
.In itfclf, The letters, fays this tranflator, were
* P. 2',.
U a Cf
$92 VINDICATION Of LET. 4*
" traduic~les entierement en Latin j" and he tranflated
into French, he adds, " tout ce que j'ay trouve en
" Latin." And yet the Mifcellaneous Remarker
is fo ignorant of this, that he fays " there is no evi-
" dence" the five laft letters " were ever tranflated
cf into Latin." They were all tranflated. Had
they not beehy we Jhould not have had this French
tranflation at prefent, to conteft the palm of origi-
nality with the Scotch. The tranflator owns him-
felf to have been quite ignorant of the language, ih
which the true original was written. He had no-
knowledge of the Scotch, he fays ; " n'ayant cog-
" noiflance de la langue Efcofibife."
Having dated this important point for the laft
time, I truft j I now trace the fteps of the Remarker,
with the fame attention that I have fhewn before.
<c Muft the foly," Scotch; " faut-il que la foh'e,"
French. <f Faut-il que," French, obferves the Re-
marker, " does not mean muf but ought Qrjhduld-, and
" that is the fenfe of the writer*. " If the French
did not properly exprefs the meaning of the Scotch
original, the blame mu'ft be charged to the French
tranflation. But it does exprefs it fufficiently, ac-
cording to his own account, and even in oppofitic'n to
it. " Faut-il que" means <c fhould," he fays ; and
muft in this connection means the fame. And " il
<c faut" accordingly means either muft or jhould.
* c Without knowing it," Scotch j " fans le donner
" a cognoiftre," French. The Scotch, fays the
Remarker, " is an expreffion altogetlier unintel-
* P. 26.
CHAP. 3. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 93
<f ligible *." Yet the language is furely very plain.
The Queen fays, that fhe could not have remedied
a misfortune in her houfhold " without knowing
" it." This is one pf the plainer! propofitions,
that ever were prefented to the human mind. Yet
the Remarker finds it " altogether unintelligible."
Not to know me argues yourfelf unknown.
But the French alters this into a propofition more
intelligible to him, that fhe cpuld not remedy it
without iiifclofmg it to others. This is certainly
not more intelligible. And it is left true. The
next words fhew it to be abfolutely falfe. " I culd
" not have remeidit thairunto," fays the writer r
** without knawing it ; and Jen that Iperfavit it, I
f culd not tell it zow."
(3) This prefents us with a glorious fiourifh of the
brger's pen. Mary has the misfortune to find, that
>ne of her maids of honour is with child by a gen-
leman in her retinue. Bothwell hears of the fact,
it the diftance of Edinborough or of Lydifdale.
Hourt-fcandal then flew with rapidity, it feems,
vithout the aid of a Morning Poft or .an Englifo
Chronicle. Bothwell is much hurt at the news.
The adulterous Bothwell is hurt at an intrigue of
"ornication in the Queen's family, in the family of
hat very Queen with whom he is carrying on an
dulterous intrigue. He is hurt too with an in-
rigue in that very Margaret Carw,ood, who (ac-
ording to Buchanan). " was previe and ane helper
" of all thair lufe f," and had even been con-
* P. 26. f Anderfon, ii. 150.
U 3
*94- VltfDICATrON OF LET. 4.
cerned with the Queen and Lady Reres' in a kind
of rape upon himfelf *. And the plotting murderer,.
even in the very moments of plotting, and nearly at
the critical minute of the murder, writes in fuch
fharp terms upon the fornication to his partner in
adultery and in murder ; as forces her to break out
abruptly, at the very commencement of her letter,
in theie terms of anguifh, " my hart, alace ! muft
ct the foly of ane woman be occafioun of difplefure
" unto zow ?" This is certainly a note above Ela,
in the fcale of abfurdity.
Ic appears however from this, that Mary has
heard from Bothwell, while fhe refidcd at Glafgow.
Yet how could fhe ? He left her on Thurfday Ja-
nuary 23 at Kalendar. He returned that day to
Edinborough. He fet off the next for Lydifdale.
And he is (till there. So abfurd upon every exami-
nation does the chronology appear ! But this is not
all. Mary has received this letter fince her laft.
The laft was written the evening before fhe was to
meet him. It was written late at night. She was
to meet him the next day. She had heard from him
then, to fix the appointment for next day. She has
now heard from him fince. She has therefore
heard on Monday, the day fhe was to meet him,
and the day that fhe actually left Glafgow. And
fhe is writing to him, at the time that by the letters
Ihe fhould be with him, and at the time when flic
was aRually on the road to, or now arrived at, Ka-
lendar. So much more abfurd does the chronology
appear, upon further examination !
* Anderfon, ii. 8, and Jcbb, i. 240.
But
CHAP. J. MARY QJL7EEN 6F SCOTS. 2p$
But Mary fays, that fhe could not tell Bothwell of
the intrigue, becaufe fhe did not know how to act
concerning it. Yet in the letter immediately pre-
ceding flie has informed us, that he had " com-
" manded" afcd ihe had " promifed" neither to
write nor fend to him. The two pafTages are
flrangely at variance. He <f commands" and fhe
" promifes" not to write or fend. She adheres to
.the ftipulationj in writing two letters to him, and
one an exceedingly long one. But ;fhe had then
forgotten the flipulation perhaps. She at laft re-
collects it. She recollects it to break it. She men-
tions it in the very inftant fhe is breaking it. The
fhird letter records at once the promife and the vio-
lation. Nor does fhe flop there. She breaks it a
fourth time. She writes four letters in three days,
-when fhe was commanded and had promifed not to
write a line, and no.t even to fend a merTage. And
PIC does all this, not to confult him upon any inci-
^ents that had emerged fmce the command and the
promife were given, but merely to proclaim the
^.dukery, to infmuate the murder, and to difplay her
. wantonnefs, her wickedness, a.nd her ftupidity, at
, nce, in an mtfealed letter,
(4) Thus is Mary made refponfible to Bothwell,
: for the pettieft actions of her life. She cannot have
; the misfortune of an intrigue in her court, but
i Bothwell rates her for it,. She is taxed for not re-
I medying it. She is condemned for not apprizing
' him of it, even when he himfelf had charged her not
i |p write or fend to him. She finds him in difplea-
U 4 fure
96 VINDICATION OF LET. 4.
fure about it. She is much wounded in her feel-
ings by all. And fhe deprecates his difpleafure in.
the loweft terms of humility. Yet Dr. Robertforv
and Mr. Hume could fee the real Mary in all this.
They could fee no difference between a Caliban and
a man. And even though the reprefentation had been
charged with ftill greater abfurdities, if it was pofiible
to charge it with greater $ they would ftill (I fear)
have reconciled themfelves to the fight, and have
ftill difcovered all the natural proportions of the
man under the " gaberdine" of the monfter.
II. " And gif ze do not fend me word this
c< nicht (l) quhat ze will that I fall do, I will red
" myfclf of it, and hafard to caus it to be interpryfit
" and takin in hand, quhilk micht be hurtfull to
" that quhairunto baith we do tend (2). And
>f quhen fcho fall be maryit(l), I befeik zow to
" give me ane (3), or ellis I will tak fie as fall
" content zow for thair conditiounis (4) ; bot
" as for thair toungis or faithfulnefs towart zow, I
" will not anfwer."
II. <f Que fi vous ne me mandez des nouvellcs
" cefte nuit (i), de ce que voulez que je face, jc
" m'en depefcheray, et me hazarderay de 1'cntre-
" prendre, ce que pourroit nuire a ce que nous def-
" fcignons tous deux (2). Et quand elle fera
" mariee (2), je vous prie de m'endonner une ;uitr%
CfiAP. 3- MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
V (3), ou bien j'en prendray quelqu'une, donft
e fj'eftime que la fac^on vous contentera (4) ; mais
<* quant a leur langue et fidelite envers vous, j.e
* f n'en voudroye pas refpondre."
(1) This letter then pretends, like the two parts
of the firft, and like the whole of ihe third, to be
written in the night. It thus enables us to detect the
impofture, even more clearly than we have already-
done. The firft being written in the firft two nights,
thofe of Friday and Saturday 5 the third could not b&
written before Sunday night, or the fourth before
Monday night. The laft therefore was written from
Glafgow, when by fatjecond letter fhe was to be at
Cragmillar near Edinborough, and by the journal
ihe was a&ually at Kalendar near Falkirk. And A
to enhance the folly, fhe fpeaks of the night as al-
ready come, in calling it " this nicht," and yet de-
fires Bothwell to fend her word in " this nicbt ;"
when by the third letter he was to be with her at
this very time, and by the journal he was aftualljr
In Lydifdale.
(2) This alludes to the maid of honour, or her
corrupter, or body, being privy to the adultery now
carried on, and to the murder fpeedily intended.
Margaret Carwood, fays Buchanan, was deeply
concerned in the adultery. But as the maid of ho->
Hour is faid before to have been one, whofe un-
thankfulnefs to Mary was fufficiently known by
Bothwell j and as the forced marriage could be of-
fenfive only to her corrupter; we muft refer the
intimation
298 VINDICATION OF LET. 4,
intimation to him. Accordingly, when Lenox, ia
his folly of relying upon anonymous accufations,
fpecified fome perfons whom he fufpefted of the
murder, he named " Seignior Francis Baftian V
And when the rebels, the very night offending the
Queen to Lochlerin, made a general fcarch through
the capital for the murderers of the king, Sebaf-
tia;i was feized among others, and committed to,
prifon t- " * w iM rc d rnyfelf of it," Scotch ; " Jc
" m'dn depefcheray," French. The fcnfe is, fays
the Mifcellaneous Remarker, {< / will make baftt to
*' do if y tliat is, / TO/'// inftantly difmifs the IKB-
C man J." And this is to be a probable proof,
that the French is the original, and the Scotch a
tranflation, againft fuch an accumulation of evi^
dence to the contrary. But the SCOTCH Mary fays,
that (he will rid berjelf of the bufincfs, and the
FRENCH Mary, that (be will difpauh it. Thefc are
ocpreflions too nearly alike, to found any criti-
ciims upon a variation between them. Of die t\vo,
the Scotch is the mod proper, as it is always ufed
for a troublefome bufmefs, But the meaning of
either is net, that {he will inftantly difmifs the wo-
man j but that fhe will make the gentleman to
marry her. The words immediately following,
" and quhen fcho fall be maryit," fhew this to be
the meaning. But (he fays, that fhe will " hafard
* c to caus it to be interpryfit and takin in hand,*
Scotch; <c me hazarderay de 1'entreprendre,"
French. " Where," exclaims the Mifcellaneouj
* Anderfon, i, 48. f Crawford, 41. J P. 26.
Remarker,
CHAP. 3. MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS.
Remarker, " is the happy turn of phrafe- here?
te Let any reader, converfant in the two languages,
* c pronounce which is the original, and which the
Cf tranflation *." We already know the Scotch
to be the original, .and the French the tranflation,
even a tranflation from the Latin. We are not
therefore left to fuch petty fpeculations as thefe,
for the proof of the point. But, knowing it al-
ready, we think it of fome ufe to fet thefe objec-
tions afide with an eafy hand. Mary fays that, if
Hie does not hear this night from Bothwell, ihe will
undertake the bufmefs at her own hazard, and caufe
the matter to be enterprifed and taken in hand. In
other words, and freed from that obfcurity which
pervades all thefe letters, and which is the natural
confequence of a forger's fears, willing to fpeak
out, and yet compelled to whifper ; fhe fays fhe will
inftantly fend a meflage to Sebaftian, and infill
upon his marrying the maid of honour, even though
fhe offend him by doing fo, and lofe his fervices in
the projected murder. She would caufe the mar-
riage to be enterprized and taken in hand. That
the fecond *'/ refers to the marriage underftood, is
plain from the words immediately following, " and
" quhen fcho fall be maryit." And yet the French,
catching the real fignification as little as the Re-
marker, makes the Queen to " hazard the enter-
(( prizing of it," to hazard the marriage herfelf.
(3) " Ane," Scotch ; " une autre," French. Th
Addition here is noted by the Remarker f, as a
* P. 2627, t p - 2 7-
proof
VINDICATION OF LET. 4 %
proof of the originality of the French -, when the
deduftion was before. " Thy truth, mod mighty
<f Lord," faid a madman once in defence of con-
trary propofitions, " is on every fide."
(4) " Conditiounis," Scotch j " facon," French.
This is another of the Remarker's proofs. 1 he
force of it lies only in bis own prepofilfiions. Pie
is to prove the French the original. Yet /w amidft
his proofs he iriXlfitpfofe it to be fo. And then every
variation is an error in the Scotch. Su~h is this
gentleman's logic ! " Fac,on v is enoneoufly tranf-
lated " conditiounis :" irgo, &c. He was bred, I
fufpeft, in the logical fchoo! of dv Socinian PRIEST-
LEY, and in the very Antipodes of all true reafon-
ing.
III. " I befeik zow yat ane opinipun of urher
* c perfoim (i) be not hiirtfull in zour mynde to my
Tf conftancie (a). Miftruft rnc ; bot (3) o;jhen I
* f will put zow out of dout and cleir myfclf, refufe
<c it not, my deir lufe (4), and fuffer me to mak
f zow fum prufe be (5) my obedience, my (6)
" faithfulncfs, conftancie, and vokmtarie fubjefti-
" oun, quhilk I tak for the plefandeft gu-Je that I
<f micht reffaif, gif ze will accept it, and mak na.
<c ceremonie at it (7) ; for ze culd do me na grerter
*' outrage, nor gif rriair rnortall greif (8)."
Ill -
CHAK- 3- MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. JCI
III. " Je vous fupplie, que 1'opinion d'une
* f autre (i) n'efloingne voftre affection de ma con-
tc ftance (2). Vous meffiez vous de moy (3), qui
." vous veux mettre hors de doute, et declarer mon
<4 innocence, o ma chere vie (4), ne le refufez pas,
" et nefouffrez que je vous donne efpreuvede (5)
c mon obeifiance (6), fidel he, conftance, et volon-
" taire fubjeftion, que jeprenda tres grand plaifir,
<c autant que je le puis avoir, fi vous 1'acceptez fans
* f ceremonie (7), car vous ne me fcauriez faire
" plus grand outrage, ny offence plus mortelle(8)."
1 i ) Lady Bothwell's opinion of Mary's incon*
, ilancy.
(2) " Be not hurtfull in zour mynde to my con-
* c ftancie," Scotch ; that is, do not injure the credit
' b my conftancy in your good opinion. Yet the
French renders the claufe, ce n'efloingne voftre af-
" feflion de ma conftance," that is, do not alienate
your affection from my conftancy ; a mode of ex-
pfefiion, if any way proper in itfelf, certainly very
improper as a verfion of the Scotch.
(3) " Miftruftmej bot quhen," Scotch j " vous
" meffiez vous de moy, qui," French. The French,
fays Mifcellaneous Remarker *, " is as clear as
** words can be, when the thing alluded to is nor
" certainly known j" and the Scotch, he adds, is
<c words without energy, and indeed without mean-
ce ing." The fenfe of the Scotch is this : miftrull
me if you will, but do not deny me the favour ot
* P. 27.
Clearing
302 . VINDICATION OF LET. 4,
clearing myfelf, and removing all your doubts. I
know not, what " energy" there is in this ; but there
is " a meaning" in it. Let us therefore now com-
pare the French with the Scotch. You diftruft me,
it fays, who would remove your doubts. Here the
meaning is equally good, though fomewhat diffe-
rent. But let us purfue the line of fenfe to the end.
tf Vous meffiez vous de moy, ,qui vous veux mettre
ct hors de doute, et declarer mon innocence, o ma
c< chere vie, ne le refufez pas." Here, for want of
the words in the Scotch, " bot quhen," and fo by
turning " I" into " qui," the thread of connection
is broken, and the fentence limps upon its legs.
Yet the French, fays the Remarker, " is as clear as
" words can be," and the Scotch is " without mean-
" ing-"
(4) " My deir lufe," Scotch; ma chere vie,"
French. Here the Remarker might have ieen in
bis own way, which was the original, and which was
the tranflation. " Vie" could never be miftaken
for tf amie," but " lufe" might cafily be miftaken
for " life." The Latin read the Scotch wrong,
rendered it vzVtf,and fo gave " vie" to the French.
(5) "Be my obedience," Scotch; " de mOfl
obeifiance," French. But let us mark the trim
of ideas here. Mary bcfeeches him not to think ill
of her conftancy, " be not hurtfull in zour mynde to
" my CONSTANCIE." He may miftruft her con-
jlancy, fhe fays, but when flie attempts to vindicate
* it, fhe begs he will'hear her j and fuffer her to (hew
her conjlancy in her qonducl to him. f< Suffer me
A "tt
HAP. J. MARY QJTEEtf OF SCOTS.
* f to mak zow fum prufe," fhe fays, fc be my obe-
" dience, my faithfulnefs, COKSTANCIE. and vohm-
* { tarie fubje&ioun." She thus requefts to give -a
proof of her conflancy by her conftarfcy.
(6) " My," Scotch, omitted in French.
(7) " Si vous 1'acceptez fan's ceremonie," fays
Remarker *, " is thus ungracefully rendered,
: gif ze will accept it, and mak na ceremonie ac
*" it.' 1 ' So trifling is this author, in -his probable
proofs for the originality of the French ! If any real
or fappofed* tfligracefulnefs of language would prove
the point even probably, it could not have borne^a
moment's 'argumentation. Could that balance re-
nnain long- unfertled, which a mote woxild turn ?
Yet even thefe motes are more in the mind's eye,
than in reality. The prefent particularly is. If the
Scotch had 1 been, " gif ze will accept it bot ony ce-
*' rt-monie," it would have -been a little, and only a
little, more cvmpaEt, but not more graceful, 'than it
is at prefent. And then the French would have
fceen literally conformabk to it. Let me only, add,
as punctuation is of forne confequence, that I have
taken the liberty of pointing the -fentence as it now
(lands. Before, it flood thus, c{ accept it - t and mak
*' na ceremonie at it, for."
(8) This is furely the very batbos of humiliation.
Mary is made to declare, that for Bothwell to let
her gwcfome proof of her love, by her obedience,
faithfulnefs, conftancy, and voluntary fubjecf ton t fhe
* P. 27*
fhall
VINDICATION of LET. 4*
ihall take for the greateft happinefs that fhe can re-
ceive j and that if he makes any hefitation about ac-
cepting this proof, it will be to her the greateft of
all poflible outrages, and the fharpeft of all poffible
forrows. This is love " mounted to the lunar
" fphere" at once. And it will appear peculiarly
fo, when we reflect, that this is faid during the life
cfber bufbandy without any referve concerning his
death, and without one anticipation of approaching
widowhood.
Let me add alfo, with regard to the main incident
in the prefent letter, that this alone ferves to prove
the forgery. The marriage of Francis Sebaftian is
certainly the marriage alluded to. The coincidence
of the firft and fourth letter fhews it. But then the
firft fhews the fourth to be fpurious. The fourth
reprefents the marriage as only intended now for
the firft time, as intended now from a fudden and re-
cent difcovery, as hardly yet intended fully and ab-
folutely, and as unknown, even in the very caufe and
principle of all, to Bothwell himfelf. Yet the firfl
fliews the marriage to be then intended, to be then
known to r^e fo, and to be known even to the King
and to Bothwell. And the contradiction bewrayi
the impofture effectually.
CHAP. J. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS,
35
I have thus gone over the letters from Glafgow.
That they are fictitious, is too plain, I apprehend, to
be doubted at prefent by any man of common fenfe.
The evidence in this volume alone, is fufficient to con-
vict them of impofture, in the eyes of all the world.
The chronology, particularly, muft ftand as a deep
and broad brand of knavery upon their front, to the
end of time. But to make the brand ftill broader
and deeper, let us attend to another chronology.
This is contained in \hz fecond of the pretended
ifeflions of Paris, which was peculiarly drawn up
order to ftrengthen the letters *, and ought there-
re to be confidered together with them f. Mr.
Tytler had the honour of firft opening this fource of
information againft the letters j but afterwards
clofed it again, by withdrawing his remarks in a
fucceeding edition of his work J. I intend to break
up the fountain a fecond time, and then trace the
current to its termination. And, by doing this, I
at once confirm the fpurioufnefs of the letters,
and prove that of the confeflion itfelf.
* Goodall, ii. 88. f See it in Goodall, ii. 76 79.
See his Appendix, N ii, fuperfeded in jd edition by other
VOL. II.
Nicholas
VINDICATION OF LET. 4.
Nicholas Hubert, commonly called French Paris,
or only Pari?, entered firft into credit with the
Queen, as he tells us himfelf, " entra en credit avec
" la Royne," when fhe was at Kalendar on her way
to Glafgow, " comme la Royne fuft a Kalendar al-
" lant a Glafgow." This was by the rebel journal
on Thurfday January 23, 1566-7. She then gave
him a purfe with three or four hundred crowns in
it, to be carried by him to Bothwell. This was
done upon the road betwixt Kalendar and Glafgow,
" fur le chemin entre Kalendar et Glafgow." But
why was it given him there ? To make hafte after
Bothwell, to be fure ; to overtake him on his return
to Edinborough , and fo do, what the Queen ought
to have done in the morning at Kalendar, before
he left her. Yet this was not the defign, it feems.
The purfe was given to Paris upon the road, not to
poft with it immediately after Bothwell ; but to
carry it whither the Queen berfelf was going, to
Glafgow ; and merely to fave her the trouble, of car-
rying thither fo many hundred crowns in her own
pocket. And this was done openly, and in the pro
fcnce of all her retinue* " fur le chemin ;" though
fhe had gentlemen and ladies in her train, Jofeph
the brother of David Rizzio, Francis Sebaftian r
Joachim, and her maids of honour.
Paris thus attended her Majefty, as her privy^
purfe, to Glafgow. " La Royne eltant arrivee i-
" Glafgow," he ftaid there TWO days for a letter,
which Ihe faid fhe would fend by him to Bothwell.
" Ayant deraeure la DEUX jours avec la di&e
<c dame, -laquelle efcript des lettres, et a luy les.
bailla >
CHAP. J. MARY QjJEEfc OF SCOTS.
<( bailla, dyfant, Vous dires de bouche a Monf. de
ff Boduel, que," &c. He ftaid therefore at Glaf-
gow, Friday the 24th and Saturday the 25th of Ja-
nuary, before he fet off with any letter to Bothwell.
This agrees exactly, as we have feen before, with
the internal chronology of the/r/? letter. And it
overthrows the date of the Jecond decifively. Paris
fays himfelf, that he fet not off with tiitfrft before
Sunday morning, THE DAY AFTER the date of the
Jecond.
With this letter he fet out. He reached Edin-
borough. He docs not fay when* But it could
>t be till Monday. The diftance between Glaf-
and Edinborough, by the route which was ge-
illy purfued then, and through Stirling *, is 66
liles, I believe. And it appears from the circum-
ftances to have been, what from the feafon of the
year and ftate of the weather it might well be, the
former being <c the deip of a fcharpe wynter," as
Buchanan has told us before, and the latter being
" the extremitie-of this ftormy weather," as Lenox
has equally told us ; the evening of Monday before
he arrived. For he delivers the letter , and the
next day, " le lendemain," comes three feveral
times, at eight, nine, and ten in the morning, for
the anfwer to it. Yet Mary is made in thzfecottd
letter, dated Saturday morning, to expect his arrival
then , though he was not then GONE, though he fet
* The Queen went this road. Lenox went it, when on his
way from Glafgow he ftopt fhort at Stirling, and requefted the
Queen to defer the trial of Bothwell (Anderfon, i. 54). And
Mary andDarnly went it before, with their army (Keith, 314).
X 2 not
3O& VINDICATION OF LET. 4.
not off till Sunday morning, though he was at
Edinborough on Tutfday, and though he could not
be back till Wednefday.
But Paris fays, that, on his arrival at Edinbo-
rough, he found Bothwell in his lodgings at Ho-
lyrood-houfe ; " arrive a Liflebourg, trouve le dift
' de Boduel en fon logis a Pabbay." He law him,
however, by the aid only of fecond fight. The
Frenchman had been fo far naturalized, as to be
admitted to this the appropriated privilege of a
Scot. By the aid of thofe magic fpectacles, he
faw Bothwcll in his lodgings, he converfed with him
that day, he again faw and again converfed with
him the next. And yet, all the while, Bothwell
was in a diftant region, many, many miles from
Edinborough, and upon the confines of England.
On Friday the 24th in the evening, Bothwell fet
off from Edinborough for Lydifdale; and did not
Jet ofon his return from Lydifdale, till Tuefday Ja-
nuary 28th.
On fuejday however, at eight, nine, and ten in
the morning fuccefllvely, Paris went to his lodging
at Holyrood-houfe, where he thought he had feen
and talked with him the night before. But he
could not find him now. At lad he found him in
the High Town near Kirk-a-field, accompanied by
a number of gentlemen, walking fide by fide with
Sir James Balfour, and going to dine with Sir
James. Paris addrefied him, as actually Bothwell;
and defired before all the gentlemen to be difpatched
to the Queen. And the fpeftre anfwered, juft as if
it had been Bothwell. " Apres difner, dit il, je
" feray/
HAP. J. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 309
* ( feray." After dinner therefore Paris came again,
c< il retourna querir fa defpeche apres difner."
Bothwell wrote his letter ; and Paris is fure that he
wrote it with his own hand, " efcrivit de fa propre
" main." So much were his fenfes impofed upon I
.The deception indeed was very extraordinary.
Bothwell appeared, fpoke, and wrote. A real hand,
and a real pen, feemed to be employed in the work.
Real ink and real paper feemed to be ufed by him.
And, when he had done, he feemed to fay, " Voila
" la refponfe, retourne t'en a la Royne, et me re-
" commandes bien humblement a fa bonne grace,"
&c. This was as courteous a ghoft, as that of Sir
Charles Grandifon's to Mrs. Shirley. Yet it could
not poflibly be any thing but a ghoft. The true,
'the genuine Bothwell, the ^u^ and the o-w/xa of
Bothwell, were at this very time a number of miles
off; while the {hade, the JwXov, of Bothwell, was
mimicking him at Edinborough, and calling up the
apparitions of pen, ink, and paper, to aflift in the
mummery. And it is no wonder, that fuch a fim-
pleton as Murray's Paris was impofed upon by the
vifionary forms; when the difquifitive Berkeley
has Jo fully convinced the world,, that papers, pens,
ink, and men are all in their trueft appearances a
mere delufion, and merely fpeclres of the things
which they reprefent.
Paris then went to Lethington, to whom was a
letter inclofed in Bothwell's. Yet our letter to
Bothwell has ftrangely forgot to notice it. She alfo
fent (fays Paris) a meflage by him to Lethington
and Bothwell together, to know whether the King
X 3
'
310 VINDICATION OF LET. ^
fhould lodge at Kirk-a-field or at Cragmillar. Yet
the fame letter has ftrangely forgot to notice this too.
It only refers to the bearer about the lodging at
Edinborough. And it refers to Bothwell alone, not
Lethington and him together, even upon this head.
Paris however reports the meffage to Lethington.
Lethington anfwers it, though Bothwell did not,
< c Ledift Liddington lui refpondit, que le Kirk-de-
<f field feroit bon, et le diet Sieur de Boduel et lui
* f avoient advife enfemble la-deffus." Lethington
alfo writes a letter to the Queen, though fhe gives
no hint of fuch a letter in her own from Glafgow.
Bothwell alfo fends a diamond to her, with a gal-
lant fpeech, that he would fend her his heart if he
had it in his own pofiefiion ; and yet the Queen is
even fo uncourteous, as to take no more notice of
either than of Lethington's letter. And Paris de-
parts on his return for Glafgow, fome time after
dinner on fuefday January 28.
The Queen, by the declaration of her own de-
figns in letter the fecond, and by the journal which
the rebels made of her aftual movements, left
Glafgow on Monday January 27. Yet fhe previ-
oufly received a letter, which fhe anfwered in her
third, and in which Bothwell had fhe wed " fa mony
" contrary fufpiciounis" of her, though he pro-
niifed to meet her " the morne" or next day. But
here Paris's confeflion and the rebel journal agree
together, and pronounce the reception of Juch a
letter to be IMPOSSIBLE. She muft have received
it before Monday j and Paris did not leave Edin-
borough
CHAP. 3. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 311
i borough with a reply to her firft letter, before
\ I'uefday in the afternoon. Nor is this all. Mary
j received, not only this, but a fecond letter, from
Bothwell ; one, in which he expreffed his difplea-
I fure at her, for the misfortune in one of her maids
i of honour. And the ftrong bond of IMPOSSIBILITY
i is broken through, a fecond time. She expects an
3 anfwer to her firft, fhe receives one, and Ihe receives
i, an anfwer to her fecond ; A WHOLE DAY before
\ Paris, the bearer of the firft, and the re-bearer of
i the reply to it, has even arrived at Edinborough
* withthe/r/?; A DAY AND A HALF, before he/<tfj out
I from Edinborough with the reply ; and confe-
U quently THREE DAYS, before he could reach her
I with it.
He fet out on his return, e< partit pour s'en aller
i u a Glafcow vers la Royne." He arrived at Glaf-
5j gow. He waited upon the Queen, He reported
the meflage. He delivered the letters. And he
;i afterwards returned from Glafgow to Kalendar with
the King and- Queen, ff retournoit de Glafcow vers
^ " Liflebourg avec le Roy a Kallander." He reached
Glafgow, therefore, on WEDNESDAY NIGHT, Ja-
nuary 29th. He could not reach it before. Yet
he found the King and Queen there. And thus
' they, who certainly left Glafgow on Monday, were
there by Paris's forged depofitions on the WEDNES^
DAY and THURSDAY following.
On the way betwixt Glafgow and Kalendar, he fays,
he was addrefled by a meffenger of Bothwell's, who
delivered him a letter to prefent to the Queen, inftead
of prefenting it to her himfelf. This was intended,
X4 aa
312 VINDICATION OF LET. 4.
no doubt, as an anfwer to herfecond, and to be the
very letter to which fhe replies in her fourth. But
it reached her, we fee, not at Glajgow, but on the
road betwixt it and Kalendar. And it met her,
when by the third letter Bothwell himfelf was to
have met her. She anfwered it, fays Paris, upon
the road betwixt Kalendar and Glafgow, " en al-
" lant," and fent a ring wiih it. Yet NO- SUCH AN-
SWER \VAS EVER SENT, the rebel journal rejetts it.
Neither the ten nor the eighty neither the Scotch nor
the French lift of letters, will admit it for one of their
number. And it peculiarly cannot be that, which
yet it peculiarly means to be, the fourth. When
this was written, Bothwell was very mar to her ; be-
caufe he was to fend her word, as fhe fays, " this
" nicht," concerning one of her maids of honour.
But Bothwell was at Edinborougb y when the letter
with the rin^g was fent. Indeed he appears from
Paris's confefllon and the rebel journal refpeftively,
to have come no nearer than Edinborough to her, all
the while fhe was at Glafgow.
Paris fet out with the King and Queen from
Glafgow for Kalendar, at fooneft by his own ac-
count, on THURSDAY January the 3Oth j when the
King and Queen actually fct out on MONDAY Ja-
nuary 27th, He accompanied them to Linlith-
gow, by his own chronology, on FRIDAY January
3 1 ft, " apres la Royne et le Roy eftans a Lythgowj"
when in facl they reached the' town on TUESDAV
January 28th. But there the Queen had a mind to
fend Gilbert Curie to Edinborough, whom Paris
alferts to have been a groom of her chamber, " va-
" let
CHAP. 3. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
u let de chambre ;" though the firft letter intimates,
that both he and Paris were private Jecretaries
to her *. So much do the letters and the confef-
fion difagree in the flighted points ! He was to fee,
whether the houfe allotted for the King was pre-
pared for his reception. But fhe afterwards lent
John Hay in his ftead to Bothwell. And after
him, (C en apres auffi," fhe difpatched Paris with
fome bracelets to Bothwell ; as if Paris, who car-
ried the bracelets, could not alfo have carried the
letter. This letter is evidently what is noticed in
the rebel journal, when it fays, that " fhe remayned
" all day in Linlythquow with the King, and wraytt
"from thence to Bothwell" But the bracelets are
the fame, that are mentioned in the firft letter.
Such a difagreement is there again ! Thefe
Paris carried to Bothwell at Edinborough -, " le
f< diet Paris, arrivant a Liflebourg, lui bailie les
<c braflelets." He found him juft going to mount
his horfe, in order to meet the King and Queen.
Paris accompanied him. And they conducted the
King to his lodgings at Kirk-a-field.
This is the journal extracted from Paris's fecond
eonfeflion. It goes directly againft the rebel jour-
nal. Both go directly againft the letters. And, in
fuch frail fabricks of chronology as thefe are, the
beft way of deftroying them all is to dafh them one
againft the other. That the rebels, however, fhould
have formed no lefs than THREE fyftems of chrono-
logy; and all clafhing with each other , is an amaz-
* $6-
ing
314 VINDICATION OF LET. 4*
ing incident in the annals of human folly. It fhews
the natural infatuation of impiety, in very itrong
colours. But it alfo fhews Something more. It
lays open to the eye of FAITH, the .providential
fpirit of GOD controuling the operations of vil-
lainy, by curbing its exertions of intellect j depref-
fmg the powers of the mind, to circumfcribe the
fphere of impofition ; and even ftimulating the foul
to meafures, that fhould finally blail its efforts.
Had we not poflefTed this confeflion of Paris, we
fhould have loft fome good proofs againft the au-
thenticity of die letters. Had we not poffeffed the
rebel journal, we fhould have been deprived of
fome of our beft evidences againft both. Yet thefe
two papers were fupplied by the rebels themfelves.
Murray fent up the confeflion. Murray prefented
the journal. Both were delivered in to the commif-
fioners of England, and fo were tranfmitted to the
prefent times. They were delivered, in order to
fupport the caufe of the letters, to confirm their au-
thenticity, and to fanction their veracity. And yet
the feeds of detection were fowed deep in the ground
of both, ready to come forth whenever they were \
invited by a fpirit of fair enquiry, and fure to cover
the letters which they were to befriend, with perpe-
tual fhame and infamy.
CHAPTER,
CHAP. 4. MARY QJJSEN OF SCOTS.
3*
CHAPTER THE FOURTH.
Si-
LETTER THE FIFTH (i).
I. <c Allace ! my lord, quhy is zour traift put in
(< ane perfoun fa unworthie, to miftraift that quhilk
" is haillely zouris ? I am wod (2). Ze had pro-
" miflit me, that ze wald refolve all (3), and that ze
" wald fend me word every day (4) quhat J
" fuld do. Ze haifdone nathing yairof (5). I ad-
?* vertifit (6) zow weill to tak heid of zour fals
" brother-in-law : he come to me, and without
"fchawing me ony thing from zow (7), tald me
that ze had willit him to wryte to zow that "
I. " Monfieur, helas ! pourquoy eft voftre fi-
?f ance mife en perfonne fi indigne, pour foupcon-
" ner ce qui eft entierement voftre ? J 'enrage (2).
Vous m'aviez promis, que vous vous refouldriez
"en toutes chofes (3), et que chacun jour (4)
" vous m'envoiriez dire ce que j'auroye a faire.
Vous n'en avez rien fait (5). Je vous veux
bien
VINDICATION OF LET. .
" bicn advertir (6), que vouspreniez bien garde a
" voftre defloyal beau-frere : il vint vers moy,
" fans me fairc apparoiftre que c'eftoit de voftre
" part (7), et me dit que vous 1'aviez "
(1) We are now come to the letters from Stir-
ling. Of thefe the rebel journal fpeaks thus:
" April 21 [1567], viz. Mounday, the Qiicne raid
" to Stirling, and from thence wreyt the Ictteris
" concerning hir ravi{hing ." And that here
they begin, is plain from the tenor of the prefent
letter. In the Englifh Detection of Buchanan, in
which the letters were publiflied for the firft time
all together, the fifth letter, as the firft from Stirling,
bears this title, " ane uther letter fend fra Striviling to
* f Bothwell, concerning the practice for hir ravifche-
" ment." Then comes the fixth with this title,
" ane uther letter to Bothwell, for the practife and
devife to excufe the ravifhing." The feventh
follows with this, " ane uther letter to Bothwell of
" ye practice of hir ravifhment, and to advife him
" to be ftrong to do it *." And the eighth, as J
have noticed before, is ftrangely thrown in among ,
the Glafgow letters, and made the third of them j !
.when it is plainly one of the Stirling, and an anti- ;
cipation of the 'approaching feizure and marriage.
(2) For remarks upon this, fee Section II.
(3) He had promifed her, it feems, to refolvc
all. But what needed to be refolved ? NOTHING.
The plan of feizure was already fettled, fay the re-
* Anderfon, ii. 151 1:5.
SHAP. 4. MARY QJLJEEN OF SCOTS. ^ I 7
bels. And therefore nothing could remain to be
fettled at prefent. " The Quene raid to Stirling,"
fays the rebel journal, " as it wes devyfit, and from
" thence wreyt the letteris concerning the purpofe
cf devyfit of bir raijijhing" meaning her feizure.
" That ze wald refolve all," Scotch ; " que vous
<f vous refouldriez en toutes chofes," French. The
Scotch fays, that Bothwell had promifed to refolve
all difficulties for her, which fliould arife in their in-
tended enterprize, and to fend her word from time
to time how fhe {hould aft in them ; and that he
'Aad not done this. But the French afferts, that
Tie had promifed to refolve himfelf in them all ;
which is very different in its import, and contrary
to the two claufes immediately following. And
yet the Mifcellaneous Remarker produces the va-
riation, without adverting to the . fenfe at all, as a
probable proof that the French was the r ori-
-ginal*. Hi.?Jia
(4) This is another argument of the forgery.
She fays, that Bothwell had promifed to fend her
word Cf every day" what fhe fhould do. How many
days then was fhe to flay at Stirling, to admit of
this addrefs from Bothwell to her < c every day?"
She was to flay jufl one day and two nights. She
was to reach Stirling on Monday. She -was to
leave it on Wednefday. And thus the long train
of days is fhrunk up into little more than four
and twenty hours, like the Iliad compreffed into a
.nut-fhell.
* P. 27,
(5) Both-
31$ VINDICATION OF LET. .
(5) Bothwell has not executed his promife, it
feems. He has not refolved all the difficulties for
her, and fent her word " every day" what (he fhould
do. But how could he? She left him in the
morning. She is writing to him in the evening.
And what difficulties could he refolve for her in the
interval ? At this part of the letter, forgery faces us
in every line, and almoft in every word.
(6) " Advertifit," Scotch ; " veux bien advertir,"
French. The Scotch fpeaks, fays the Remarker,
" as if the fuppofed writer of this letter referred tf*
tf what {he had formerly Jaid, inftead of introduc-"
" ing," as the French does, " a fubjeft for the firft
<e time *." But the French is wrong, and the
Scotch right. Mary is not introducing a fubjecl:
for the firft time. She refers to what (he had for-
merly faid. She is mentioning the neglects of Both-
well. He had promifed to give her inftruftions
from day to day ; but he had not done it. She had
warned him to beware of confiding in his brother-
in-law j and yet he has confided in him. He has
fent him to her too, without any token from him-
felf. He has fent him to confer with her, on the
bufmefs of their grand enterprize.
(7) This is another evidence of the forgery.
The brother-in-law of Bothwell was Huntly, we
know. He was at Edinborqugh on the Saturday
night before. That day his forfeiture was taken
off by the parliament f. That night alfo, fay the
* P. 27. t Goodall, ii. 141 and 249.
rebel
.
CHAP. 4. MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 319
rebels themfelves, " before the lords had fuch war-
" rant [from the Queen], there was none of them
<f that did or wold fet their hands [to the famous
" bond], faving onlie the Earl of Huntlie *-." And
he actually appears as a fubfcriber to the bond f.
He was therefore in Edinborough on the 1 9th of
April, the day but one before the Queen fet put for
Stirling. Yet he came to the Queen at Stirling,
fays the letter. The rebel journal alfo fpeaks of
Stirling and of him, as the place " quhair Huntly
" came to bir" Yet, as this is only Monday even-
ing, how could he come to her ? She had left
Edinborough only that morning. He mufr. have,
left it that morning too, as fhe complains that he
had brought her no tokens from Bothwell. How
then could he come to her ? He actually AT-
TENDED HER THITHER. He actually STAID WITH
[HER THERE. He actually ACCOMPANIED HER BACK
[AGAIN. The proofs of thefe points will be dwelt
;upon, as the proving pafTages occur in the letters.
" that I fuld fay ( i ), and quhair and quhen ze fuld
rr cum to me (2), and that that ze fuild do tuiching
rt him (3) j and thairupon hes preichit (4) unto
> :< me yat it was ane fulifche interpryfe, and that
*" with myne honour I culd never marry zofy, feing
'* that being maryit ze did cary me away (5-;), and
* Appendix, N v. f Keith, 382383, and Aader-
bn, i. U2.
z " yat
VINDICATION OF LET. 5.
" yat his folkis wald not fuffer it (6), and that the
" lordis wald unfay yamefelfis, and wald deny that
" thay had faid (7). To be fchort, he is all con-
" trarie. I tald him, that feing I was cum fa far,
" gif ze did not withdraw zourfelf of zourfclf, that
" na perfwafioun, nor deith itfelf, fuld mak me fail
<c of my promeis."
" requis, qu'il vous efcrivit ce que je vous voudroyc
ct dire(i)j et ou et quand je pourroye aller a
" vous (2), et ce que vous delibcricz faire de luy
" (3) ; et fur cela il me remonflra (4), que c'eftoit
<f une folle entreprife, et que pour mon honneur je
*' ne vous pouvoye prendre a mary, puis que vous
" efliez marie, ny aller avec vous (5), et que fes
" gens mefmes ne le fuffriroient pas (6), voir que
" les feigneurs contrediroyent a ce que en feroit
" propofe (7). Bref, il femble qu'il nous foit du
" tout contraire. Je luy refpondy, veu que j'cn
<f eftoye venue fi avant, que fi vous ne vous re-
Cf traftiez, nulle perfuafion, non pas mefmes la
<c mort, me feroit manquer a ma promefie."
(1) The claufe means obvioufly all that Mary
Ihould fay to Huntly. This is what Huntly was to
write to Bothwell. But the French alters it into
what Mary wanted to Jay to Botbwell, (f ce que je
" vous voudroye dire."
(2) Huntly was to fettle with Mary, tc qnhair
" and quhen" Bothwell was to meet her and feize
her. Yet this furely muft have been fettled before.
Common fenfe tells us it muft. And, as the jour-
nal
CHAP. 4. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. J1I
nal afTures us it was, fo tbeje letters never Jet tie it.
Ie Ze fuld cum to me" Scotch ; "je pourroye aller
" a vous," French. The latter has changed the
perfon ; and made Mary to come, and (in the
Sfotcb fenfe of the words) ravijh Bothwell.
(3) Huntly was to fettle with the Queen, and
then to inform Bothwell, how Bothwell was to aft
concerning Huntly, in this bufmefs of the feizure.
This is clearly the fenfe. Yet the Rcmarker, with
(his ufual indiftinctnefs of ideas, fays thus : <c If this
|* f be joined with << qu'il vous efcrivit,'" it may
|* r feem impoflible to explain, how the Earl of Both-
" well fhould have defired the Earl of Huntly to
write to him, what ufe he, Bothwell, propofed, to
p* make of him, Huntly. But " c me dit'" muft be
"joined with " f ce que vous deliberiez faire de
f" luy ;'" and the fenfe is, that Huntly told the
! ff Queen, or that the writer of the letter meant to
| fc have it fuppofed that Huntly told the Queen,
i what ufe Bothwell intended to make of him
j :c in the project of the enlevement *." He thus,
f I may be allowed to comprefs his fenfe into percep-
'ibility, makes Huntly to tell Mary from BothweJI,
/vhat ufe Bothwell intended to make of Huntly in
he feizure. But Huntly was to fettle with Mary,
md then to inform Bothwell, not what ufe Bothwell
ntended to make of Huntly, but how Bothwell was
o ad with regard to Huntly at the feizure*
luntly was to be her efcort. The difficulty was,
.ow fhe was to be feized, and yet the feizure throw
o reflection upon her ejcort. This difficulty was to
P. 28,
VOL. II, Y "}
* - >
J*-
VINDICATION OF
LIT. 5.
be removed by the conference between Mary and
Huntly. And Bothwell was to a<5l accordingly.
(4) <c Preichit," Scotch; " remonftra," French.
The latter lofes the fpirit of the former. To preach
in converfation had then the fame fcnfe, as it has
Thus in Paris's/r/? confeflion, as it ftands
now.
tranflated in Calder wood's MS hiftory, Bothwefl
fays to Paris on his obje-5ting to the murder of the
King, with all the pcrtnefs of a modern knave,
" wouldft thou preach *. ? "
(5) " The Scottifh copy," fays Mr. Goodall,
' < makes the Queen ufe [report] thefe words to the
" earl. This being a plain anticipation, in fpeak-
<f ing of the earl's rape [feizure] of the Queen as
" pad, which had not yet happened < the cautious
< tranftators," the Latin and the French, " thought!
" fit to throw it out, and inftead of the laft five;
<c words ze did cary me away, we find the words, j
" aller avec vous, in the French f." " This is ir
" genious," the Remarker obferves ; but it " will
" not," he thinks, " ftand the teft of fobcr criticifm.'"
His reafons for it are thefe. I muft give thei
nearly 'in their full length, that he may be feen ii
his juft proportions. " If it appear from any or
" paffage of the letter in queftion, that the Frenc
" is the original and the Scottifh a tranflation, i '
" hypothecs of Mr. Goodall falls to the groui
" Befides, Lord Huntley is fuppofed in the Sco
c< copy to remonftrate to the Queen againft
c< rafh and ill-advifed undertaking, une folle enl
prife," as if tbefe words and the remcnjtrance
Goodall. i. 139. t Ibid. i. $9,
i
CHAP. 4. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 35 ?
in the Scottijh copy, that is, her purpofe of being
" carried off as by force, and then of marrying
Bothwell ; yet the very next words imply that
" Bothwell had already carried her off; and it is
" added, that even the vaffals and dependants of
Lord Htmtley would not fuffcr it, that is, would
* not concur in the enterprize. All this is fo mon-
ftroufly abfurd, that we cannot fuppofe it to have
" been contained in a real letter, and ftill lefs, if
" poffible, can we afcribe it to the invention of the
" enemies of Queen Mary, who, however wicked
they might have been, were certainly intelligent
and judicious. It fiould feem, that the Scottifh
* tranflator either fell into an error, through hi*
" icanty knowledge of the French language, or
" that, from a lefs pardonable caufe, he endea-
tf voured to touch up arid improve the origi-
r nal *." What then is the conclufion of all this ?
,Is Mr. Goodall's fuppofition to ftand or to fall ? It
|ls not to ftand. Yet who has feen it fall ? The
gentleman has fo long habituated himfelf to the
contemplation of his own ideas, that he feems to
t>ay little refpeft to thofe of others. He is to provt
-.he Scotch a tranflation. Yet he always fuppofes
t, as he moves along. And ha refers to this fup-
x>fition at every turn, as the ground-work of all his
kiTertions, and as the pillar of all his conjectures.
Thus, when the French has varied fo widely from
'he Scotch, and for fo important a reafon as is fug-
'jefted by Mr. Goodall, he, afting under the me-
chanical influence of his own prepoffeffions, Heps
* P. 29.
Y a forward
VINDICATION OF iET. 5.
forward to ft/ume what he is at that very moment la-
bouring to prove, condemns the Scotch for deviat-
ing fo much from the French, hints at the Scotch
tranflator's ignorance of the French, and even
throws out ftrong infinuations againft his honefty.
Juft fo may we conceive a child, after gazing
fondly upon the fcencry displayed in the rerkftioa
of a clear river,
The pendent forcfts, and the downward fkiei,
and then drawing off his eye for a moment,
to be furprizcd at the fight of woods fhooting
upward, and to- ftare at the abfurdity of a fky
over his head. And the whole difficulty of the
paffage lies in this. The feizure has not yet been
made. Huntly even fays, that his men will not fuflfcr
it to be made. And he declares, even if it had been
made, Mary could not with honour marry Bothwell,
becaufe Bothwell was a married man at the fe'mire.
This declaration, though it refpefts the future time,
is yet, by an anticipation which is common to all
languages, fpoken of in terms of the paft. Hence
it i coupled with claufes all in the future. Such
anticipatipns are never more than momentary. The
mind iatmediately returns to its fettled modes of
fpcech. And a fentence becomes in that cafe juft
as our prefent one is, with one word of paft time,
and with other words of future on each fide of it.
He " preichit unto me," fays Mary, yat \tivas
ane fulifche interpryfe, and that with myne ho-
" nour I culd never marry zow, feing that bcin
" maryit ze did cary me away," catching the anti-
cipation from the idea of the future marriage, tc
which the feizure muft have been prior i cf and yat
" his
CHAP. 4. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. J2
* c his folkis wald not fuffer it, and that the Lordis
" wald unfay yamefeltis, and wald deny that thay
" had faid." But the Latin, and the French after
it, not feeing this explanation of the difficulty, and
unwilling to adopt the feerring contradiction, left
out the exceptionable pafTage, and boldly fubfti-
tuted another in its room. Mary, who before could
;not with honour marry Bothwell after the feizure,
ibecaufe he would have then feized her while he yet
ihad a wife ; now could not marry him becaufe he
ihas already a wife, and could not go with him, <f ny
" aller avec vous."
(6) His folkis," Scotch; " fes gens mtfms?
\ French. This fhews Huntly to have had his re-
jtainers with him. " Wald not fuffer it." This
fhews Huntly and his retainers to be the Queen's
i guard.
(7) This is thrown in, becaufe the lords did\\n~
;fay themfelves, and did deny that which they had
,faid. But the anticipation of the fad: proves the
(forgery. No friend of Mary's could then forefee,
.that the majority of the lords wotild go fo directly
,againft their folemn fubfcriptions, as they did after-
'wards. Huntly could lad of all have forefeen it
then, as (according to the rebel account) he was the
very firft man who figned *. We all bind ourfelves
they fay, that we " fall tak pairt and fortifie the
: cc faid erle to the faid mariage, fo farr as it may
" pleife their foverane lady to allow i and thairin
ct fall fpend and beftow our lives and guidis againis
w fill that lei've or die may> as we fall anjer fa
* Appendix, N v.
Y 3
3^6 VINDICATION OF LET. 5.
" God, and upon our awin fidelities and conjcience j
" and in caife we doe in the contrare,/;m> to have
<? reputatioun or credlte in na tymc beirefter, but to
" be accounted unworthie and faitbles tray tors *."
Yet Morton, Lindfay, Glencairn, the Bifhop of
Orkney, and a variety of others, as ibon as ever the
marriage had been forced upon Mary by the enginry
of this bond, direclty broke through all their a fir
" dc-lities and conference," directly flew in the fact
of that GOD to whom they had bound themfelves
to " anfer," directly condemned themfelves <f ne-
" vir to have reputatioun or credite in na tyme
<( heirefter," and directly branded themfelves in
the fight of GOP and man for " unworthie and
" faithles tray tors." But this is fuch a pitch of
wickednefs, as no bonefi fagacity could have fore-,
feen. It was too monftrous to be expected, by any
but villains as great as tbemjelves.
" The lordis wald unfay yamefelfis, and wald
" deny that they had faid," Scotch; " voire que Ics
" feigneurs contrediroyent a ce que en feroit pro-
<c pofe," French. " Here the tranflator," fays the
Remarker concerning the Scotch original, " feems
tc to have gueffed, that the exprefllon alluded to
ff din/lie's Ju$$er y and to the famous bond of the
" nobility, and, on that miftaken giiefs, to have
" formed his tranflation f." Into what a labyrinth
has the author led himftlf, by his boldnefs in arro-
gating the very point which he pretends to prove!
He feems to have ftudied the ingenious Mr. Hil-
drop's new fyftem of logick, in which the PETITIQ
* Anderfon, i. no in. f P. 30.
PRIXCIPII.
CHAP. 4. MARY QJLTEEN OF SCOTS.
PRINCIPII, that profcribed fallacy of the fchools, is
converted into a true principle of reafoning for a
deift, and honoured with a very particular diftinc-
tion. The French tranflation is thus mounted
into an original. The Scotch original is thus de-
prefled into a verfion. The latter alludes to the
bond of affociation. Tljis he faw. Yet he would
not fee it. The French had not feen it. This was
enough for him. He therefore rambles with the
' French, to make the lords contradit whar/W/ be
fropofed concerning the feizure: as if the feizure
was now to be propofed to the lords. And, fenfe
or nonfenfe, he fwallows it all, if it is but admi*
niftered in a vehicle of French,
II. " As tuiching the place, ze are to negligent,
ct pardoun me, to remit zourfelf thairof unto me.
* Cheis it zourfelf, and fend me word of it ( i ), and
c * in themsane tyme I am feik,I will differ, as, tuich-
c< ing the matter, it is to lait (2). It was not lang
** of me zat ze have not thocht thairupon in time
ft (3). And gif ze had not mair changeit zour
' e mynd fen myne abfence, then I have (4), ze fuld
** not be now to afk fie refolving. Weill (5), thair
" wantis nathing of my part,"
II. " Touchant la place, pardonnez moy, fi je
cc vous dy que vous eites trop negligent de vous, re-
[( mettre a moy. ChoifTiflez-la done vous-mefmes,
y 4, "
VINDICATION OF LET. 5.
" et m'en advertiflez ( i ) j cependant je ne fuis a
" mon aife, car il eft ja trop tard (2), et n'a pas
fc tenu a moy, que vous n'y ayez penfe de bonne
*' heure (3). Et fi vous n'eufiiez change d'opi-
<f nion depuis mon abfence, non plus quc moy (4),
" vous ne demanderiez maintenant d'en eftre refolu
" (5). Tant y a qu'il n'y a point defaute de ma
<c part i et"
(1) From this paflage, we muft fuppofe Mary
and Bothwell not to have yet fettled the place of
the feizure. Huntly was accordingly to afcertain
the " quhair" with her. Yet he does not afcertain
it. Bothwell refers it to Mary. And Mary refers
it back to Bothwell. All this is a pofitive proof of
the forgery. The time of Mary's (lay at Stirling
did not admit of either of thefe references. The
place was alfo as much afcertained, as the feizure.
For this we have the authority of Buchanan himfelf.
And Mary, he tells us exprefsly, had fettled with
Bothwell before Jhe left Edinlorough y that he Ihould
feize her at Almond Bridge, and thence carry her
off: " antequam Edimburgo difceffiflct, cum eo
" tranfegerat, ut ipfe revertentem ad Almonis Pon-
*' tern earn raperet, ac fecum quo vellet, velut per
" vim, abduceret*."
(2) " In the meane tyme I am feik,I will differ, as,
" tuiching the matter, it is to lait." This concurs
with the journal and with truth in intimating, that
if the place of feizure was not yet fettled, it was too
late to fettle it now. Her vifit at Stirling would
* liift. xviii. 356.
C not
CHAP. 4. MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. ,329
not allow of it. And it is equally furprizing and
agreeable, to fee the truth thus Hart out from the
covert of fiction. But this pafiage in the Scotch,
fays our Remarker *, " exhibits an aflemblao'e of
" words without connexion or meaning." Yet
both are clear. " In the meane tyme," fays the
Queen, that is, till you can choofe the place and
Jend me word of it; "I am feik," not I will be
fick, as if fhe was to feign herfelf fo, but " I am"
fo, as fhe afterwards appears to reprefent herfelf:
" I will differ," I will put off my return : " as,
<c tuiching the matter, it is to lait," becaufe, with
regard to the bufmefs, it is too late to execute it
now, if I fhould return as I originally projected to
have done. Such is the " meaning," and fuch the
" connexion/' of the words in Scotch. Let us now
turn to the French. * f Cependant je ne fuis a mon
" aife, car il eft ja trop tard." Here half is left
out, " I will differ" and " tuiching the matter."
Both are cflential to the meaning. The ficknefs of
the Scotch, alfo, is converted into uneafinefs in th
French. And Mary is made, not to defer her re
turn, becaufe it is too late to execute the bufmefs ;
but to be uneafy, becaufe it is too late. Yet the
Remarker cries out thus f : cc can partiality for an
" hypothefis induce any perfon, although but mo-
" derately fkilled in the French language, to affert,
" that the Scottilh copy is at this place the original,
" and the French a tranflation ?" The Scotch, it
feems, would have retained all its rights of origina-
lity, if it had only run thus like the French, " in the
* P. 30. t Ibid.
VINDICATION OP LET. .
" meane tyme I am not at myne eis, for it is to lait."
But prefuming to have more and better things in it
than the French, to raife the uneafmefs into fickneis,
to fay fhe will put off her return, and to add that it
is too late to do the bufmefs now ; it reduces itftlf
to the rank of a tranflation from the French. And
we are thus provided with a new and happy cri-
terion, to diilinguifh copies from originals.
Let me alfo mark another proof of forgery
here. The ficknefs, here and hereafter alluded to,
items to have been real. But then it was equally
fudden and temporary. And it did not happen at
Stirling. "In itinere/' fays Buchanan, fpeaking of
Mary's return," repwtino dolore cruciata, in do-,
* c munculam fauperculam conceflit, ad quatuor ferine
<c millia paffuum a Sterlino : remittent* Je delude do-
<f /<?;<?, ad iter reverfa, Limnuchum ea nofte venit *."
This was fuch an illnefs, as was impofllble to be
mentioned like the prefent illnefs, in a letter during
its continuance. It was too fharp, to admit of her
profecution of the journey. It was too tranfitory,
to flop her long upon the road. And it came on
four miles on this fide Stirling, and at her return
from it j when that befell her before fhe fet out to
return, even while fhe was in Stirling, and even the
firft evening of her arrival at Stirling. So plainly.
is Lethington's firft letter from Stirling, quite con-
trary even to Buchanan's narrative of Mary's jour-
ney to it !
(3) This again informs us, that the plan of fciz-
ing Mary could not be put in execution, unkis her
* f-Ijft. xviii. p. 3^6.
flay
CHAP. 4. MARY QJLJEEN OF SCOTS*
ftay at Stirling was prolonged. Accordingly, we
have feen already that it is to be prolonged. We
ewe the fight indeed to the Scottijh tranjlation, as the
Remarker fo illogically perfifts in calling it. The
French original did not know the fact. ^nd the
dream h^s rifen higher than the fountain.
(4) Bothwell, it feems, has changed his mind
lince his abfence. But how long was this abfence,
to work fuch an effect upon him ? It was no lefs
than from morning till evening. Such is the ab-
fence that can change the minds of lovers ! It was
the whole life of an ephemera - t a compleat gene-
ration, as calculated on its cycle of time. The fun
had rifen, the fun had even reached its noon, the
fun had even come to its fall, fmce this pair of
Ipvers had been torn from each other's arms. And
what cannot be effected by fuch a Julian period m
love ?
(5) " Weilly thair wands nathing of my part."
I look upon this little word weill> as a full proof of
itfelf that the Scotch was the original. I have al-
ready demonftrated the point, I trtift, by that
f^rpngeft of all evidence, the facts of hiftory. But
I apprehend that this alone would prove it. It is a
word peculiar to the common language of Eng-
land and Scotland. It is alfo ufed in a very pecu-
liar manner by it. It may come into original writ-
ings of the familiar kind, becaufe it frequently oc-
curs in the familiarities of converfation. But it
rvever occurs in more formal writings. Nor, even
in familiar compofitions, did it ever appear, I be-
lieve,
332 VINDICATION OP LET. ,
licve, upon the face of a tranflation ; becaufe it has
no correfpondent term in any other language. And
it appears here, not anfwered in the French by
any word or words like it in meaning ; " tant y a
" que," the French for it, being very different from
it, and fignifying however.
" and feing that zour negligence dois put us baith
" in the danger of one fals brother, gif it fuccedct
" not weill, I will never ryfe agane (i).
III. " I fend this beirar unto zow, for I dar not
<c traift zour brother with thir [thefe] letteris, nor
" with the diligence (2). He fhall tell zow in
" quhait ftait I am, and judge ze quhat amendment
" yir [thefe] new ceremonies have brocht unto me
(3). I wald I wer deid, for I fc all gais ill (4).
" Ze promyfit uther maner of mater of zour foirfc-
" en cas que voftre negligence nc nous mette tous
tl deux au danger d'un defloyal beau-frere, fi les
" chofesne fuccedent,jamais nepuifle-je bougerde
" cede place (i).
III. " Je vous envoye ce porteur, d'autant que
" je n'ofe commettre ces lettres a voftre beau-frere,
" qui n'ufera auffi de diligence (2). II vous dira
Cf de mon eftau Jugez quel amendement m'ont
" apporte
CHAP* 4 MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
cc apporte ces nouvelles ceremonies (3). Je vou-
tl droye eftre morte, car je voy que tout va mal (4).
" Vous me promiftes bien antre chofe par vos pre-
** mieres promefles (5); mais Tabfence a pou-
" voir"
(i) " Brother, Scotch; " beau-frere," French t
Vf never ryfe agane," Scotch ; " ne puifle-je bou-
" ger de cefte place," French. To " ryfe agane"
alludes to her prefent illnefs. She has faid before,
" I am feik." She fays afterwards, that the bearer
j(hall tell Bothwell " in quhat ftait I am," meaning
as to her health ; and that he himfelf may judge,
" quhat amendment" of health (he has got from
'his conduct. And the King fays fimilarly in the
firft letter, " I fall never ryfe out of yis bed." The
French has accordingly preferved the meaning, in
%ome meafure; only changing the intimation of not
recovering from her ficknefs, into another intima-
tion of not being able to remove from that place.
This however fhews the ficknefs before not to be
intended for a feigned one in Mary, as an excufe
for deferring her return ; but to be reprefented as a
real one, heightened indeed by Bothwell's neglects,
but ftill real, and the reafon for deferring her re-
turn. It therefore furnifhes another proof of the
forgery. Mary had no illnefs at Stirling. Mary
did not defer her return from Stirling. She could
not intend to ftay lefs than one day there. And fhe
ftayed not more." Seing," Scotch ; " en cas,"
French ; the latter fuppofing that it may be, when
the
334 VINDICATION or LET. .
the former concurs with the whole tenor of the
letter, to fay that it is.
(2) Huntly then was to return to Edinborough,
and the meffenger was to carry the letter thither,
and both to return to Stirling ; before fhe could fet
off. This marks the forgery again. The prefent
letter could not be written, before the night of
Monday April 21 ft. It, the bearer, and Huntly
could not fet off till the next morning, Tuefday
April 22d. The journey was fix-and-thifty miles
thither. Bothwell was then to confider the
" quhair" and the " quhen" for feizing her, to fettle
too with Huntly how the feizure was to be made
with a falvo to his honour, and then to write back
to her concerning both. The meflenger therefore
could not reach Stirling, till Wednefday evening.
And yet Mary actually left it on Wednefday
morning, and came that evening to Linlithgow,
according to the rebtrls themfelves, " April 23d,'-
fays the journal, <r fhe came to Linlythquow."
< l Limnuchum/' fays Buchanan before, " ed nottc
" venit." " Nor with the diligence," Scotch,
meaning the fpeed requifite to be made; as Bifhop
Ijefley in his Negotiations fays, that " the ambafia-
" dor did his diligence foe well," &c. 5 as Mary's
commiflioners fay, that the rebels " left the doing-
"of all diligence-," and as the proctor in Lady
Bothwell's fuit is faid to have taken " the next day,
< to do farther diligence *."
Aaderfon, iii. 149 ; Goodall, ii, 165 ; and Robcrtfon, ii*
449-
(3)
SKAP. 4. MARY QJUEEtf OF SCOTS. ' 33$
(3) All this is totally inconfiftent with the time,
that the very rebels themfelves have allowed for
Mary's flay at Stirling. It implies her to have been
come from Edinborough fome days. She has been
feized with ficknefs. Her ficknefs has been aggra-
vated by the indecifive and formal manner of Both*.
well's acting, concerning the feizure of her perfon.
And yet, all the while, (he muft have come from
Edinborough the very morning of her writing.
(4) Bothwell had prornifed to fend her word
" every day," what fhe fhould do. He has not
done this. He has at laft fent his brother-in-l*
Huntly to her, againft her warnings, and wirhcut
any written commiffion from himfelf, to fettle fome
points with her concerning the feizure. She re~
fufes to treat with him. She fends off an exprefs
to Bothwell, requiring him to fettle the place of
feizure. But fhe declares herfelf to be fick. His
indecifive mode of acting has increafed her ficknefs,
And fhe wifhes fhe was dead, as fhe fees every
thing go crofs to her defires. All this implies fuch
a length of time, as fhews the forgery at once j when.
we meafure it upon the fcale of the journal.
(5") " Foirfeing," Scotch ; " premieres
" merles," French. The meaning is, that Both-
well promifed a different kind of conduct in fore-
feeing, in forethought, in looking forward to all
the parts of the intended bufmefs. It is to the
'fame effect as before, when fhe fays : " ze had pro-
<c myfit me, that ze wald refolve all, and yat ze
" wald fend me word every day quhat I fuld do."
336 VINDICATION OF fcET. $.
But the French has altered the meaning greatly.
It reads " foirfeing" through the fpe<5tacles of the
Latin, as fore-faying. It then turns the fore-fay-
ing into promifes, even into the Jirft promifes, as if
there were any others ; and fo leaves out all hints
of the forethought. And the Miscellaneous Re-
marker has been prudent enough, to pafs over this
variation in filence'j though it had previoufly been
noticed by Mr. Goodall *.
" abfence hes power over zow(i), qua naif twa
" ftringis to zour bow. Difpatch the anfwer that I
* faill not, and put na traift in zour brother for this
" interpryfe (2) ; for he has tald it, and is alfo all
" aganis it (3). God give zow gude nicht (4)."
" fur vous (i), qui avez deux cordes en vcflre
" arc. Depechez vous de me faire reponfe, afin
" quc je ne faille, ne me voulant fier en voftrc
" frere (2), car il en a babille, er y eft du tout con-
" trair (3). Dieu vous donne la bonne nuicl: (4)."
(1) It well might, confidering how long it had
been , no lefs than ten or twelve hours.
(2) The Scotch reminds Bothwell to put no
truft in Huntly, as Mary had advertifed him be-/
fore to take heed of Huntly. But the French
tells him, that Jbe would put no mift in Hundy,
i. 91.
Yet
CfcAP. 4. MARY OJU2EN OF SCOTS. - 337
Yet the Remarker obferves*, that the Scot has
" mif-underftood" the Frenchman. He will have
the French to be the original, though the French
author declares exprefsly to the contrary. He
will believe and aflert his favourite Dulcinea del
Tobofo, to be a lady of high rank and birth ; even
though her own mother depofes, that fhe is only
a clown's daughter. And he takes no notice of
the omifilon in the French, the claufe " for this
" interpryfe" having no words to anfwer it there ;
though it is fo important, that he is obliged him-
felf to interpolate fome words to the fame effect,
in his verfion of the French into Englifh. The
French, he obferves, is to this effect in Englifh :
" make hade to return * me an anfwer, that I
4< may not fail (mifcarry in my fart of the enter-
"prize) for I do not chufe to rely on Lord
" Huntley ; he has been blabbing it, and is wholly
" againft //."
(3) tf He is all aganis it," Scotch; " y eft du
" tout contraire," French. Before, the exprefliort
was this, " he is all contrarie," Scotch ; " il femble
" qu'il nous foit du tout contraire," French. 'Then
the Remarker obferved f, as an additional evi-
dence " of the French being the original, and the
<c Scottifh a tranflation," that an tc emphatical
" word" was cc omitted in the Scottifh copy." It
is, he faid, in French, <e il femble que," or "he
" kytheth to be." But he fays nothing to the^>r*-
pafl/age, where the emphatical word, as he calls.
P. 31. t Ibid
VOL. II. Z it,
33^ VINDICATION OF B.ET. $,
it, is " omitted" in both the copies. The word indeed
is fo little ernphatical, that in is quite the reverfe.
It does not augment the force and power of the
meaning. It actually diminifhes it. And the im-
port of the paffage, which is, tlut Huntly was a fin-
ally all againft the enterprize, is diluted by this
" emphatica!" word into an afiertion, that he Jeem*
to be, or rather that itjeems he /V, all againft it.
(4) This (hews the letter to be written late ar
night. There are only two nights, to which we*
can attribute it, that of Monday April 2 lit, and
that of Tuelday April 2 id. And, as it is the rvrft
letter, I afiign the firil night to it. If we refer it tc*
Tuefday night, tlu- difficulties urged before will be
all enhanced greatly.
n.
CHAP. 4. MARY QJJJ2EN OF SCOTS. 339
11.
Mary is made in the foregoing letter, to fpeak of
fome miftrufts in Bothwell concerning her. I wifli
to confider thefe at a greater length, than I could al-
low myfelf to do in the tranfient courfe of the notes.
And I doubt not but I fhall add one more to the
many proofs of forgery, which I have laid already
before my reader,
Mary left Edinborough on Monday April 21 ft.
She left Bothwell there. " In the mene tyme," fays
the rebel journal, " Both well remainit at Edin-
" brou gh." She left him therefore at Edinborough
that morning. And when was this letter written
to him ? She flaid at Stirling only Monday night
and all Tuefday. On Wednesday ftie returned to
Linlithgow. " April 23d," fays the journal, " fhe
" came to Linlythquow." We have only one day
and one night, therefore, for thefe letters. And the
firft muft of courfe be written on Monday night,
as at night it exprefsly declares itfelf to have been
written. Mary, then, came away from Edinbo-
rough and Bothwell on Monday morning, and
writes to him from Stirling on Monday night. Yet
fhe is made to complain of his diftrufts. " Alace,
" my lord," fhe cries out, " quhy is zour traift put
" in ane perfoun fa unworthie, to miftraift that
" quhilk is haillely zouris ? 1 am wed," But how
Z 2 tould
VINDICATION OF LET. ,
could Bothwell have fhewn any miftruft in this pe-
riod ? He could certainly have fhewn none, fin ce flw
came away. She only came away that morning,
He muft confequently have fhewn it before. Yet
he was then fhewing juft the reverfe. This we
know from a particular faclr. On Saturday before,
the parliament was diflblved. That evening Bodi-
well invited the members of it to a grand fupper at
a tavern, which has been made memorable fince by
the tranfaftions at it, and from the keeper of the
tavern is known by the name of AINSLIE'S SUPPER.
The defign of it was to draw the members into a
bond of afibciatioo, urging Bothwell upon Mary for
a hufband, and engaging to (land by her and him
for ever. This bond was accordingly produced.
And the rebel journal informs us, that " April 19,
" quhilk wes Setterday, the fame nycht the lordis
" faft the band to the Erie Bothwell."
A difpute has arifen indeed, concerning the day
on which the bond was figned. An un-authenti-
cated copy of it in the Cotton library, is dated the
1 9th. But another copy, which is at Paris and au-
thenticated by Sir James Balfour, is dated the 2oth.
This therefore is alledged by the friends of Mary *,
as an argument aga>nft the date of the other, and as-
an evidence againft the alledged ufe of force in the
fubfcriptions. The " parliament," faid the rebels-
at York, " was the occafion that ib many lords were
<f there aflTembled, which, being all invited to a fup-
Keith, 382; Tytler, 317 ; Giuhry's Scotch HilL vii. 21
22;. and Stuart, i. 212213.
per
CHAP, 4. MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 341'
" per by Bothwell, were induced more for fear
" than otherwayes, to fubcribe to the faid bond ;
" two hundred harkebufiers being in the court, and
<* about the chamber-door wheare they fupped,
** which weare all at Bothwell's devotion *." Yet
I ftill think, that the bond was figned at the fupper.
The next day was Sunday. It is by no means
probable, that fuch a meeting would be convened
upon fuch a day. Nor could the meeting and fupper
on Saturday have ferved any purpole, if the bond
had not been then produced and figned. That it
was then produced, the rebels fay at York f, the
copy in the Cotton library aflerts, the rebel journal
avers, and every circumftance confirms. And thefe
are fufficient, to weigh down the folitary authority
of the Paris copy.
But how comes this td be fo dated ? From a
very natural circumftance, no doubt. The meeting
and the fupper were purely for the fake of the
bond. It was not produced however, till the fup-
per was over. So the rebels fay at York, that the
lords v were induced after fupptr to fubfcribe to the
" faid bond." So the rebel journal affirms, that
u the lordis paft the band efter fupper to the Erie
" Bothwell." This would make the bufmeis late
in a large affembty. But the national habit of hard
drinking would make it much later. And as Bu-
chanan adds, and as we may be very fure the fad
was, the bond was not produced and figned before
the fpirits of the company were properly prepared
* Appendix, N v. f Ibid.
1 3 f0r
342- VINDICATION OF LET. 5.
for the bufmefs, by a free circulation of the bottle ;
tf folutis ad hilaritatem animis omnium *." From
all, the meeting had plainly advanced far into Sun-
day morning, before it broke up. We are told by
the rebels at York, that " the next morning, by four
" of the clocke, few or none of them weare left in the
" towne, but departed without taking tb$ir leave f."
And it is utterly incredible, that the BISHOFS would
be prefent at fuch a meeting. Yet eight of them
are fubfcribers to the bond. They are fo in the
Paris copy, dated the aoth. But they are not fo in
the Cotton copy, dated the i pth J. This ferves to
{hew us, that Jome fubfcriptions were added on the
Sunday, though the main part of them was put
down on the Saturday ; that, particularly, a fpace
was left for the fpiritual peers, at the head of the
fubfcribers ; that this fpace was afterwards filled
up by them j and that then the 2Oth day of the
month was written over the I9th. The general
fact, too, is furprizingly confirmed by the autho-
rity of Buchanan, who informs us in his hiftory,
that, the day after the fupper, fuch bifhops as were
then in town were called upon to fubfcribe the bond j
*' poftridie, quod in urbe fuit epifcoporum, convo-
" catur ut etipfi fubfcriberent ." And, in this au-
thenticated view of the whole, no violence is offered,
to either of the copies ; the rebel dates at York, and
the rebel journal atWeftminfter, are adhered to ; and
all the parts of the hiftory are made to. unite toge-r
ther.
* Hift. xviii. 355. f Appendix, N v. J Keith,
jSir- 383 ; and Andprfon, i. 112. Hift. xviii. 355.
But
CHAP. 4. MARY QJJEEN- OF SCOTS. 343
But let me obferve fomething farther, concerning
this memorable bond. That, which is called the
Cotton copy, is one of Cecil's papers in the Cotton
library. And from this circumftance, and from the
manner in which Cecil fays it came into his hands, it
muft have been furnifhed by the rebels at the con-
ference in England *. They do not appear indeed
upon the journal of the commiflioners, exhibiting any
copy of the bond at Weftminfter. But they do at
York. An account of the fact is thus given us by
the commiflioners there. They " fhewed unto us," .
they fay, " a copie of a bond, bearing date the 1 9th
<e of April, 1567, to the which the moft part of the
* f lords and counfaillors of Scotland HAVE put to
<f their hands f." This therefore was a copy with
the fubfcriptioas to it. But that in Cecil's papers is
not. It is however the very fame, except only in
this fmgle circumftance. It was prefented to
Cecil by John Read, Buchanan's own amanuenfis J.
This Cecil himfelf avows. " Of whom," he fays
concerning John Read, <f I had this copy> being in
<c his own hand\" And this points out to us the
very channel, through which Cecil received the
papers, that were not publicly exhibited by the
rebels, and yet were furnifhed by their authority.
Buchanan appears to have had the keeping of all
their papers. They" were lodged in his hands, that
he might draw up his Detection from them. He
had therefore an amanuenfis. This man from his
* Anderfon, i. 112. f Appendix, N v. I Keith,
382. Anderfon, i. 1 1 z.
Z 4 office
344 VINDICATION OF LET. 5.
office became fecretary to the commifiioners. As
amanuenfis, he copied the papers that were to be
prefented to Cecil. Hence this paper, hence the
rebel journal *, and hence all the other papers pro-
bably, are in his hand-writing. And, as fecretary,
he carried this paper particularly to Cecil himfelf.
But whence did he derive it ? From that very copy
undoubtedly, which the rebels had already exhi-
bited at York, and which was in his own cuftody
at prefent. We can even demon/Irate that he did.
<c There was alfo in the copie of the bande," fay
the commiflioners at York, " A COPIE OF A WAR-
" RANT, which bears date the i^th of Mayc\"
And to Cecil's copy of the bond is actually fub-
joined A COPY OF A WARRANT, with thefe words
preceding it j " to this the Queene gave her con-
" fent the night befoir the marriage, quhilk was the
"14 day of May, the zeir of God forfaid, in this
" forme J."
Carte, iii. 8 1 8. f Appendix, N v. \ An-
derfon, i. 1 1 1. This John Read is faid in the firft volume of
Calderwood's MS Hiftory, atGlafgow, to have been " fervitur
" and writer to Matter George Buchanan." But a MS tranf-
lation of Buchanan's Hiftory into Englilh, which is equally at
Glafgow, afTerts itfelf to have been made " by John Read,
" efquyar, brother to James Read, parfon of Banchor Ternam
" whyle he lived: they both ly interr'd in the pr.rifh-church
" of that town, feated not far from the bank of the river
' Dee" (Nicholfon's Hid. Lib. iv. 112, edit. 1702). He waa
" fervitur and writer" to Buchanan. But then he is called
by his entitler here ' efquyar," with that petty affedation
of confcquence, which is fp ridiculous a feature of the times at
prefent.
Yet
1
CHAP. .4. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
Yet why did the rebel fecretary, when he copied
the bond exhibited at York, leave out the fubfcrip-
tions that were to it ? Becaufe he was fo ordered by:
his matters. Since the conference at York, they
had altered their plan of proceedings in this, as well
as in other refpects. They had a reafon for not
fuffering him to copy the fubfcriptions now, though
they had exhibited them before. There was one
name in them, which they now thought it moft
prudent to conceal for the future. And they con-
cealed this by withholding all. But Cecil was too
cunning for them. He muft have remembered the
copy at .York, in the letters of the commiffioners, to
have been exhibited with the fignatures to it. He
muft have feen at once the unnatural appearance of
it, without them, now. He marked the artifice.
He refolved to counteract it. Yet to call for the
fubfcriptions would not anfwer the end. They, who
had fupprefied, might vary them. He muft act to
the prefent moment. He therefore detained the
fecretary. He queftioned him about the fubfcrip-
tions. He made his memory in fome meafure
.fupply, what his pen had ftudioufly omitted. And
in a paper, which he afterwards annexed to the
bond, he wrote down with his own hand " the
'? names of fuch of the nobility as fubfcribed the
" band, fo far as John Read might remember*."
Whence then did Read derive the names of the
fubfcribers ? From that very copy of the bond,
which was now in his own cuftody, to which were
Annexed the fubfcriptions, and of which he had been
* Anderfon, i. 112,
taking
346 "VINDICATION OF LET. .
taking a tranfcript juft before. He therefore could
not be miftaken in the names, which he mentioned
as there. He could leaft of all be miftaken in the
leading name. He might omit names that were
actually there. But he could not mention any as
there, which were not Ib. And he could not pof-
fibly mention a name, as the very firft of all there,
which was not there at all. Yet the VERY FIRST
name in this rebel fecretary's lift, is MURRAY'S.
This is very aftonifhing. This is little known.
But it is very certain, and ought to be known to
all. And it lays open a large fcene of villainy in
that fmgular man, who affected in general a cha-
racter juft the very reverfe of what he merited ; who
particularly aflumed a bluntnefs of fpirit *, to con-
ceal an hypocrify of heart ; /o became a greater hy-
pocrite from the afiurnption ; and was in this and in
all his conduct, I fuppofe, the moft finifhed hypo-
crite, that human vicioufnefs, working upon hu-
man wifdom, has ever engendered.
He had gone off the ftage juft as the curtain
drew up, at the feizure of Mary, nnd at the murder
of Darnly, The one retirement reflects a ftrong
light upon the other. He went away only one day
before the murder. He went away/mr^/ before
the feizure. He tben retired on the 9th of April f.
But he figned the bond which produced the feizure,
before his departure. He was therefore the FIRST
who figned it. So eager was he to pufh on a bu-
finefs, of which he reaped all the advantage after-
Keith, 196. f Appendix, NO x.
wards !
CHAP, 4. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS, 347
wards ! And fo long had the plan been in agita-
tion, among his party !
We have thus feen Cecil's copy of the bond.
Let us now turn to Balfour's. This is in the
Scotch college at Paris. It is a'lfo atteiied to be a
genuine copy, by the formal fubfcription of Sir
James Balfour. He was clerk of regifter, and
I clerk of the privy council, at the time of figning the
bond. But that was not the reafon, for lodging the
original in his hands. It was not lodged there" at
firft. Bothwell retained it for fome time in his
ownpoffeflion. He had it in his pofleffion, when
he fcized Mary on April the 2 4 th afterwards,
He actually Ihewed it to Mary, while he kept her a
iprifoner in Dunbar caflle *. He therefore took it
with him, when he removed her on May the jd to
Sthe caftle of Edinborough, of which Balfour, his
(friend, was then governor. He kept it in his own
Apartment, during his refidence there. In that
Apartment he had a green velvet deft," in which
^he repofited fome of his moft valuable papers. He
.repofited in it the principal band of the confpira-
:"tors in that murder" of Darnly. He therefore
,repofited in it, we may be fure, the bond which had
been figned at the fupper, and which he had juftr
i.before fhewn to Mary at Dunbar. He left both
there, on his paffing with the Queen upon the 1 2th
I May, from the caftle to the court of feffion, and
r rom the court of feffion to the palace f. Both re-
gained there in quiet, till the aflbciates of his vil-
* Anderfon, i. 97, -j- Appendix, N x.
lanies
348 VINDICATION Of LET. 5,
lanies turned moft perfidioufly upon him, exclaimed
againft the guilt in which they had afTifted him,
and on June 15th ruined all his fortunes at a blow.
Then Balfour, with the general meannefs of man-
kind on fuch a revolution, broke open the velvet
de(k, and made himfelf mafter of the papers. " He
C found, and faw, and had in his hands, the prin-
" cipal band of the confpirators in the murder/' He
alfo found, read, and took into his own cuftody, the
bond- of aflbciation. In 15 80 he was called upon
to produce the former, as evidence againft the Earl
of Morton. And on January 30, 1581, he in-
clofed an attefled copy of the latter, in a letter to
Mary herfelf *.
All this gives as great an appearance of ac-
curacy to the copy, as could be wifhed for. Yet
the reality is not anfwerable. On the whole, Bal-
four's copy is lefs accurate than Cecil's. Had)
Murray indeed delivered a formal and attcfted copy!
to the commiflioners of England, it would un-'
doubtedly have been as inaccurate as Balfour's.j
It would have been garbled for the fame reafon.l
It would moft probably have been more garbled |
than his. But the defign of Murray to conceal his I
own fignature by iupprefling all, and the de fire of|
Cecil to extort the names of the fubfcribers from|
the memory of the fecretary, accidentally coming in 1 ]
collifion together, produced a copy fupcrior in!]
ex.actnefs to Balfour's. Sir James fupprefled the';
name of MURRAY, for the fame reafon which
Robertfon, ii. 463 ; and Keith, 382.
Mi
CHAP. 4. MARY 05JEEN OF SCOTS.
Murray willing to fupprefs all. On the fame prin-
ciple he fupprefTed HIS OWN too, Lord LINDSAY'S
and the Earl of GLENCAIRN'S, He fuppreffed their
[ names and his own, becaufe he was fending the lift
: :o MARY > and becaufe he and they had been moft
hypocritically aftive, in turning the very marriage,
vhich they had puttied on themfelves, into a ftrong
: evidence of criminality in her. That he fuppreffed
; us own name and Lord Lindfay's; is plain from this
D.uthentic paper. The maift part of the nobi-
' line," fay the lords of Mary's fide, and princi-
pally of the ufurparis, fie as the- Erie Morton,
Lord Sempil, LORD LYNDSAY, and MR. JAMES
BALFOUR, gave thajr confent to the Erie Both-
l-wel" marrying Mary*. Sir James and Lord
Mndfay, therefore, were fubfcribers to the bond.
* they do not appear in Sir James's copy of it.
is orniffion is a very grofs one. It fpeaks to
; 'ery mind. Nor can it be palliated by the excufe,
| inch has been unwittingly made for it by ^c friends
' Mary, as if Sir James took down " only the
r'names of the great men," and for that reafon
toted thefe f. On this ground of afting, Sir
,.mes would have inferted his own. And he could
*' have omitted Lord Lindfay's. The omiilion of
> own name is the leading clue to the reft. The
ciiffion of his own and Lord Lindfay's ihews
arly,.why he omitted Murray's and Glencairn's,
^en both appear in Cecil's copy. And all throw
* Goodall, ii. 361, t Ibid, i. 364.
fucfc
VINDICATION* LET. $,
fuch a difcredit over Balfour's boafted copy of the
bond, as fcts it much below Cecil's.
Nor let it be furmifed, that if Murray had been a
fubfcriber, and the very firft fubfcriber, to the bond ;
his name would have been particularly mentioned
by the peers of Mary's party, as one " principallie
" of the tifurparis" who figned it, and even in pre-
ference to " the Eric Morton, Lord Sempil, Lord
" Lyndfoy, and Mr. James Balfour." That Mur-
ray actually figned the bond, And was the very firft
who figned it ; (lands upon fuch a broad bafis o
evidence, as is not to be fhaken by mere omiflions
Negative evidence can never fuperftde pofitive
Nor is it wonderful, that the peers omitted Mur-
ray's name. They were not fpeaking from an>
copy of the bond. Even the Queen, even her em
baflador in France, had none till many years after
ward ; and then had it only from the keeper of th
original, who tranfmitted it to her embaffador in
letter to Mary, and fo left it to be found among th
embaffador's papers a few years ago *. They wer
fpeaking only from memory. This might well de
ceive them. Murray was not prefent at the flipper
Murray \vas actually abfcnt from the kingdom a
the time. Their recollecTion of both would unit
to miflead them. And even if they had ibme in
diftinct remembrance, of feeing his name upon th
paper that evening or the next day ; yet they won!
be afraid to rely upon this, in contradiction to botl
and ftill more afraid to aflert the f&t upon th
Keith, 382.
authorit
CHAP. 4. MARY QJJEEK OF SCOTS. J 5 ,
authority of this, in a formal addrefs. We fee them
even omitting the name of a perfon, who was a<5tu-
% in the kingdom, aftually at the fupper, and
more important than either Lord Semple, Lord
Lmdfay, or Sir James Balfour. This is the Earl
of Glencairn, the moft ferocious leader of the moft
ferocious feclaries, and in hirnfelf and in his fol-
lowers fo much, what Mr. Pope once characterized
the Englifli fedaries of the loft century to be, a
facrilegious brood,
Sworn to rebellion, principled in blood *,
Yet this very man is omitted by the peers ;> though
we know him to have been equally a fubfcriber with
the others, and though he was fo much more for-
midable in his power, his fpirit, and his zeal, than
any of them. And if their memory failed them
concerning fuch a hero in rebellious violence, the
felleft of the fell ;" it might well be unable to give
them all the certainty that they could aft upon >
I concerning Murray. Yet the lords of Mary's
party did afterwards get fuch good intelligence, of
Murray'* having figned the bond 5 . that Bilhop
* This man, on June the i;th 1-567, the day after the
Queen's imprilbnment, " accompanied only by his domeilick^
** entered the Queen's chapel of Holyrood-houfe," and," with
.the religious barbarifm of our own feftaries in 1641, not
'* only dcmolijhed the altar, but broke the fiOnres, and 'all the
** ether orxaments, without regard to price Or utor&man&ip "
(Crawfot-d 42). The preachers,'* fays Spotfwood, 208,
" did commend it as a work of great piety and zeal." And
e Keith, 88, 401, 403, and 406 407, for Glencairn, as a
'Very Hot-ffur in rebellion and blood.
Lefley,
SO
VINDICATION OF LET. $.
Lefley, in his Defence of Mary's honour, openly ad-
dreffts him thus. Having firft afked, " Cal you
t hi s _a voluntary affignation of the regiment to
" YOU, Earle Murray ?" he proceeds in this man-
ner : I aike then, as before, of YOU, why,
through the fpecial fute and procurement of your
"faSiion," meaning, as he fays in another place,
Earle Morton, the Lord Simple, the Lord Lind-
zay, with their adherents and afrmitie," " he,"
Bothwell, " was acquitcd, and fet on cleare bord ?
" Why did YOU, with a great number of the no-
" bilitie, MOVE FURTHER, AND WORKE THE SAID
MARIAGE" of the Queen with Bothwell, " as
moft mecte and neceffary for your Quene ? Why
did YOU, as BY YOUR HAND-WRITING IT WIL
APPEARE, proffer and promiffe to HIM your faith-
ful fervice, and to HER your loyal obeifance?
Why did none of al your faftion," &c *. And the
exadnefs of the writer, in diftinguifhing what 1
attributes to the whole party in general, and wha
to Murray in particular, ferves to prove the ac-
curacy of his obfcrvations, and to give a greater
certainty to all.
Nor let it even be fuppofcd, upon this hypot
fis of a wilful fuppreffion of names by Balfour, that
he Ihould equally have fupprefled others j and that,
as he fcreened Murray and Glencairn, he muft alfo
have fcreened Morton, Glammis, Ruthven, and
Semple. The faft is plain, that he did conceal the
names of Murray and Glencairn. The faft is alfo
Defence, 38, 42, and 26.
plain,
4. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
plain, that he equally concealed Lindfay's and his
i own. And problematical reafonings can never be
', adduced, in oppofition to plain fads. Befides the
public caufe, he had reafons of private enmity
! and of private love, no doubt, to actuate him in
i this bold falfification of the bond. Thefe would
! mingle with the public principles, pervert their
direction, and deftroy their uniformity. He there-
fore mentioned fome, while he pad by others. He
put down Morton, and left out Murray. He pafTed
over Glencairn, Lindfay, and himfelf, and he lighted
upon Glammis, Ruthven, and Semple. And he no-
ticed not Seton, Sinclair, Oliphant, RofTe-Hacat,
Carleile, Hume, and Innermeith, fome of whom we
know to have been rebels *, and all of whom except
Seton, who was probably omitted by a mere ca-
fualty, we therefore prefume to have been fuch.
But every one of thefe names, almoft, is preferved
very faithfully in Cecil's copy. The hafty call upon
Read's memory, allowed no time for party-felection
I there. He gave in the names of rebels or of
royalifls, as they arofe to his memory. And his
copy accordingly anfwers to that defcription, which
I is given of the fignatures by the peers of Mary -,
I while Balfour's differs widely from it.
They fay, that the major number of the fub-
[ifcribers was of the rebels them] elves. This is a fad,
j which is of great confequence in the hiftory of the
I bond. Yet it has never been obferved. It appears
Ihbwever in a paflfage, that I have cited already:
* Goodall, ii. 6566, and Anderfon, ii. 228229, and
IJ333, compared with Goodall, ii. 354.
Voi,. IL A a " The
VINDICATION OF LET.
'' the ma'ift part of the nobilitic, and PRINCIPALLY
"of* the USURPARIS, gave thair confent to the
e: Erie Bothwcl." It is allb confirmed by the au-
thority of Bothwcll himfelf, in his referring the
bond, particularly, to the great leaders of the Protef-
tant farty in Scotland. In Mary's intlructions to
her embafiador in France, for informing the King
and Queen of France concerning her late marriage
with Bothwell, me apologizes for her marrying him
in the PROTESTANT form, becaufe Bothwell in-
fifted upon it ; he, fhe fays, " having mair refpeft
" to content YAME, by QUHAIS CONSENT GRANTIT
" TO HIM BEFOTRHAND he thinkis he hes obtenit
" his purpois, than regarding our contentatioun*."
In Cecil's copy, this is actually the cafe. It enu-
. merates the Earls Murray, Argyle, Huntly, and
Cafiils, Morton, Sutherland, Rothts, Glencairn,
and Cathnefsj and the Barons Boyd, Seton, Sin-
dairy Semple, and Oliphtwt, Ogilby, Roffe-Hacal,
Carleihy Herris, Hume, and Innermcith f. Of thefc,
I fhall not confider either Argyle or Boyd to be re-
bels. They were indeed in the original confpiracy
with the rebels. But they broke not out into re-
bellion with them J. They therefore cannot, in
any propriety of fpeech, come under the denomina-
tion of " ufurparis." And I'iLall rank them botb
under the royal banner. But of others we muft
determine differently. Some engaged in the ufur-
pation at firft, and vigoroufly returned to their duty
* Anderfon, 5. 99. f Anderfon, i. 112. I have
italififed iuch names as are omitted in either lill, that the eye
may catch them the fooner. J Crawford, 23, and 26. .
afterwards.
CHAP. 4. MARY OJJEEN OF SCOTS.
aftenvards. Thefe muft flill be reputed as rebel
fubfcribers to the bond. And we muft repute all
for rebels, whom we know to have been c6nne<5led
in rebellious defigns with them at the time, if we
do not know them to have deferted at the breaking
out cf the rebellion 3 and alfo all, that we find to
have embarked with them in the ufurpation, how-
ever tney might revolt from them afterwards. But
the Cotton copy has Murray, Morton, and Glen-
cairn, Semple, Hume, and Innermeith, the certain
followers of rebellion * ; ajnd Argyle, Huntly,
Boyd, Seton, and Herris, the undoubted champion*
for royalty. Cathnefs muft alfo be numbered with
the former, though in July 1568 he took part with
the latter ; becaufe we know him to have been ac-
tually combined with the rebels, in the month im-
mediately preceding the execution of the bond, and
ready to enter immediately upon rebellious courfes
with them ; and becaufe we know him not to have
Jcft them, till fifteen months afterward f. But
A a 2 Caffils,
* Innermeith appears a rebel July 24, 1567, Keith, 427 ;
and December 4, 1567, Goodall, ii. 66. f Goodall,
i. 353 for his union with the rebels, and Anderfbn, iv. part i.
424, for his affociation with the royaliils. The lift of peers
in Spotfwood, 208, and Keith, 408, reprefented in Stuart, i.
247, as a lift of royaliils, is only an enumeration of fuch nobles,
as in Jane and July 1567 did either affift the adverfe party"
to the rebels, " or then behaved tbimfelves as neuters" (Spotfr
wood, 208 ; fee alfo Keith, 577). Nor are the names, I be-
lieve, much to be depended on. Ochiitree is one of them in
Spotfsvood and in Knox (Keith, 408), though we know him to
fcave been really afting with the rebels at the time (Keith, 406,
356 VINDICATION OF LET. 5.
Caflils, Sutherland, Rothes, and Sinclair, Oliphant,
Ogilby, RofTe-Hacat, and Carleile, feem to take a
middle place between both. They were indeed all
royalifts afterward. Yet the higheft that we can
afcend in the courfe of their loyalty, is September
the 1 2th and May the 8th 1568*. And then we
find Errol, a plain and evident rebel f, in company
with them. We have six certain rebels, there-
fore, againft FIVE certain royalifts. But if we add
Cathnefs to the former lift, as we ought to do, we
have SEVEN againft FIVE. This is the amount of
both, even if we leave out the doubtful ' figners.
We might perhaps with propriety attach Sinclair,
Oliphant, Rofle-Hacat, and Carleile, to the caufe
of ufurpation. We are wholly ignorant of their
conduct, prior to September and May 1568. And
Balfour's omiffion of their names, with thofe of
Murray and Glencairn, Hume and Innermeith,
424, &c.). The name is accordingly Ogilvie in a MS. of
Spotfwood's (Keith, 408). But this does not clear away the
trror in Knox. And Co grofs a miftake in one name renders
all fufpeftable. See alfo Keith, 583, for Innermeith, July 20,
1567, fubfcribing with the rebel chiefs, though mentioned in
the lift as either loyal or neuter ; and July 24 afting boldly
with the rebels (Keith, 427).
* Keith, 476, for Caflils, Sutherland, Rothes, Sinclair, Oli-
phant, Ogilby, Rofle-Hacat, and Carleile, May 8, 1568;
and Goodall, ii. 353 354, for them, September 12, 1568.
Carleile is in Keith Carlieure. But this is cnly a mif-print
(Douglas's Peerage, 121). And Rofle-Hacat is only RL^L of
Hatt-btaJ(?ccrzge, 582), I fuppofe, abbreviated in pronunci-
ation. He is therefore called fimply Rofle, in Keith and
Goodall, ibid. f Keith, 476, and Goodall, ii. 65.
throws
CHAP. 4. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. -$tf
throws a deep fhade of fufpectability over them.
Yet let us leave them to remain with their com-
panions, in their original ftate of dubioufhefs. . Let
us add only what we are fure ought to be added,
thofe two names of Balfour and Lindfay, which, in
a fingular coincidence of action, have been omitted
by both the copies. And then we lhall fee the ba-
lance ftill more in favour of the rebels, and Cecil's
copy coming ftill clofer to the ftandard fet up
by the peers of Mary. But in Balfour's this is juft
the reverfe. His copy exhibits for its lubfcribers,
the Bilhops of St. Andrews, Aberdeen, Whitern,
Dumblain, Brechin, Rofs, the Ifles, and Orkney - t
the Earls Huntly, Argyle, Morton, and CafTils, Su-
therland, Errclj Crawford, Cathnefs, and Rothes;
and the Barons Boyd, Glammis, Ruthven, Semple,
Herris, Ogilby, and Fleming. But, of the eight
bifhops, only one took part againft Mary ; the infa-
mous Bifhop of Orkney. Of the nine earls, Morton
and Errol certainly, and Cathnefs probably, ftand
oppofed to Huntly and Argyle; while Crawford,
whofe loyalty firft appears on May the 8th 1568 *,
files off upon one fide with Caffils, Sutherland, and
Rothes. Of the feven barons, we have Ogilby
equally riling off; and Gjammis, Ruthven, and
Semple -f, facing Boyd, Fleming, and Herris.
And thus, inftead of FIVE royalifts againft NINE
rebels, as in Cecil's copy, we find in Balfour's
TWELVE royalifts againft SEVEN rebels i and when
Keith, 476, and Goodall, ii. 65. t Goodall, ii. 65.
Aa3 we
VINDICATION OF LET. 5.
we add Balfour and Lindfay to the number, TWELVE
againft NINE.
So clearly is Cecil's copy a more authentic one
than Balfour's ! Nor does any number of inferior
lords, as has been furmiied, appear to have been
omitted by either. Cecil's indeed reckons only
nine earls and eleven barons. Even Balfour's
enumerates only nine earls, fevcn barons, and eight
bifhops. And " the maift part of the nobilitie,"
fay Mary's friends upon one fide ; and tc the moft
" part of the lords and counfaillors of Scotland,"
fay her rebels on the other i fubfcribed to it. But
then both thefe copies actually contain " the moft
" part" of the lords, that appeared in parliament at
the time* This is evident from the rolls of parlia-
ment. Neither copy includes any of the abbots.
Thefe were fecular gentlemen, who had taken pof-
feflion of the abbies a few years before, and had
then arrogated to themfelves the nobility of the ab-
bots*. They fat as nobles, for the firft rime, in the
rebel parliament of 1560. But they fat not in
council after the return of Mary, before May 15,
1565. And they fat regularly in parliament for
the firft time, I believe, at this period*. They
were yet, therefore, a kind of candidates only for a
legal nobility. They were for that reafon not in-
vited, with the other nobles, to the fupper. And for
the fame reafon they were not folicited, like their
half-brothers the bifhops, for their fubfcriptions to
the bond the day afterwards. But of the nine
* Anderfon's General Preface, xxxi, Keith, 277, and An-
derfon, i. 113.
bifhops,
AP. 4. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
bifhops, of the eight earls befides Bothwell himfelf,
and of the fixteen barons, that are upon the rolls,
only feven barons, one earl, and one bifhop did not
fign *. Nor is this all. We know the parliamen-
tary rolls to be confiderably defective in this refpect.
We know Huntly, particularly, to have been at the
fupper ; though he is not in the rolls. We know
alfo Glencairn, Sinclair, Oliphant, Carleile, Hume,
and Innermeith, to have fubfcribed the bond on
the difiblution of parliament -, though not one of
them is noticed by the roils of it. And thefe,
added to the lift of figning nobles, give a decided
majority to the latter. Even if we take in the ab-
bots to our account, we can enumerate only eigh-
teen lords (befides Bothwell), who were non-fub-
fcribers ; when there are (befides him) twenty-fix
upon the rolls, and there were at leaft feven more,
who were actual fubfcribers f.
In this view of the figners and of the parliament,
the rebel fecretary had no great exertion of memory
to* make. The whole lift of them, as made up in
Cecil's and Balfour's copies together, is only
twenty-five, befides the bifhops j eleven earls, and
fourteen barons. He may have forgot Errol,
Crawford, and Glammis, Ruthven, Fleming, Bal-
four, and Lindfay. But moft probably he did not.
Some or all of thefe may equally have fubfcribed
on the next day, the 2Oth. They would then be
never inferted in his copy of the fubfcriptions, and ,
j his memory could never recur to them. His copy
* Anderfon, i. 113114. t Ibid.
A a 4 was
V-INDICATION OF LET. f.
was taken that very night. This is evident from
the date, and from the total omiffion of the eight
bifhops by him. His memory could never have
leaped over them all ; ranged too as they all flood
at the head of the whole. He could only have
omitted them, becaufe his copy did not contain
them. And there is a flight intimation at the clofe
of his lift, that at once fhews the general accuracy,
with which his memory recollected the names in his
copy, and proves both his copy and his memory to
have been confined, entirely, to the fubfcriptions of
the i pth. " Eglinton," fays Cecil from him,
< fubfcribed not, but flipped away *." He not
only recollected thofe who were fpecified in his copy.
He alfo remembered one who was not. And he
mentioned the reafon, which had always been fug-
gefted for his non-appearance there; that though
he was actually prefent at the fupper, and actually
ftayed till the production of the bond, yet, when he
found what fort of bufmefs was going forward, he
very wifely flole out of the company, and departed
without fubfcribing.
This plan of a fupper and a bend, in order to re-
commend himfelf to Mary for a hufband, was cer-
tainly an amazing ftroke of villainy in Bothwell,
It was a ftroke of refined villainy, beyond the
reach of his poor underftanding. It was fuggefted,
no doubt, by the rebels themfelves, The bond ac-
cordingly appears to have been figned by Murray
Jiimfelf, no lefs than TEN days beforehand. It was
Anderfon, i. 112.
peculiarly
CHAP. 4- MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 361
peculiarly calculated, though none of our hiflorians
have noted the connection, to produce the feizurc
of Mary's perfon, to lead on to the brutal acl: of ra-
vifhment, and to terminate at laft in her necefTary
marriage with the ravifher. And it actually ended
in a long train of miferies, to Mary and to all the
kingdom.
But ftill did Bothwell ufe any armed force to pro-
duce the fignatures ? It is not credible that he did.
It is indeed ridiculous to fuppofe he could. Yet
let me additionally obferve, that this circumftance
: of terror is plainly of a later date than the bond or
the fupper, and was even fabricated pofteriorly to
tthe formation of the rebel journal; being totally
omitted there, and omitted even when an apology is
. attempted to be made for figning the bond. Cf The
" fame nycht," it fays, " the lordis pad the band
& ( efter fupper to the Erie Bothwell, being drawin
\* 1 Jecretlie be him to the fupper *." And, what is
'itill more decifive, the' rebels themfelves even dif-
f roved the circumftance effectually, in the very mo-
ments in which they fir ft affected it. " In proufe
(f that they did it not willinglie," fay the commif-
fioners of Elizabeth, " they procured a warrant,
* c which was now fhewed unto us, bearing date the
. " 1 9th of Aprill, figned with the Quene's hand,
" whereby Jhe gave them licence to agree to the fame ;
<l affirming that, before they had fiich warrant,
'* there was none of them that did or wold Jet to
ff their hands, faving onlie the Earl of Huntley f."
* Appendix, N" x, f Ibid. N v.
Where
^^ VINDICATION OF LET. f.
Where then are the " two hundred harkebufiers,"
that compelled them to fubfcribe for fear ? Nowhere,
plainly. There was no compulfion, they allow them-
felves. There was only a licence. Till this was
produced, they would not fubfcribe. And, when
it was produced, they fubfcribed, not for fear of
Bothwell's " harkebufiers," but from reverence to
the Queen's licence. So clear is it even from the
rebels themfelves, that Bothwell made ufe of no-
force in procuring the fubfcriptions ! The warrant
produced at York was afhamed to fhew itfclf at
Weftminfter *, and was therefore confeflfed to be
fpurious. It was too compleatly ridiculous in its
nature indeed, to be obtruded upon the faith of
any, that had fpirit to examine and fagacity to dif-
cem a grofs incredibility. Mary is reprefentcd
by it, as wanting her nobles to recommend Both-
well, and therefore licenfing them under her fi;'n
manual to recommend: whenfhe might have taken
him without any recommendation at all ; and when
flic might as well have taken him without one, as
have openly and formally liccnfcd them to give
one. But it ferves very ftrongly to prove the'
falfity of the force aflerted. In concurrence with
the rebel journal alfb, it fhews the rebels to have
firft formed the ftory of the harqiubi-.fiers at the
York conference, and not to have properly incorpo-
rated it yet with their other falfhoods. And, as f
cannot butobferve at the clofe of all, Murray mufl!
have been one of the moft impudent of bum.
* Goodal), ii. 235236, 256258, and 87.
ings*
CHAP. 4. MA&Y QjJEEtf OF SCOTS. 363
Ings, to pretend, as he thus did by his deputies at
York, that the Queen granted a warrant, tc bearing
** date the I9th of Aprill," and licenfing the per-
fons to fignj that all the peers, except Huntly,
refufed to fign before the warrant was produced ;
and that at laft they figned, becaufe they were com-
pelled by Bothwell's harquebufiers : when, at that
very inftant, his own name, and not Huntly's, ap-
peared in bis own copy of the lend as exhibited at
York and reported at Weftminfter, the very frft
upon the file of fubfcriptions ; when he was well
known to have left Scotland ibme days before the
fupper, and had actually left it no lefs than ten be-
fore * j and when therefore he muft have fubfcribed
at a time, at which there was no warrant exifting,
and in which there could be no compulfion ufed. ..
I I ~ have entered into this long examination of the
tyhole fact, partly becaufe I thought I could throw a
hew light upon it; partly becaufe it fhews the villainy
P of the rebels in anew point of view; and principally
\ becaufe it proves Bothwell, at this period, not to
I have been in any pofiible humour of miftrufting
[the Queen. He had formed his plan for marrying
her. He had been fecuring himfelf on Saturday
land Sunday from any interruption in the act, by
f procuring fubfcriptions to his bond of aflbciation.
I He had nothing now to do, but execute the deed
lithat he had projected. He flood on the very tip-
r:toe of ambitious expectation, no doubt. His va*
rnity flattered him with the hope, of gaining the
. Queen's heart. His pride was continually holding
* Appendix, N" x.
up
364 VINDICATION OF LET. 5.
up to his mind, the prefent proof, as he thought it,
of his vaft popularity among the nobles. And all
muft have been hope and joy within him. Yet
thefe moments above all others has the letter -
writer felected, for Mary to complain of his diftrufts.
He has been bufy in procuring the bond, with a
view to marry her ; yet he is miftruftful of her.
He has been fingularly active, in (hewing his regard
and affection for her; yet, all the while, he is mak-
ing her mad with his exprefled diftrufts. And in
the gayeft and happieft minutes of his whole life,
when,
Hope elevates, and Joy
Brightens his creft ;
even then, he is reprefented as peculiarly fufpicious
and rude.
CHAP.4- MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS,
HI.
LETTER THE S I X T H (i).
I. " Of the place and the tyme, I remit myfelf
*' to zour brother and to zow (2). I will follow
<c him, and will faill in nathing of my part (3). He
f findis mony difficulteis (4) ; I think he dois ad-
c vertife zow thairof, and quhat he defyris for the
c handling of himfelf(5). As for the handling of
myfelf, I hard it anis weill devyfit (6)."
I. " Du lieu et de 1'heure, je m'en rapporte a
( voftre frere et a vous (2). Je le fuivray, et ne
faudray en rien de ma part (3). II trouve beau-
coup de difficultez (4) : je penfe qu'il vous en a
adverty, et de ce qu'il defiroit pour bien jouer fon
perfonnage (5). Quant a jouer le mien, je fcay
comme je m'y dois gouverner, me fouvenant de
la fac,on que les chofes ont efte deliberees (6)."
( i ) When was this letter written ? There is no
note of time in it. But from the whole turn and
enor it appears, not to have been written till two
days at leaft after the former. This carries us at
once beyond the line of time, which Mary ftaid
at
VINDICATION OF LET. 6.
at Stirling. And it concurs with all before, tx> prove
the forgery plain.
(2) Behold the backward and forward v operations
of this and the preceding letter. Bothwell was to
fettle the time and place, and fend Mary word.
He does not do this. He fends Huntly after her
to do this, and to fettle another point concerning
Huntly himfelf. Mary refulcs to fettle with
Huntly. She fends off an exprefs to Bothwell,
She infills upon his chufing the place. Of the
time fhe fays nothing. But flic now refers the
time as well as the place, not merely to Bothwell,
but to him and to Huntly ; to the very man in
conjunction with Bothwell, with whom fhe had re-
fufed to fettle it before, when Bothwell fent him to
her. All this reciprocation of reference is done,
we muft remember, at the diftance of fix-and-thirty
miles, and within the cornpafs of one whole day
and one evening. And, what aggravates the
whole, it is plain frrn her manner, that fhe has
beard from Bothwell in anivver to her firft letter ;
and that Ihe is now writing a reply to his anfwcr.
" Time," Scotch ; " hommc," French, as mik
printed in Goodall, for " ha.iv," as in Buchanan.
(3) How different is this from the preceding
letter ! " I advertifit zow weill," fhe then faid, " to
tak heid of zour fals brother-in-law ;" and yet
Bothwell, (he complains, had fcnt him to fettle atf
the ctrcumftances of the feizure with her. " Zour
*' negligence," fhe adds, " dois put us baith in the
" danger of ane fals brother." And " put
4 '< traift
CHAP. 4. MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS.
" traift In zour brother," fhe concludes, for this
< interpryfe 5 for he hes tald it, and is alfo all
" agams it." But now Jhe remits the place and the
time to this very man and Bothwell together, and
declares boldly that fhe will follow him." Her
ficknefs too is all gone off. She no longer wifhes fhe
' wer deid, for I ie all gais ill." She will foU
" low Huntly," and, " will faill in nathing of her
I "part."
(4) Juft now, ihe was leaving the time and the
place to Huntly and BothwelJ, and declaring fhe
would follow Huntly without fail. But here we
[find Huntly, whom Ihe was to follow, is not fo for-
feited as herfelf. He brinks behind her. And
r< he findis mony difficulties" in a plan, of which,
Ithe very moment before, the time and the place
|bvere to be fettled by him and Bothwell. All this
fas amazingly contradictory. But the contradictor! -
ghefs is heightened by a facl. In the laft letter,
Huntly was fetting off for Edinborough. I dar
* not traift zour brother," fhe there fays, with thir
Metteris nor with the diligence." Yet he is now
with her. She has alfo received a letter from Both-
well, which has altered her opinion of Huntly, and
, makes her remit the time and the place to him and
Bothwell, and to declare that fhe will follow Huntly.
And Huntly has gone to Edinborough fmce the
lad letter, has fettled the time and place with
j Bothwell, and has returned with an account of both
( to Mary; all within the compafs of four-and-
twenty hours. He moved upon a witch's broom.
He
.jgj VINDICATION OF IIT. 6
He beftrode the wooden horfe of the Perfian Tales.
Or he failed in an air-balloon.
(5) This augments all the difficulties of the
chronology. But indeed, when once the laws of
nature are broken through, a great deviation may as
well be allowed as a little one. And a palace may
rife " like an exhalation" in five hours, as well as
in fifty Huntly, returned a fecond time from
Edinborough, ftill finds many difficulties in the bu-
finefs and ftill is referring (as Mary thinks) to
Bothwell at Edinborough, for the folution of them.
This is furely one of the bufieft days in all the hil-
tory of the human race. It is full of uncommon
aaivity. Huntly has been at Edinborough, h
confulted, has returned, is now fending back to
Edinborough, and is to have an anfwer again before
the morning. And, what perhaps marks it ft,
rnore.allthi^amtyukhertohasbeenbuftlewithouc
efficiency. The time and place indeed are fettled,
nuft fuppofe. But how the honour of Huntly
is to be falvcd, is not fettled. He has been fo eager
about Mary's and Bothwell's parts in the play, that
he has totally overlooked his own Yet he was,
when we laft faw him, fo much averfe to the
fo '< all aganis in" that he had even betrayed the
fcheme, he hes tald it." He was then alfo feli-
citous to know, what Bothwell '< fold do uuchmg
him " Mary very naturally forgot this in h
late letter. She might well forget to concerns,
when (he forgot a material one of her own, the
of the feizure. And, though he remembered I
time
CHAP* 4. MARY QJJEEft OF SCOTS.
time for her as well as the place, he wholly forgot
his own honour.
(6) " As for the handling of myfelf, I hard it
* f anis weill devyfit," Scotchu I onee thought
" hard" to be a mif-print for et hald } " and the fenfe 1
to be, I hold it to have been well devifed once.
i B>.it " hard" is as good or better, and fignifies, that
it was once well devifed in her hearing. Either way>
i the claufe {hews the plan of the feizure to have beea
j fettled, before Mary left Edinborough. Common
I fenfe fhews that it muft have been. But then com-
.mon fenfe fhews equally, that not merely the ge-
neral plan would be fettled, that the circumftances
tmift have been fettled with it. They were the ne-
i cefTary parts of the plan. They Were necefTary to
j'-be fettled before Ihe went away. Her ftay was fo
I peculiarly fhort at Stirling, that, if they were not
{ fettled before Ihe went, the plan itfelf could not be
; executed as fhe returned. This paflage even fays
lhat they were, by declaring that the Very line of
behaviour, which the Queen was to purfue, had been
fettled to her fatisfadion. " As for the handling of
:" myfelf, I hard //anis weill devyfit." And this
[j cuts up thefe four letters by the roots, at once.
The French verfion here is very ilrange* " Pour
" bien jouer fon perfonnage" in the preceding fen-
; tence, and " a jouer le mien" in this, feem to me
S-very abfurd fubftitutes for " pour bien feconduire"
: and " a me conduire." But the tranflation of " I
; ' " hard it anis weill devyfit," into " je fcay comme
' " je m'y dois gouverner, me fouvenant de la fa^on
VOL. II. Bb "que.
370 VINDICATION OP LET. 6.
* que les chofes efte deliberee s," is mod ridiculoufly
loofe and wild. Yet the Remarker, in his ufual
ftrain of fombrous confufednek, obfcrvc-L *j that in
the Scotch " a material part of the French is
" omitted, and the rcalbn fuppofed to have been
" given by the Queen is loft- in the tranflation,"
meaning the original. And thus that Ovidian r l -
'dition of Dry den's to Virgil,
And her lafl figlis came bubbling up in air,
proves Dryden's to be the original, and Virgil's
only a tranflation ; becaufc " a material part" of the
Kngliftt is " omitted" in the Latin, and the effect of
Jmurna's forrowful retreat Bunder the waters " is
<c loll in the tranflation." The cxpreflion cc hand-
" lingof himfelf" and" handling of myfclf," is not
fo antique, but fome traces of it have come down to
modern times. Keith, fpeaking of Mary's mi-
nifters at one time, calls them " thofe who had pre-
" fently the chief handling about the Queen/' j
And the language carries no particular difibnance-;
with it, even to our Englifli ears at prefint.
II. " Methinkis that zour fervic'es, and the
" lang amitie (i ) j having ye gudc will of ye lordis
f< (2); do weill defence ane pardoun, gif abonc the
" dc-wtie of ane fubje'cT: yow advance yourfclf (3),
P. 31-32-
11 not
CHAP. 4. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. ,371
" not to conftrane me (4), hot to aflure yourfelf of
" fie place neir unto me (5), that uther admoni-
* c tiounis or forane perfwafiounis may not let me
" from confenting to that, that ye hope your fervice
* f fall mak yow ane day to attene : and, to be
"fchort,"
II. " II me femble que voftre long fervice, et
" la grande amitie (i) et faveur que vous portent
" les feigneurs (2), meritent bien que vous obte-
" niez pardon, encor qu'en cecy vous vous avan-
** ciez aucunement par deflbs le devoir d'un fubjet
* r (3)- Or eft-il que vous entreprenez de le faire,
[I?' non pas afin de me forcer et tenir captive (4),
* f ains pour vous rendre afleure pres de rnoy (5),
I * f et que les remonftrances et perfuafions des autres
\ ts ne m'empefchent de confentir a ce que vous ef-
i * perez que voftre fervice vous fera un jour obtenir.
l) " Bref, c'eft pour vous" t
[ (i) " Zour fervices and the lang amitie,"
I Scotch s " long fervice, et la grande amitie,"
1 French.
(2) This alludes to the bond of aflbciation.
i But the French has taken the " amitie," which
[ fhould go with the * c fervices," and fo exprefs in
! conjunflion the fidelity fhewn by Bothwell to the
. crown, and the friendfhip (hewn by the crown to
i him -, and united it to the " gude will of ye
! " lordis."
(3) The enormity of feizing the Queen's per-
: fon, and carrying her captive to th caftle of Dun-
B b 2 bar,
37* VINDICATION OF LET. &
bar, wanted fome covering from the hand of for-
gery, to make us believe it was done by Mary's
cohfcnt. This covering is here attempted to be
fpread over it. But the leaf-gold is ftretched out
fo thin, that we fee the rottennefs of the wood be-
low it." Gif," Scotch ; " encor que," abfurdly,
French : " en cecy," French, as abfurdly added :
and " aucunement," French, interpolated in direct
oppofuion to the fcnfe.
(4) The French, beginning a newfentence, pre-
fixes this claufe, " or eft-il que vous entreprenez
" de le faire," and then renders " conftrane me"
by <c de me forcer et tenir captive." The Re-
marker, with a frudence that is the better half of
his valour j pafiing over the former variation unno-
ticed, fettles upon the latter. And " this is imper-
" fed" in the Scotch, he fays, " and does not exprefs
" half of the meaning of the French."
(5) "Sic place neir unto me," Scotch ; " pres
" de moy," French ; the words " fie place" being
omitted, though important in themfelves, and
though leading to the next claufe.
" to mak yourfclf fure of the lordis, and fre
" mary ( i ) j and that ye ar conftranit for your
" furetie, and to be abill to ferve me faithfully (2),
" to ufe ane humble requetfl, joynit to ane impor-
" cunea6lioun(3)."
IIL
CHAP. 4. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 373
III. ce And, to be fchort (4), excufe yourfelf,
" and perfwade thame the maift ye can (5), yat ye
" ar conftranit to mak perfute aganis zour enemies
" (6). Ze fall fay aneuch, gif the mater or ground
*' do lyke zow ; and mony fair wordis to Lething-
** toun (7). Gif ye lyke not the deid, fend me
''word (8), and leif not the blame of all untp
" me (9)."
w afleurer des feigneurs, et vous mettre en liberte
<c de vous marier (1)3 comme y eftant contraint
" pour voftre feurete, a ce que puis apres me fer-
" vant loyaument (2), vous me puiffiez prefenter
" une humble requefte, conjointe toutesfois avec
" importunite (3).
III. " (4) Excufez vous done, et les perfuadez
Cf le plus que pourrez (5), que vous eftes force par
<f neceffite de faire ainfi voftre pourfuite a 1'encontre
* c de vos ennemis (6). Vous aurez dequoy dire
v aflez, fi Targument et le fubjet vous plaift; et
* f donnez beaucoup de belles paroles a Ledington
f< (7). Que fi cela ne vous femble bon, adver-
* ( tifTez m'en (8), et n'en mettez pas du toute la
* faute fur moi (9)."
(i) How would the feizing of the Queen make
him " fure of the lordis, and fre to mary r" It
would make him fure of them, I fuppofe, by the
future marriage of her. But how then would k
make him free to marry ? By the fubfequent di-
yorce from his own wife, no doubt. He feized
B b 3 Mary
374 VINDICATION OF LET. 6.
Mary on April 24, and the firft procefs of divorce
was ifTued the 26th *. Yet all this leads to a de-
tection of the forgery. The obtaining of a divorce
is here made to refuk from the feizure. But it was
intended long before. The preparatory fteps had
alfo been taken long before. Even in die fecond of
Murray's own contracts it is exprefsly declared, that
fo early as the fth of April Bothwell's wife " hes
" thairunto confentit j-." Even the tc procuratory,"
by which flie authorized her proctor to appear for
her before the commiflaries of Edinborough, and to
jnftitute a fuit for divorce, was figned by her on or
before that day. " April 5th," fays the rebel journal
itfelf, " the fecund contract of marriage, per verba
" de praefenti, was maid and wryttin be my Lord of
fc Huntly, quha for his reftoring agane the forfal-
" tour," to have his forfeiture taken off, " bad pur-
" chafit ane -procuratory Jubfcryvit with his fifttrs
"band, then wyif to Bothwell J." The divorce
therefore did not depend upon thcfeiztire, though it
undoubtedly was occafioned by the hope of a mar-
riage with the Queen. And the letter, which rmb.s
it to depend upon that, cannot be genuine.
(2) How would the feizur-e enfure Bothwell's
fafety, and enable him to ferve her faithfully ? Ex- i
altation, not fafety, was his object. Nor could he
ferve her more faithfully as a hufcand, than as a
common fubject. Nor could Mary, in any view,
think thefe were his motives. If he and fhe were
Appendix, N x. -f Ibid, N xiv. J Jbid, N *.
linked
CHAf. 4. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 37$
Iinke4 in adultery together, her's would be to fecure
her lover entirely to herfelf, and his to obtain all the
honour and elevation that he could reach. And
fuggeftions, fo contrary to all this, could never
come from the pen of Mary. They came in-
deed from Bothwell originally. They are the
very arguments ufed by Bothwell to Mary, when
he had feized her perfon, and fecured her in Dun-
bar-caftle *. They were very natural to Bothwell,
who wanted to colour over his profligate ambition
with fome lefs offenfive pretences. But they are
very unnatural in Mary, who -could have had no
profligacy of ambition to cover. And the forgery
is betrayed at once ; by the aft of borrowing fug-
geftions from a paper, pofterior in date to the
prefent Letter j and by the abfurdity of transferring
the fuggeftions, from the real and natural ufer, tt>
one who could not ufe them at alL
(3) " Ane humble requeift joynk with ane
"importune adtioufi," Scotch; fc une humble re-
" quefte, conjointe toutesfois avec importunite,"
French. " The Scottilh tranflator," fays the Re-
marker f, ftill keeping his old mumpjimus in fpite
of the new Jum$fimus t " does but guefs at the im-
port of this paffage, and he guelTes ill." The
French means, he adds, " a humble but earneft pe-
'-' tition in the way of marriage." But jhould not
it mean more ? Is this all that has been fo long al-
luded to in the letter ? Is it indeed any part of that ?
* Andcrfon, i. 96. t P. 3?'
Bb 4 h
37^ VINDICATION OF LET. 6.
Js not the whole aim and fubftance of the letter,
concerning an " aftioim," and a very " impor-
" tune" one indeed ? The faft is, that the Scotch
keeps fteadily to the prevailing idea of the letter,
and the French deferts it at a leap j that the Scotch
purfues the fubjeft of the feizure, only adding its
necefiary adjunct, a petition for marriage, to it;
and that the French finks the feizure from the
fight, and makes the petition to ftand for both,
And thus the cypher, which in union with its
proper figure was of real confequence, is compelled
to appear by itfelf, when, it could be of no confe-
quence at all ; and yet is fuppofed by our arith-
metician, to carry even more than the confequence
of both with it. " To be abill to fcrve me faith-
" fully," Scotch ; " a ce que puis apres me fervant
<f loyaument, vous puifiiez," French. The French
fays, as the Remarker himfelf obferves, " untill, in
* l confequence of your loyal fervices, you might
* c prefent a petition." But the meaning is, as the
Scotch fays, that, to be able to ferve me faithfully,
you are conftrained to ufe a requefl and a feizure.
^bat makes Bothwell to feize Mary, till, in confe-,
quence of his loyal fervices done after the feizure,
he could requeft her to marry him ; which is infi-
nitely abfurd. And this makes him to feize her
and requeft her marriage, that he might be able to
ferve her the more faithfully afterwards. Yet th.e
Remarker adduces this whole pafifage as a proofj
t)}at the French is the original and the Scotch 3,
{ranflation,
(4) " T
CHAP. 4. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 377
(4) cf To be fchort," omitted in the French.
(5) Bothwell is directed to excufe himfelf to the
lords, and to fc perfwade thame the maift he can,"
that his intended feizure of the Queen was ne-
ceflary in itfelf. This implies a confiderable time
yet to pafs, before the Queen was to be feized. So
far it concurs with the reft of this letter, and
all the former letters. And fo far alfo it concurs
with the whole of both, to prove the forgery. But
It likewife affords a diftinct evidence of the forgery
itfelf. There were few or no lords in Edinborough
at this very time, to whom he could make nfe of
his excufes and perfuafions. Mary mufl alfo have
known of this, before fhe fet out. The parliament,
which had brought the lords to Edinborough, be-
ing difTolved upon Saturday ; they would naturally
be gone from it. Accordingly, the rebels them-
felves ihall fhew us that they were. They exhi-
bited unto the commiflioners at York " a copie of
tc a bond bearing date the i9th of Aprill 1567, to
ff the which the moft fart of the lords and coun-
<f Jaillors of Scotland have put to their hands : it
<e appeared alfo, that the felf-fame daye of the date
" of this bond the Earl of Huntley was reftored by
ce parliament; which parliament was the oecafion that
' 'Jo many lords were there ajfembled; which being all
<c invited to a fupper by Bothwell, were induced
to fubfcribe to the faid bond ;" and, " the
" next morning by four of the clocke,fiwe or none
(( of them were left in the towne, but departed
* { without taking their leave *." And there muft
Appendix, N Y,
therefore
378 VINDICATION OF LET. 6,
therefore, on the Monday and Tuefday afterwards,
have been " none of them" at all " left in the
towne," for Bothwell to try his excufcs or perfuafions
upon.
(6) What enemies had Bothwell at this time?
He had none, except thofe who were leading him
to the feizure of the Queen\ in order to ruin both
him and her. Yet thefe the adulterous Bothwell
and the adulterous Mary could not have confidered
as enemies. And all the lords aflembled in par-
liament, being " the mod part of the lords and
" counfaillors of Scotland," had juft before fhewn a
remarkable inftance of their feeming attachment to
him, " Yat ye are conftranit to mak. perfute
" aganis zour enemies," Scotch ; " qiic vous eftes
<c forcce par neceflltc de faire ainfi vofjtre pourfuitc
" a j'encontre de vos ennemis," French. Knowing,
as we do know, the Scotch to be the original and
the French a tranflation ; it is an object of literary
curiofity, to fee with what earndtnefs and eager-
nefs, with what wrigglings and writhings, the Re-
inarker endeavours to prove true by verbal criti-
cifiris, what we are certain to be falfe from fad.
But it is peculiarly curious to obferve, what little
points he fattens upon at time?, in order to prove it.
And \ve have a lively inllance before us here,
TJie translator," he fays, and means the Scotch-
man, " not understanding the fenfe of fourfitite, ha$
" made Bothwell furfue his enemies, not folicitc
g< the Queen's hand ;" as if, even on this intcrpretar
tion, the Scotch < perfute" was not juil ihe fume u
meaning with the French " jioyrfuite $" and as
HAP. 4. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
the real interpretation was not, that Bothwell was
obliged to feize her perfon, and then follcit her mar-
riage, in order to make purfuit againft his ene-
mies.
(7) This is another of the falfe mint-mailer's
marks, Bothwell before was to make excufes and
to try per fuafions, upon lords that were not at Edin-
borough. He is now to fpeak " mony fair wordis
" to Lethington," who was a finally with the gtitecn
fit the time. This is an amazing flroke of im-
poflure. Yet it is a plain one. " April 24," fays*
the rebel journal itfelf concerning the feizure,
Bothwell " met hir upon the way, feemit to ravifh
" hir, and tuik Huntly and the SECRETARIE prt-
<f foneris, &c. *" That this was fecretary Mak-
Jand of Lethington, cannot be doubted. ..goj^ary
fays f, that on her furrendering herfelf to the rebels
at Carberry Hill on June 15, 1567, and their rude
-behaviour to her in Edinborough, (he fent " her
*" fecretare Lethi-ngtown" to them, So iLeiley
makes Huntly and Argyle fpeak of " fecretaire
" Lethingtoun" twice, in their account of the con..
ference at Craigmillar, during the month of No-
vember or December 1566 J. A MS. alfo cited by
Bifhop Keith and Dr. Robertfon, Which is only
Crawford's Memoirs as they flood in the original,
and not as they now ftand in the printed copy , in-
forms us ex.prefsly ; that, when ihe was feized, flie
was " accompanied with the nobie Earl of Huntly,
- * Appendix, N x. f Goodall, ii. 165. J Ibid. ii ? .
317, and 318. Keith, 330; and Appendix, N xiii.
4 "and
:
380 VINDICATION OF LET. 9.
** and fecretary Maitland of LethingtonV And
another cotemporary writer, even Melvill, fays
that Bothwell "took the Earl ofHuntly, the fe-
" cretary Lidingtoun" &c. f Here then is a demon-
f ration of the forgery j and one that confpires with
a variety of others to fhew, that the letters have ne
yer been attentively examined before.
u Ze fall fay aneuch," Scotch ; " vous aurez de-
** quoy dire afiez," French. This is another of the
Remarker's proofs. And to fhew us where the
force of it lies, he italicizes Jail in the Scotch, and
tranflat.es the French " you will." He did not
know what thefe very letters fhew in every page,
that Jhall was generally ufed for will at this pc^
j-iod.
(8) This concurs to fhew, that fome time was
yet to intervene between the prefent letter and the
feizure, and fo unites to prove the forgery.
(9) Before I clofe the Section, let me make two
or three obfervation upon what has recently oc^
curred in it.
The circumflance concerning Lethington is the
more amazing, as we have hitherto fuppoftd Le-
thington himfelf to be the very fabricator of the
letters. Yet it is incredible, that in this work he
could fo far forget his own ideas and his own life,
as to fix himfelf at Edinborough, when he was ac-
tually at Stirling, and to overlook his own pre-
tence at the very memorable feizure of the Queen
Keith, 383 ; and Robcrtfon, Diff. i j. f P 8 f
by
CHAP. 4. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 381
by Both well. And this incredibility feems to bear
forcibly againft the fuppofition. But it cannot bear
it down. The latter is too ftrongly grounded, to be
overfet even by an incredibility. This indeed is
oppofed by another. For, even if he was not the
perfonal fabricator of the letters, yet as he was cer-
tainly a perufer of them, and a careful perufer too,
fmce he united with others to produce them at
York, and offered with others to fwear them to be
Mary's writing ; it is equally incredible, that in this
work he fhould fo far forget his own ideas and his
own life, as to fix himfelf at Edinborough when he
was actually at Stirling, and to overlook his own
prefence at the very memorable feizure of the
Queen by Bothwell. The oppofed incredibilities
thus counteract each other, like contrary impulfes
of air j and enable us to ftand unmoved upon our
own ground, between them. And all ferves to
fhew in a moft convincing manner, the aftonifhing
hurry and negligence which attended the creation
or revifal of thefe famous letters, in the very pro-
ducers of them.
Having obviated this argument againft the pre-
fumed fabrication of the letters by Lethington, let
me obviate another that has arifen at times to my
own mind, and will probably arife to the mind of
my reader. There is luch a ftrain of low breeding
in the language, in the addrefs, and in the deport-
ment, of the Queen and her courtiers; as could
never (we are apt to furmife) be thrown in by a
Lethington, a man converfant for years with the
court, and a man for years attendant upon the
8 Queen r
VINDICATION OF LET. 6*
Queen. Yet this cannot in reality affect the pre*
tenfions of Lethington, to the honour of this ca-
pital forgery. He did not ignorantly or inadver-
tently fall into thele abfurdities. He fell into them
wilfully. He was obliged to do fo. He could
not write of the Queen and her court, as he knew
them to be. It would not comport with his fla-
gitious defigns, to delineate them in their native co-
lours to the public. He muft reprefent her in
mafquerade. And he muft reprefent them as
equally mafqucrading with her. He accordingly
holds her out to the eye of die world, and them as
catching their manners by reflexion from her, the
very reverfe of what they were. He has dreft up
the accomplished and dignified Queen, all whofc
deportment was a frank but poll Hied courtcfy, and
all whofe language was propriety and delicacy it-
felf, in the loole garb of the lowed adulterefs. He
has fhcwn her unaccomplished, undignified, unpo-
liftied, and very grofs. He has given her all the
bold familiarities of a common hoyden. He lias
fuperadded all the vulgarities of a common whore.
And he has thus written a let of letters for her,
which in every feature of their complexion, and in
the ftronger features peculiarly, deny all refem-
blance to hiftory, and difclaim all affinity to ?
Yet flill how ihall we account for his ftrangc in-
fertion of his o.\vn name in the letters ? He
know in the moments of compofition, that i.
actually with the Qj iHzurc. No hurry
could efface this from his memory. No negl:
could keep him from attending to it there. How
came
CHAP. 4. MARY QJJEEN Gt SCOTS.
came he then to write, in fo direct a contradiction
to fact, and in fuch an impudent violation of his
own memory ? This can only be accounted for, I
believe, from a very fignal fort of myftery in the
frame and texture of his mind. He was, fay Craw-
ford's Memoirs, " a man of great partSi well verfed
<c in all the inrreagues of the court, and the incli-
f< nations of the common people ; fingularly cun-
" ning y bold, and eloquent, but prone to changes ; and
" fo fond of being great, or of appearing confider-
* c able, in a party or cabal, that no tyes of Honour
" or friendlhip could bind him to the intereft of
<{ his fovereign or his country *." No ties of
friendfhip or of honour could even bind him to his
own party. The fame principle went on regularly
in its operations. And Lethington was uniformly a
traitor to all his connections. Buchanan accord-
ingly wrote a libel againft him in 1570, under the
'title of CHAMELEON. In that he recites fome cu-
f ious facts, which lay this retired and unobferved
part of Lethington's character very open before us.
f< The firft experience the faid Quene" regent " had
" of him," he fays, " was in fending him to France
" for certane bifmes occurrent for the tyme, quhair
<c he did his comrniflioun/0 wrill to his awin inten-
<c tion, and fa far from the Querns mynd, that he
diffavit the Cardinal of Lorayne, quha untill that
* e day thocht himfelf, not only auld practicien, bot
alfo maifter, zea Doctor Subtilis, in fie matters
of negociatioun." After Mary's arrival in Scot-
id, when he was acting in union with Murray,
* P. 56.
fche,"
VINDICATION OF LET. 6.
" fche," Mary, " then being deliberat to diftroy*
" him/' Murray, " be the Erll of Huntlie, went to
the North, and he," Murray, " in her company }
" and howbeit the treffoun wes oppynnit planelie,
* and Johne, Gordoun lying not far of the
town," Aberdeen *, " with an greit powar, and the
" Erll of Murray exprefslie ludgeit in ane hous fe-
parate frae all uther habitatioun, and his deid .
[death] be diverfe wayis focht ; this Chamaeleon,
quetherof fempilnes, or for layk of foirficht, or
< for bauldnes of courage, I refer to every mams
confcience that doith knaw him, he alone could Je
no treffoun , could feare no dangeur, and waldnevir
" beleifthat the Erll of Huntlie wald tak in band fa
ane interpryis." On the intended marriage of the
Queen with Darnly, when fome objeded to it on
account of religion, " the Chameleon in Jecreit
flatterit the Quene, and opcnlie tuke the colour o
"religioun." Afterwards being fcnt divers
tymes to commune with the Lord Flcmyng," he
evir did the centrair of the propofe that he wes fend
"for " And when Murray was fctting out for the
conference at York, being doubtful quhethir he t<
fould tak him with himfelf, or leif him beheind,
for, taking him, he doubtit not bot he wald hinder
tbeatlioun in al manner po/iMl, and, leaving him
behind, that following his natural complexioun
he wald trubill the cuntre y in fick manner that i
fovld not be eafelie in lang tyme brocht to reH
aganej at lang having deliberat to take him
Crarffcrd's Lives of Officers of State, 87.
< c with.
CHAP. 4. MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. 385
" with him, and perfwadit htm bayth be giftis of
cc landis and money ^ he fand to be trew in deid all
" that he fufpectit afore j for everie nycht in a man-
<c ner he communicat all that wes amangis us with
"fum of our adverfaris, and armit thame fa far
* c as- be culd agains thejaid Regent *." ' Such a very
extraordinary man does Lethington appear, under
the pourtraying pencil of Buchanan ! Nor can we
make many deductions from this imputed extra-
vagance of perfidioufnefs in him, becaufe of the
flanderous tendency of Buchanan's temper. Some
of thefe facts we know to be true. All of them
ferve only to give us back the image, a little en-
larged and a little disfigured perhaps, which the
mirror of hiflory has held up to us before. Lething-
ton felt a perpetual verfatility in his fpirit, a per-
petual unfaithfulnefs in his principles, and a per-
petual fund of refources, at the call of both, in the
(dexterities of his own management. He was happy
to render himfelf an important aflbciate to his
party, by the exertions of his natural cunning.
But he was alfo happy, in a ftrange fuperfcetation
of cunning, to be plotting againft the very party
which he was actually ferving at the time* To
undermine his enemies, and to countermine his
friends, appears to have been the great ambition of
.his refining genius. And thus, in the very mo-
ments when he was fabricating this grand fyftem of
jmpofition againft Mary, he would plume himfelf
* P. H> i>, and 16, Ruddiman's Buchanan.
VOL. II, C c at
386 VINDICATION OF LET. 6.
at once on forming it, and on giving it during the
formation fuch private marks, fuch fecret figna-
turcs, by little errors in time, and by petty varia-
tions from facl j as would efcape the notice of
every other eye, and yet fhould enable him, when-
ever he pleafed, to expofc the whole villainy to the
world compleatly.
CHAP. 4- MARY QJJEBN OF SCOTS. 387
IV.
Here let us examine an argument, which ha*
been flrongly urged in favour of a French original
to the letters. Mr. Hume, I think, was the firft
who infifted upon the Gallicifms . in the Scotch
copy, and alledged them as a proof of its being a
tranflation from the French *, .Mr. Tytler re-
plied to him. And the Mifcellaneous Remarker
has rejoined to Mr. Tytler. It is pleafmg enough
to a philofophical furveyor of the human mind, to
fee it contending with fuch weak weapons on either
fide, when hiftory would have furnifhed it with
weapons of force and power. Such have been ac-
tually produced, I truft, in the courfe of the pre-
fent work. Nor can any Gallicifms in the Scotch
have the weight of a feather at prefent, againft the
full meafure of hiftorical evidence before. Yet it
may be ufeful to notice the argument, in order to
anfwer it as an objection ; as one that is really light
tin itfelf, but has been made refpeftable by the con*
,'teft about it,
* v. 147-
Cc'a The
388 VINDICATION OF LET, 6.
The objection, as advanced by Mr. Hume, con-
fifted of various IDIOMS, and of one WORD, that
were Gallic. To the idioms we need not fay
much. They are fuch unfubftantial evidences,
that there is hardly any grafping of them. They
run thus : " make fault, faire des fautes ;" " make
" it feem that I believe, faire femblant de le croire,"
which is literally, to make a femblance of be-
lieving it, and therefore different from the Scotch;
" make brek, faire brechc j" " have you not defire
" to laugh, n' avez vous pas envie de rire," which
is plainly no idiom, and has no fimilarity at all ;
" the place will hald unto the death, la place tien-
<c dray jufqu'a la mort," where the point of fimi-
larity lies only in the and /a, the former of which
was then ufed in this connection, though it fcldom
is now, and the latter is fometimes not ufed at
prefent ; " he may not come forth of the houfe this
" long time, il ne peut pas fortir du logis de long
c< temps," which is no idiom, and has no more fi-
milarity than what a tranflation neceffarily gives ;,'
" to make me advertifement, faire m'avertir,"
which is different from the Scotch, and fignifies
only, to make a&vertije me - y " put order to it, niettre
" ordre a cela," which is different again, and as
different as to fut and to Jend- t " difcharge your
f f heart, decharger votre cceur," and " inak gud
cc watch, faites bon gard," in both which the fimi-
larity is in one word, and the diflimilarity in two
and three. And at the clofe we may afk, If fuch
arguments as thefe can prove any thing, what will
be too difficult to be proved ? Yet the Mifcella-
neous
CHAP. 4. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 389
neous Remarker * has even heightened the folly, by-
adducing thefe additional Gallicifms out of one of
the letters, though thefe are as much Anglicifms
as almoft any modes of fpeech in our language ;
<f the difdane that I can not be in outward effecl
yours," " my only wealth," fall not partfurth
" of my bofom," " to the quhilk I pretend," and
" for evil nor gude fall nevir mak me go from it."
And I cannot but obferve upon both, that, if we
were to liften to fuch empirics in language as thefe,
we Ihould be like the honeft Alderman with his
profe y and flare to find we had been talking FRENCH
all our lives.
The languages of France and England were
eriginally the fame. They were fo in the days
of our Britilh anceftors. They were fo ftill, in the
time of our Saxon fathers. And Frenchmen were
brought hither by Auguftine and his fellow-miffion-
ariesy to be their interpreters to the EngUJh. The
fa6l is little known. But it ought to be called out
into general notice. It is recorded by Bede him-
felf f : " acceperunt autem, prsecipiente beato Papa
"Gregorio, DE GENTE FRANCORUM INTERPRETES."
This being the cafe, the two languages may well
retain a variety of fimilar idioms to the prefent day.
They muft ftill be Jubftantially the fame. They
apparently are fo. The fame words, the fame com-
binations of words, are perpetually recurring in
both. And we may as well argue in general from
any coincidences of this nature, that the French are
* P. 33. f Hift. i. 25-
C c 3 derived
390 VINDICATION OF LET. 6.
derived from the Englijh y as that the Englifti are
borrowed from the French. Yet, from the natural
variations of time in two feparate kingdoms, there
are many idioms and words peculiar to each at pre-
fent. Some of tire French were common once to
ottr own language, though they are retained only
in the other now ; and fome are dill common.
Thus, " to Jif charge your heart" was ufcd at the
period of the letters, and is ft ill ufed among us, as
it is among the French ; though it is almoft fuper-
feded in familiar life among us, by the expreflion
" to open your heart." Thus alfo, " to make good
" watch/* was ufed then for " to keep good watch;"
though the French ftill adhere to their old expref-
fion, "faire de bon gard." The French and we
alfo once faid, " faire un faut," or <c to make a
" fault," as the Scotch letters fay j but we now lay,
<c to do a fault," while the French prcfervc their
ancient term. And " to make a breach " is as
good Englilh, as "pour faire breche" is French.
Having thus difpatched the idioms, I turn to
the words. Mr. Hume mentions only one ; " this
" is my firft JOURNEY, c'eft ma premiere JOUR--
<c NE'E." He thought journey in this fenfe to be
purely French. Though a Scotchman ; though fo
thoroughly a Scotchman, that even to the laft he
could not clear his tongue, from his native provin-
ciality of pronunciation ; yet he had never heard
the word, it feems, among his cotemporarics of
the town or country about him. In idelf, and in
its derivatives, it forms a very important fet of
words in the Englifh language. In all the Englifii
extremitieg
CHAP. 4. MARY 1 QJTEEN OF SCOTS* ^ot
extremities of the ifland, it figniftes juft as it does
in the letters, a day's work.- And, as Mr. Tytler
has juftly obferved*, journey-man and journey -work
are common to all parts of it.
This fmgle inftance furnifhes us with a ftriking
proof, of the hafty fuperficialnefs and the wanton
decifivenefs, with which Mr. Hume pretended to
difprove the originality of the Scotch letters. In
the violence of his aflault upon it, he forgot his
native tongue. His zeal operated with all the
force of a fever upon his brain. He did, as
RoufTeau faid he did afterwards in his hearing.
He talked nothing but French in hisfleep. The whole
Englifh language was loft to him, during the con-
tinuance of the paroxyfm. And the loudeft con~
verfation of the ftreet or the farm, could not awake^
him from his delirium.
But the Englifh language, at the period of the
letters y appears to have been particularly furnilhed
with words, that either in their nature or in their 4
orthography were purely French. Indeed, the
foppery of adopting fuch terms feems to have been
fully as prevalent among the grave ftatefmen then,
as it is among our writing and converfing coxcombs
at prefent. And fome of thefe actually make their
appearance in the letters.
Secretary Cecil, fays Mr. Tytler f, mentions a
thing " to be BRUITED." Throgmorton alfo> fays
Mifcellaneous Remarker J, ufes BRUIT for rumour*
P. 87. t P. 86. t P. 1 8.
C c 4
39^ VINDICATION OP LT. 6.
And half a hundred writers ufed thefe words at the
time, and have ufed them fmce. But this argu-
ment, adds the Remarker, " feems not to the
<c purpofe, for Cecil was an Englifhman, and bruited
" is not a French word." Are not the Scotch and
the Englifh languages, then, the fame ? Are not
the Scotch letters, particularly, written in Englifh ?
They certainly are. And, though bruited be not
ufed by the French, the radical bruit is, which is
fufficient. We took this word from the French,
and then founded our own bruited upon it.
Sir James Melvill, fays Mr. Tytler *, ufes the
word FINEST for " the moft fubtiie, cunning, or
" penetrating genius, from the French words fn and
"Jinety a cunning or fubtiie man; a word not
c< known or ufed, either in writing or in common
" fpeech, at this day." This is furely a good in-
ftance of the humour then current among writers,
of adopting French words into the language ; and
fo helps to account for the appearance of fuch words,
in the Scotch letters. Yet die Remarker does not
like it. <c Neither is it of moment," he faysf, <f that
" Melvill, who had pafied much of his time in
" France, ufed fineft ; thus forming, by analogy,
" a fuperlative from the French /;;." What makes
Mr. Tytler's obfervation of no moment in the
opinion of his critic is, that Melvill " had pafied
" much of his time in France." But had not
Mary, who mult have written the letters, if they
* P. 86. f P. it.
are
CHAP. 4. MARY QJJEEU OF SCOTS.
are genuine, and in whofe name they muft have
been written, if they are forgeries ? Yet the Re-
marker adds : " as to what the author fays of fin
" and ./to- having the fame fenfe, he might as
te well have faid, that a Jmatterer in the French
" language and an adept are fynonimous." How
trifling an advantage will kindle the natural pride
of our fpirits, into an inftant blaze ! ff I once
" knew," faid that good and ingenious man, the
late Mr. Hooke the hiftorian, " a fellow vain of
* tying a firing adroitly to a rat's tail." But there
was fome ground for the vanity. The fellow was
adroit. And the Remarker is not fo. Fin fio-nifies
cunning or fubtle, and finet fignifies fubtle or cun-
ning.
In the proteftation drawn up for the earls of
Huntly and Argyle, as Mr. Tytler remarks*,
" Lethington fays, '" Tak you na care, we fal find
<<f an moyen to mak her quit of him."' But this,
replies the Remarker f, is merely the word mean
" fpelt in a different way." It is fpelt however
in the French way. It therefore fhews the tendency
of the times to the French language, in a very
ftrong manner. Even when the word was Englifh
as well as French, even when it was ufed in an
Englifh as well as a French meaning, the tongue
or the pen imperceptibly formed it in the French
fafliion. And, fo formed, the word occurs conti-
nually in the Scotch papers of thofe times ; in the
intimations given by the nobles of Mary's party to
* P. 86. t p - 20.
her
394 VINDICATION OF LET. 6.
her commifTioncrs*; in Mary's regifter of the pro-
ceedings at Hampton Court, on Feb. ad, 1568 f ;
in Murray's letter to Cecil, Jan. 31, 1569^; in
a letter of Mary's to her friends in Scotland (1 ; in
a letter of Murray's to Mary herfelfj and in
bifhop Lefley's Negotiations f .
So alib the Englifh commifiioners at York, ufe
an Englifli word formed exa&ly in the fame mold
of Francej and fpeak of DEPECHING, inftead of
difpatching, an anfwer to a letter \.. Murray does
the fame, in a letter from England to the Lord
of Craigmillar ; dating it thus, " at Kingftoun, the
* c xi of Januar, 1568 ;" and then adding this pof-
terior note to it, " depefcbit the xiii day**. Mary
does the fame too, in her account of Rizzio's mur-
der to her embaflador in France ; writing to him in
thefe words, " we received your dq>efcbe y ft-nt by
" captain Murefj-." And her and Elizabeth's
commiflioners are faid to be waiting, till the former
fhould hear " from the Quene their miftrefs, by
" their next dtpeche J J."
Yet it was not merely in Frenchifying the form
or the meaning of Englifh words, that this pedantiy
of politenefs fhewed itfelf in that age. It took a
bolder ftep. It introduced words that are fuppofed
to be purely French, and in what is believed to be
Goodall, ii. 355. t 315- t " 33*-
(| ii. 325 326. Andcrfon, iv. part i. 1 17. f P. 76. An-
derfon.iii. 4. Goodall, ii. 127. * 11.306. ft Keith, 330.
ij Goodall, ii. 156.
8 a purely
CHAP. 4. MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS.
a purely French meaning. Queen Mary, in anfwcr
" to Murray's and Morton's accufation againft her,
" fays they have MESCHANTLIE fclanderit her.'*
" Lethington, confeffedly the beft Scotch writer of
" that time," and, as I muft beg leave to add, the
very fabricator of the letters, " in his own letter to
" Cecil ufeth the word APPUY for fupport*."
Randolph alfo, the Englifh cmbaffador in SCON
land, fpeaks of the INGROSSMENT or pregnancy of
the Dutchefs of Savoyf. Quintin Kennedy too, Ab-
bot of Crofraguel, in a treatife which he publifhed
1558, fays thus of the clergy; " this wer the way
** to cum in att the dure, quhare now, as it wer
" thevis or BIGANTIS, we creip in at wyndois or
" bak-durris J." Nor is the word brigants, in its.
derivatives at leaft, peculiar to the prefent writer.
It was even ufed in the judicial forms of the nation,
at this period. In 1581 a Scotch peer being
tried for the murder of Darnly, he is charged in
his indictment to have murdered him, ff be way of
<f hamefukin, BRIGANCIE, and foirthowght fcl-
" lonie ." And what intimates even fbme of thefe
very words to have been originally in the Scotch lan-
guage, though they are only preferved in the French
at prefent ; the fame Abbot, in a letter of April the
7th, 1559, fays to the Archbifhop of Glafgow,
zit I may write un MOT to your lordfliip :' r
thus ufmg a word, that is well known to be French ;
ufing it too, with a numerical term that has particu-
* Tytler, 86. f Keith, 209, J Keith, App . 203-
Arnot's Crim. Trials, 390-
396 VINDICATION or LET. 6.
larly a French appearance ; and yet ufmg a word,
that is exceedingly familiar to all the inhabitants of
Lancashire at this day *.
To any of thefe inftances, either of cafual French
or of French affedtation, among the Scotch or the
Englifh of thofe days, the Remarker cannot ob-
]edV.. He does not. Yet he wants fome " better
" evidence," to " account for the numerous Gaf-
" licifms that occur in the Scottifh copy." Thofe
inftances are not very numerous. We have juft
feen a long firing of his own, not one of which was
a Gallicifm. And Mr. Hume's too have been all
accounted for. The Remarker, however, now
adds five, taken out of the firft letter. But two
of them have been noticed in my remarks upon
that letter before, and (hewn to be the creation of
his own errors f. A third is only one of Mr.
Hume's repeated, " mak fault, faire faute." Of
the other two, one is " maid my eftat," which is
plainly French in its application, though our Eng-
lifh word./?rf/<?, as implying circumftances of flate-
linefs, approaches very near to it ; and comes under
the fame clafs with depeche, moycn, fineft, and bruit 9
before. The other is this, " he belevit to die for
" gladnefs j" which may be a French mode of ex-
prefllon, like " mak fault" before, but is ap-
Keith, App. 194. The Lancafliire word is pronounced
with that y final, which is dill retained in fo many words among
the Cornim; and is formed into MOTT-Y. " Why do you
" put in your atott-y?" is a very common queftion to any perfoo
interpofmg a word in converfation.
f Lett. i. xiv. and xvii.
parently
CHAP. 4. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 397
parently fo nearly a Scotch one too, as not to be
worth our notice. And thofe purely French words,
and that purely French meaning of an Engliih
word, which are actually ufed in the letters, and
two of them ufed repeatedly, are totally overlooked
by all parties. Thus, fays the author, " I held
<c PURPOIS to na body*," t( the purpois of Schir
" James Hamilton f," and " the purpois that he
" and I had togidder J." So Murray, in his an-
fwer to the proteftation from Argyle and Huntly,
Ipeaks of " ony purpcfts haldin at Craigmillar in
" my audience -" and mentions " the effect of
tc the haill purpofes, fpokin in my audience at the
" famin tyme ." And fo Randolph fays of Mary,
that after fhe had fpoken to him for fome time,
" after thefe purpofes," he offered to addrefs her as
ihe was leaving the council-room ; and that then,
" in long purpofe of this matter, and other like,
" fhe faith," &c ||. The writer of the letters, alfo,
fpeaks of his <c MALHEUR f ." " I am FASCHIT,"
he adds, Cf that it ftoppis me to write newis of my-
(t felf4- j" and " I am now paflandto myfafcheous
" purpois **." "I am thinkand," he fays in a
third place, "upon nathing bot fafcberif\-\."
And, as he once faid in his fecond letter, " I am foe
"fafcbit with it JJ." Juft fo Mary, in her inltruc-
tions to her embaffador fent into England upon her
L. i. i. f L. i. x. I Ibid. Goodall, ii. 521.
II Keith, 195. 51 L- "i- 4 L. i. x.
** L. i. ^ xxiv. ft L - i- i xxxii - II Appendu, N vii.
marriage
VINDICATION OF LET. 6.
marriage to Bothwell, characterizes her fubjefts
very juftly, for "a peopill als factious amangis
" yamefelfis, and als faflious for the governour, as
<f any other nation in Europe *." Nor was this
French word un-familiar to the Englilh Jouth of
the Tweed. The Duke of Norfolk, writing to
Cecil at the time of the York conference, fays,
that " their aftion ys like tofawcbf them f." And,
as this Englifh ufe of the word fhews how it came
to be introduced among the Scotch ; fo the ap-
pearance of it among both nations, proves the com-
mon propenfity of both at this period, to adopt
the terms of the French, when their own were as
elegant and as forcible as they. We fee and feel
too much of this ridiculous fafliion at prefent, not
to catch the refle&ion of it in the manners of Mary's
age. We are fully convinced by our own expe-
rience, that we have no need to recur to the wild
hypothefis of a tranflation from a French original,
in order to account for the exiftence of French
words, either in Norfolk's or in Lethington's letters.
And we actually fee an author quoted above,
Quintin Kennedy, Abbot of Crofragucl, in his
popular addrefs to the Scotch againft the Refor-
mation in 1558, calling upon the Romilh clergy
to do " their dett and DEVORE to the fimpyll
f( peple committit to their cure ;" and exclaiming
againft the princes fuffering fpiritual preferments
to be extorted from them, by felicitations for un-
* Anderfon, I. 103. t Goodall, ii. 133.
worthy
CHAP. 4. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
worthy perfons, as the MALHEURIUS prince fall
" warry [curie] the tyme, that evir he wes f ua
" MISCHEANTLIE fubjeft to the unreffonable defvre
"ofhisfubjeftis*."
The Scotch indeed appear to have been pecu-
liarly free, in naturalizing French words among
them, and allowing them all the privileges of na-
tives. This may be accounted for hiftorically,
from the long and continued intercourfe and
connection between the Scotch and French na-
' tions f." They had a Queen of France for their
Queen, in Mary. They had had a French lady for
their Queen and their Regent, in her mother. And
their nobles were continually moving to and from
thefe allied kingdoms. Hence we have fo many
more inftances before, of fafhionable impertinence
in the ufe of French among the Scotch, than among
the Englim. And hence we have feme remains
of French among the vulgar Scots of the prefent
day, that are utterly unknown to England.
" Every Scotchman," fays Mr. Tyder, " knows
" well what the vulgar mean by giving a BONNE-
(t ALLE'E, 'or parting-cup J." This is certainly a
jrery fmgular proof, of the prevalence of French in
* Keith, App. 203. So Bothwell is faid in the famous bond
o have " offerit to do his devoire be the law of armes," An-
erfon, i. 109. So Mary in a charter fpeaks of " fies and
" de-varies," fees and duties, " pertening to the keipingof tjie
faid caftell," Ibid, u8. So likewife, in Sir Ralph Sadler's
Betters, we have " Jemeure" for refidence, in 214, 253, and
6l ; " retour " for return, in 326 j and " manjouring " for
half-inclination, in 338.
Tytler, 85. J Ibid, 109, edit. jd.
Scotland.
4OO VINDICATION OF tET. 6.
Scotland. It is curious to the antiquary of man-
ners. It is curious to the critic in language. Yet
the Remarker objects to it. He objects, but he
cannot anfwer. " Bonne-allee" he fays *, " if it
" be a French phrafe at all, means a garden-walk,
" convenient and well-kept." He chofe not to
fee. I muft pay this compliment to his under/land-
ing. Bonne-allee could never have fignified a fine
garden-walk, if it had not previoufly fignified fome-
thing elfe. The word properly and primarily fig-
nifies a good going. It thence branched out into two
meanings, a good journey , or a good road to journey
on. The latter of thefe eafily refolved itfelf into a
good walk y in a garden or any where elfe. And
the hofpitable fpirit of the Scotch retained the ex-
preflion, for what ufed to be called in England a
fiirrup-cup ; when the French had loft the object
and the name together.
The Scotch alfo retain, as appears from Mr.
Tytler f, another expreflion of the fame import,
and equally French, for the fame object. Nothing
but a continued fpirit of hofpitality could have
continued fuch terms, even amongft the loweft or-
ders of the ftate. They are, therefore, as much
monuments of their hofpitality, as of their inter-
courfe with France. But the latter expreflion i
" giving one's FOY." This is plainly French
its fubftantial word j and is equivalent, in its
nerd acceptation, to our Fnglifh " pledging
of a friend in drinking. But the word foy has
P. 19. tP. 85, edit, i ft.
CHAP/4* MARY QJJEEN OF' SCOTS. 4CI
peculiar meaning in Scotland, and fignifies that
" pledging " which a friend gives a friend in a
parting-cup. And what can the Remarker fay to
this ? He fays nothing, though he /peaks much.
" Does fay" he afks, " mean a parting-cup in
fc French, or dormer fa foy to give a parting-cup?"
Nobody pretended that it did. Mr. Tytler only
argued, that foy was a French word, and yet that
it was ufed in the Scotch language to this day j in
a particular fignifkation indeed, but flill ufed. It
may be loft in the prefent French. The fignifica-
[tion may have perilhed with the thing. But the
word is plainly French. And the thing and the fig-
nification are plainly preferved in the Scotch. No !
ays the Remarker. " The Dutch phrafe, de foy
geven, means according to Skinner, who writes an
c Englifh Etymological Diclionary, ccenam profec~
titiam dare y i. z.fidem amictti*, etlam per abfentiam
duratur<e> dare." Yet this is plainly the fame with
the Scotch foy. This alfo explains "the meaning
of it more fully, and makes it to be fdem amicitl<e
etiam -per abfentiam duratura. This alfo explains
our Englifh " pledging," to mean originally a cup
riven as a pledge of friendlhip, etiam per abfentiam
duratur*. And all ferves to fliew the cuftom> which
n Holland is, and perhaps in France was, a parting-
Hipper; but which in England and in Scotland,
from the fupcrior love of drinking here, was a
>arting-cup; tb have been retained in France, in
Holland, and in Scotland, under the one ap-
>ellation of a foy, and in England under that of
VOL. II. Dd 'I fledge:
402 VINDICATION OF LET. 6,
a pledge : and, in all, to have been confidered as
a fides or fledge of friendship, that was to continue
even during the abfence of the parties.
But I will give one more inftance of thefe nota-
ble relicks of French, in the prcfent body of collo-
quial Scotch. "A JARDELOU, or gare de I'eatt"
fays Mr. Tytler, " I believe, is pretty well under-
" flood in Edinburgh, even at this very day *."
This is a word, adds the Remarker f, " of which
" Scotfmen, unlefs fuperior to national reproaches,
" are not wont to treat. It means foul water or
" other noifome things thrown from a window.
" The vulgar amongft us have turned a French,
" phrafe, gare I'eait, into a fmgle word, and have
cc perverted both its found and its fignification."
The word appears to be, as Mr. Tytler itates ir,
gare de I'eau, beware of the water. Water, it fcems,
was the only thing at Jirjl, that was permitted to
be difcharged from the windows into the ftreets at
night. Other things were permitted afterwards.
Yet ftill the monitory notice from the windows \vas,
gare de I'eau, and that from the ftreets, hold \< -tr
hand. And this Ihews us, very ftrikingly, the pre-
dominance of the French language among the
Scots j when one half of thefe cries of Edinborougb
was in French. But the Remarker is out of hu-
mour with it. Not able to difprove the fact or the
inference, he takes pet at both. " This example
w is produced," he fays, " for proving, that in the
P. no, edit. 3d. f P- 1920.
CHA?.'4- MAftV QUEEK t Sfc&TS.
"days of Qufceh Mary the Sofctilh language
tf abounded in French words, and even iri Galli-
* cifms." Mr. TytleY had faid with more" pre^
priety, that it ff abounded with Gallicifrris, and even
" with French words " though the Rerfkfker pfe-
fumes formally to correct the arrangement of his
language. An idiom is a much weaker proof
than a word. But Mr. Tytler does not produce
this example alone, to prove his point. He pro-
duces it in concurrence with others. Each proves
a fmgle word of French to have been incorporated
into the Scotch. Some prove more. Foy proves
one. Bonne-allee proves two. Gare de Veau proves
four, all formed into one; as RENDEZVOUS amongft
ourfelves is two French words compared together,
and ufed, like jardelou, for a fubftantive; All de-
monftrate a variety of French words, to have once
been, engrafted on the ftock of the Scotch j fince the
remains of them are fo ftrikirig, even at this day*
And the writings of Queen Mary's days reflect a
light back upon thefe again, fhew the fad which
thefe image out to us, and fo unite with them to
exhibit it in its full proportions.
All ferves to prove in the cleareft manner^ that
if the French idioms or the French words in the
Scotch copy of the letters, had been ten times more
than they are, they might eafiiy be accounted for,
from the predominating affection of the times for
French ; that this fpirit reigned in England, but
carried a much greater fway in Scotland } and that
die beft writings of Scotland then, and the language
Dda of
404 VINDICATION OF LET. 6.
of the vulgar now, concur together in a very ex-
traordinary manner, to prove the adoption of French
words, and even of French combinations of words,
for fome of the commoneft ideas, and fome of the
pettieft operations, in life.
HAP. 4. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 405
v.
LETTER THE SEVENTH (i).
I. My lord, fen my letter writtin, zour bro-
ther-in-law yat was (2), come to me verray fad,
and hes aikit me my counfel, quhat he fuld do
efter to morne (3), becaus their be mony folkis
heir, and amang utheris the Erie of Sudderland,
quha wald rather die, confiddering the gude they
c have fa laitlie refTavitofme (4), than fufFer me
1 to be caryit away, thay conducting me (5) i and
c that he feirit their fuld fum troubil happin of"
. Monfienr, depuis ma lettre efcrite, voftre
< beau-frere qui fuft (2), eft venu a moy fort trifle,
et m'a demande mon confeil de ce qu'il feroit apres
demain (3), pour ce qu'il y a beaucoup de gens
icy, et entre autres le Conte de Southerland, qui
aymeroient mieux mourir, veu -le bien que je
leurs a fait depuis n'a gueres (4), que de fouffrir
queje fufle emmenee, eux me conduifans (5) i
et d'autre part qu'il craint"
D d 3 (0 When
406 VINDICATION OF LET. 7.
(1) When this letter pretends to be written,
will appear from fome circumftances in it here-
after.
(2) I have already, in the preceding parts of
the work, fhewn what a flriking mark of forgery
this is.
But let me make another remark upon it. The
taufe of this ftrange anacronifm, was the pofterior
formation of this and the next letter. And, what is
very remarkable, the fame caufe produced the fame
effect in the preceding feries of letters. In thofe
from Glafgow, as well as in thefe from Stirling,
tivo were additional letters \ the third and the
fourth, as well as the feventh and eighth, of the
whole. This is peculiarly manifeft concerning the
third and feventh. The error about ths divorce
h<rc, an4 the blunder about the lodgings there,
fncw it very evidently. And both were letters
added te the original number, added when the ori-
ginal ideas were confidra.bly effaced by time, and
added when there was no attention paid to an accu-
rate renovation of them. The third particularly
appears to have been added, before the journal had
been prefented at London, before the letters had
beeft exhibited at York, but after the letters had
been produced to the parliament of Scotland. It
was added undoubtedly, on Elizabeth urging the
rebels to eome to her conference in England, and
on thtfir preparing to attend her there, Then rc-
folving to augment the number, in a fond conceit
of enlarging the power, of their fictitious proofs
againft
CHAP. 4. MARY OJJEEN SCOTS. 407
againft Mary ; they extended the original two from
Glafgow into three, as they afterwards extended
thefe, and the original two from Stirling, equally
and refpectively into four. Lethington thus fitting
down to continue what he had compofed at firft,
fitting down to do it at the diftance of eight and
twelve months from the firft compofure, acting
under the immediate fpur of the moment at both
periods, and yet too confident in his practices to
fufpedl: his inaccuracy in the workj he naturally
found himfelf confufed in his chronological ideas
for it. He therefore began to write his third letter*
as from Kirk-a-field ; when he finally meant it all
for Glafgow. He firft noticed the King's apart-
ments, as " thair-up" or f{ la-hau.t ;" but after-
wards referred to them, as " the place here befyde,"
or " de lieu qui eft prochain d'icy *." And this is
exactly in the fame ftrain of felf-deception, from
which he afterwards fpoke at the head of his fe-
venth letter, conqerning BothweU's divorce from
his wife as already pafled ; when the letter itfelf is
apparently calculated for a period, that was antece-
dent to the divorce by feveral days,
(3) <f Efter to morne," after to-morrow. This
letter therefore pretends to be written on Tuefday
April 22d, as the feizure was on Thurfday April
24th f. The fifth letter therefore, the firft of the
four from Stirling, demonftrably claims to be
t Appendix, N x.
D d 4 written
408 VINDICATION OF LET. 7.
written on Monday night ; as I have already ftated
it to be. And the fixth, the fecond of the four,
muft be attributed to Tuefday morning. Having
thus fettled the claimed chronology of the letters
decifively, let us now compare the train of inci-
dents in them with their own ftandard of time.
Huntly, according to them, has come from Edin-
borough fince Mary, fmce Monday morning, and,
as appears from Bothwell's fending him to confult
with Mary, fome time fince both. Yet he arrives
at Stirling time enough, for Mary to write an ac-
count of his converfation in a letter that night. In-
deed he well might, as many days had pafled in
that one. For fhe complains in that very letter, of
Both well having promifed to write to her " every
" day," and of his having not done it ; of his hav^
ing changed his mind fince her abfence ; and of his
abfence having power over him, becaufe he has two
firings to his bow, his own wife and Mary. And
this alone will ferve to fhew, how contrary the
letters are even to their own aflfumed chronology, as
well as to that of die rebel journal.
(4) The favour which they had fo lately received
of Mary, was this. On April 1 9th the forfeiture,
which had lain for fome time upon the Earl of
Huntly 's eftate, was taken off by the Queen in
parliament. " Aprill 19, quhilk wes Settcrday, the
tc tfecreyt of reduction wes gevin for the Erie of
f< Huntly, and ail' his friendis*." And one of
* Goodall, ii. 249,
theft
HAP.'4- MARY OJJEEN OF SCOTS. 409
.thefe was the Earl of Sutherland * ; who had been
attainted, and was now reftored, with him.
(5) This fhews clearly, that Huntly and his
friends, even the Earl of Sutherland and others,
who had had their forfeitures repealed the Saturday
before, had tc conduced" Mary from Edinborough
to Stirling on Monday April 21 ft, according to the
prefent letter, and were to conduct her back again
" efter to morne." Huntly and Sutherland were
both in Edinborough at the repeal; and both at
Bothwell's fupper afterwards. Sutherland alfo fub-
fcribed the bond, as well as Huntly j-. And, ac-
cording to this plain paflage, he had come with
Huntly on Monday. This therefore proves a grofs
contradiction in the letters. Huntly, who came
with the Queen, is reprefented as coming fome
time, even fome days, after her ; as coming com-
miffioned from Bothwell, to fettle with her the cir-
cumilances ; as diftrufted before by Mary, as dif-
trufted by her then, as treated with contempt by her,
and as returning to Edinborough. This is faid, we
fee, directly in the teeth of the prefent paflage.
And the violent oppofition is a full evidence of a
forgery.
But let us dwell upon another circumftance here.
Huntly undoubtedly attended the Queen in this
journey. But did Sutherland alfo ? I believe not.
We have three accounts of the perfons then in her
train, all from cotemporary writers, and one of them
from a perfon actually of the number. And in
* Keith, 380. f Anderfon, i. II?; and Keith, 383.
none
VINDICATION OF LET. 7.
none of thefc is the Earl of Sutherland mentioned.
She was, fay Crawford's Memoirs, " accompanied
" with the noble Earl of Huntly and fecretary
" Maitland of Lethington V Botliwejl, fays the
rebel journal, feized Mar)', " tuik Huntley and
" the fecretarie prifoneris, and led them all to.
"Dumbarf." Bothwell's men, fays Melvill,
" took the Earl of Huntly, the fecretary Liding-
<f ton, and me y and carried us capiivcs to Dumbar j
" all the reft were permitted to go free J." Mel-
vill therefore was one of the perfons fcizud. Le-
thington was another. And Huntly was another,
The Earl of Sutherland was not with 'them. Had
he been, his rank muft necefiarily have caufed him
to be mentioned. Crawford's Memoirs and the
journal, both which notice Lethington, would cer-
tainly have noticed Sutheiland. Mdvill, who
even fpecifies himfelf, cou!4 not have refrained
from fpecifying Sutherland too. And, had there
been one gentleman of confcquencc in the Queen's
train more than thefe, had Sutherland particularly
been that gentleman, Bothwell muft have carried
him equally with them to Dunbar. Here then we
have another proof of the forgery. The letter was
written long after the incident on which it refts,
and when the original knowledge of perfons and
circumftances was grown confufed in the memory,
Huntly was made to be no longer the brother-in-
law of Bothwell, though he was fo in reality for fe-
Keith, 383, f Goodall, ii. 250. J Melvill,
p. 80.
vcral
CHAP.4. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
veral days afterward. And Sutherland was fup-
pofed to be there, becaufe Huntly was ; and there-
fore was put down in the room of Melviil.
<f it : of the uther fyde, that it fuld be faid that he
f{ wer unthankfull to have betrayit me ( i ). I tald
<f him, that he fuld have refolvh with zow upon all
^ c that, and that he fuld avoyde, gif he culd, thay
<f that wer maift miftraiftit (2).
II, * e He hes refolvit to wryte thairof to zow be
f< my opinioun (3) ; for (4) he hes abafehit me to
te fe him fa unrefolvit at the neid. I afTure myfelf
" he will play the part of an honeft man : bot I
ft have thocht gude to advertile yow (5) of the feir
Cl he hes, yat he fuld be chargeit and accufit of tref-
" foun, tq ye end yat,"
" que s'il en furvenoit quelque trouble, on ne
'* 1'eftimaft ingrat, comme s, ? il m'avoit trahie (i).
" Je luy dy, qu'il devoit eftre refolu de cela avec
f< vous, et mettre hprs de fa maifpn ceux defquels
(C on fe.meffioit le plus (2).
II. " Suivant ce mien advis, il s'eft refolu de
vous en efcrire (3) ; et (4) me fuis eftonnee de
* f le voir fi peu refolu en temps de neceflite. Je
< c m'afleure bien qu'il fera tour d'honnefte homme :
" mais je vous ay bien voulu advertir (5) de la
<c craintc
41* VINDICATION OF LET. 7.
c{ crainte qu'rl a, d'eftre charge et accufe de tra-
" hifon,"
( i ) " And that he feirit thair fuld fum troubil
t: happin of it : of the uther fyde, that it fuld be
<f faid that he wer unthankfull to have betray it me,"
Scotch. " It is not in the power of man," fays the
Remarker *, <c to difcover the tendency of thefe
" words, unlefs he confult the French." The words
are pretty plain, I think. But let us confult the
French : " et d'autre part qu'tl craint, que s'il en
" furvenoit quelque trouble, on ne I'eftimaft ingrar,
" comme s'il m'avoit trahie." And we now fee,
that the French is fo far from explaining the
Scotch, as, like fome of the Remarkcr's own expla-
nations, it perverts the fenfe of it. The Scotch
fays, that Sutherland and others would rather die,
than fuffer Mary, while under their guard, to be
carried off by Bothwell ; that Huntly was therefore
apprehenfive there would be a confliff about it, for
Inch is the old meaning of trouble f j and that on the
ether bavd t if no conflict took place, he fhould be
charged with ingratitude, as having betrayed her to
Bothwell. But the French fays, that Sutherland
and others would act as above ; and that on the other
hand. Huntly was afraid, // any conflict Jhould take
place, he fhould be charged with ingratitude. And
who does not fee, that there is a regular confecu-
tion of fentiments in the one, and that there is a
compleat confufion of them in the other ?
* P. 33. f See Robertfon, ii. 373, " trouble among
" his own countrymen.*'
All
CHAP. 4. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS.
All this however, both in the Scotch and in the
French, fhews Huntly to be the commander of the
Queen's efcort upon this occafion, and the others to
be only his friends and adherents.
(2) This means, that he fhould keep Sutherland
and others, who would rather die than fuffer Both-
well to carry her off, from attending as guards upon
Mary. But what docs the French make of it ?
Mettre hors de fa maifon." So " all that" is
rendered only " cela/' and " gif he culd" is wholly
left out.
(3) Huntly is writing by Mary's advice, late
on Tuefday, to Bothwell at Edinborough. No hint:
is given, that the anfwer will find either him or her
at any place but Stirling. And there is no urgency,
for Bothwell to return the anfwer with expedition.
The ftrain of the letter implies, that there was time
enough for him to write, for Bothwell to anfwer,
and for the anfwer to find him at Stirling. Yet
Mary fet out the very next day, Wednefday, for
Linlithgow -, and the day afterwards, Thurfday, was
carried off by Bothwell. What however was Huntly
to afk, and Bothwell to anfwer ? He was afraid, that
the gratitude and bravery of his own followers would
produce a battle, at the attempted feizure. What
could Bothwell fay to this fear ? He was- apprehen-
five, if no battle enfued, that he fhould be confidered
as having ungratefully betrayed her. What could
Bothwell reply to this apprehenfion ? He certainly
could not leflen either. And neither Huntly nor
Mary could fuppofe, that he could. All this. ap-
plication.
414 VINDICATION OF LET. 7*
plication and re-application from Bothwell to
Mary, from Mary to Bothwell, and from Huntly to
both, fo far as concerns Huntly's fhare in the bufi-
nefs, is all impertinence and abfurdity.
(4) " For," Scotch, very properly ; " et,"
French, very improperly.
(5) Not only I-luntly, but Mary alfo, is writing
to Bothwell very calmly, as if time was not prefling,
and as if Bothwell's anfwcr to her would equally
find her at Stirling j without sny urgency for dif-
patch.
Cf without miftraifting him, ze may be the mair cir-
<c cumfpecl, and that ze may have^he mair power
Cf ( i ). For we had zifterday mair then iii. c. hors of
<c his and of Levingftoun's(2). For the honour of
<e God (3), be accompany it rather with mair then
" les (4) ; for that is the principal of my cair.
III. " I go to wryte my difpatche (5), and
" pray God to fend us ane happy enterview fchortly*
" I wryte in haift, to ye end ye may be advyfit in
tyme (6)."
<c a ce que, fans vous meffier de luy, vous y regar-
" diez de plus pres, et que vous vous rendiez d'au-
c< tant plus fort (i). Car nous avions hier plus de
" trois cens cheyaux des fiens et de Levifton (2).
" Pour
CHAI*. 4. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 41$
Pour 1'amour de Dieu (3), foyez pluftoft accom-
" pagne de trop, que de trop peu (4) : car c'eft le
" principal de mon foucy.
III. <f Je m'en vay achever ma depefche (5%
" et prie Dieu, que nous nous puiffions entrevoir
" bientoft en joye. Je vous efcry en diligence^
<c afin que foyez adverty a temps (6)."
(1) Mary then thought, that there was fo much
time yet to the execution of the plan, as would al-
low Bothwell, not merely to anfwer Huntly in
time and at Stirling, but even to raife a larger
number of forces. Yet the bearer of this letter
could not reach Edinborough, before Wednefday
noon. And the plan was executed on Thurfday.
(2) I have fhewn already the only gentlemen of
he Queen's train, to be Huntly, Lethington, and
Vlelvill. She muft have travelled to and from
Stirling, therefore, with only a flight number of at-
endants. She could not have had 300 horfe of
luntly's and Livingfton's with her. She particu-
arly had not, as I have already fhewn, the Earl of
utherland in her retinue. And fhe explicitly tells
s herfelf, and Crawford's Memoirs exprefsly con-
irm her report, that fhe travelled not with any pa-
ade of retainers about her. <e Bothwell," fhe
ays in a letter of inftructions to her embafia-
or in France foon afterwards, " finding opor-
tunitie, be reffbun we wer paft SECREITLIE to-
wards Stirling, to vifite ye prince oure deireft
416 VINDICATION OF LET. 7.
cc fone ; in our returning he avvayted ns be the way,
" accompaneit with a greit force, and led us, with
" all diligence, to Dunbar *." " She was com-
" ing, " fay the confirming Memoirs, " but
" SLIGHTLY guarded, from Stirling to Edin-
<e burgh j-." Here then is another fact that de-
tects the forgery. And the 300 horfe are like
Bayes's invifible army at Knightfbridge.'
There is alfo another proof of forgery in this
paflage. I have already fhewn the only attendants
of confequence in the prefent expedition, to have
been Huntly, Lethington, and Mclvill. Living-
fton- therefore was no more there, than Sutherland*
He was only fuppofed to be there, at a time when
memory was confounded by the interval fince the
event, becaufe Mary called probably at his houfe
on her way to Stirling. And thefe letters plainly
appear fpurious again ! Nor can it be furmifed, in
removal of this evidence of forgery, that Li-
vingfton probably was not with Mary at thejclzure,
and yet was with her at Stirling ; that he attended
her, only from his houfe to Stirling j and that he
re-attended her, only from Stirling to his houfe
again. This paflage actually precludes the fur-
mife. It intimates him to have accompanied her
to the very feizure ; becaufe it enumerates his men
and Huntly's together, and advifrs Bothwell to
bring " rather mair then ks" againft them. And
the appearance of Livingfton here, concurs with the
appearance of Sutherland before, to form a dwbU t
demonflration of the forgery.
Anderfon, i. 95. f I*, ir*
But
CHAP. 4. MARY QJJEEN .OF SCOTS. 417
But all fhews the Queen decifively to have
come to Stirling, according to the prefent letter, ef-
corted by Huntly and his retainers. It therefore
proves the falfity of the fifth letter, which reprefents
Huntly to have come to Stirling after her, and to
have brought her a meffage from Bothwell. And
the mention of " zifterday," as the day of her com-
ing, concurs with the antecedent notice concerning
efter to morne," to refer this letter to Tuefday,
the day after her arrival ; to refer the fixth letter to
an earlier part of the fame day ; and to refer the
fifth to Monday nighty the night of her arrival.
It thus difproves all the intimations in letters fifth,
fixth, and feventh, of any large interval of time
coming in betwixt her arrival and her return. It
turns them all into proofs of forgery. And it gives
us a very remarkable fact, in the clofer adherence
of one of the pofterior letters to the dates of the
journal, as to Mary's prefent vifit, than of either of
the prior though it made fuch an egregious devia-
tion from it at the outfet, as to the time of Both-
well's divorce from Huntly's fitter.
(3) " Honour," Scotch ; " amour," French.
(4) Bothwell's force was about eight hundred
horfe *. Yet the letter defires him to have rather
over tkan under three hundred. This therefore
I confider as an evidence of the forgery. Mary's -
Crawford, 19, fays 800 ; Buchanan, Hift. xviii. 356, fays
600; and yet a thoufand is the number in Goodall, i. 367, Ro-
bertfon, i. 417, Guthry's Scotch Hift. vii. 32, and Stuart,
1.216.
VOL. IL Ee fears
41 3 V I N D^ G A T I N OF LET. 7;
fears would have operated ftrongcr than Bothwell's.
If his made him raife eight hundred, hers would
have fuggefted to him fifteen hundred or two thou-
fand. And Hie was prefent with the three hundred*
while he was at a diftance from them, and yet knew
their number as exactly as flie.
(5) " I goto wryte my difpatche," Scotch; " je
" m'en vay achever ma depefche," French. " "To
" wryte" fays Remarker *, " as if it had not been
" written already." He therefore prefers the
French " achever," to finifh my difpatch j as if fhe
v/as going from her prefent letter -in order to fmilH
her prcfcnt letter. The fact is, that " my dif-
" patchc" does not mean the prefent letter
at all. This is demonftrably certain. What it
does mean, I cannot fay. And therefore I muft
confider it as an abfurdity of forgery, the prints of
fand in this Birmingham coinage, which betray the
place and the mode of its manufactory.
(6) This alfo fhews, that Mary thought her let-
ter would apprize Bothwell in time, to collect a
larger number of horfe for the enterprize of Thurf-
day.
P. 33-
VI.
CHAP. 4. MARY Q_UEBN QF SCOTS.
VI.
LETTER THE EIGHTH (i).
I. <f My lord, gif the difplefure of zour ab-
" fence, of zour forzetfulnes(2), the feir of dan-
tf ger fa promifit be everie ane to zour fa luifit per-
<<fone(3),"
I. ct Monfieur, fi Pennuy de voftre abfence,
" celuy de voftre oubly (2), la crainte du danger
<c tant prouve d'un chacun a voftre tant aymee per-
fonne(3),"
cc may gif me ecnfolatioun > I leif it to zow to juge :
" feing the unhap, that my cruell lot and con->
<f tinuall mifadventure hes hitherto promyfit me;
fc following ye misfortunes and feiris, as weill of
cc lait, as of ane lang tyme bypaft, the quhilk ze
" do knaw (4).
II. ce Bot for all that I will in na wife accufe
<c zow, nouther of zour lytill remembrance (5),
E e 2
42O VINDICATION OF LET. 8.
" nouther of zour lytill cair 5 and leift of all of
" zour promeis brokin, or of ye cauldnes of zour
<c wryting (6), fen I am ellis fa far maid zouris,
" yat yat quhilk plcifis zow is acceptabill to mej
" and my thochtis ar fa willingly"
1 i ) This letter pretends alfo to be written from
Stirling. When it pretends to be written, muft be
determined from fome circumftances in it.
(2) Bothwell was dill abfent and dill forgetful, it
feems. Mary thus returns to the complaint of her
firft letter from Stirling. But fhe has heard from
him fmce that. This forgetfulnefs, therefore, muft
be of a later date. And it muft of courfe be fmce
Die wrote her laft letter. But what forgetfulnefs
could he poffibly fhew fmce this ? It was written
late on Tuefday. It could not reach Edinbo-
r.ough before Wednefday. And on Wedndday
Hie left Stirling. This therefore is another proof
of the forgery.
(3) Every one then knew of the intended feizure.
She faid before, that Huntly had " tald it." And
now we find, that " everie ane" at Stirling was ap-
prized of it, and talked of the danger which Both-
well would incur in the aft. But let us attend the
Remarker in his laft dying Jpeech. " Of letter
" VIII," he fays, ff there are only a few words re-
" maining in the French j but, few as they are,
" they have been mifunderftood by the Scottifh
" tranjlator *." The prefent paffage is accordingly
P. 33-
produced
CHAP. 4. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 42!
produced to prove the affertion. But the whole
centers in one word, " promyfit," a tranjlatwn for
prouve." Yet prouve" is obvioufly wrong,
and " promyfit" is obvioufly right. Mary is not
fpeaking of danger realized, but threatened. Every
one at Stirling tells her of this threatened danger.
And this Ihe calls a promifed danger, agreeably to
the old ufe of the word, not, as now, confined to a-
good fenfe only, but then free to admit either a good
or a bad one ; and agreeably alfo to her own ufe
of it immediately afterwards, when flie fpeaks of
<f the unhap that her cruell lot has hitherto frmyfit
her,"
(4) The French ended with my laft note. The
Remarker therefore has nothing more to do. Yet
he ftill finds a little bufmefs for himfelf. He can'
fee the French original ftill, by the dim reflection of
the Scotch tranflation. When the fun is fet, " the
" moon takes up the wonderous tale." In " one
" paflage at leaft of the Scottifh copy, the French
" word," when there is no French left, " feems to
" have been mifunderftood, " f following ye mif-
" f fortunes,"' inftead of according to or after the
" form of> fuivant les malheurs." This is a very
extraordinary mode of coming at the French ori-
ginal, by diving after it in the Scotch, But alasl
he may
, dive into the bottom of the deep,
Where fathom-line could never touch the ground ;
and yet will not be able to pluck up this
drowned" original " by the locks." He has only
I? e miftakcn
VINDICATION OF LET. S.
miftaken the fenfe here. The paffage means
merely, that Mary's cruel lot threatens her with
tmhappinefs, /0//0w/ her former misfortunes, that
is, in addition to them.
I thus take my final leave of the Mifcellaneous
Remarker. Who he is, I have not pretended to
guefs. The report of London, I underftand,
makes him to be Lord Hailes. But I know by
experience the fallacioufnefs of fuch reports. This,
I fee, is peculiarly falfe. The Remarker * fpeaks
of his lordihip in the following terms. " My
" Lord Hales quotes a writing in his pofiefiion,
" which proves," &c. " See his Remarks on the
" Hijtory of Scotland, p. 167, a book little known,
C in which the author is ALTERNATELY A SCEPTIC
<f AND A DOGMATIST." This is not the language
of a man concerning himfelf. And I have been
fince inftructed to believe, that the author is the
gentleman of Gray's Inn, who is well known for
fome controverfial writings; who particularly
wielded his leaded bludgeon fo remarkably againft
the Hiftorian of English Poetry, and made it to
fall with fuch a heavy y and fuch a dccJfive, weight
upon his head ; who merits every commendation,
for the extent of his refearches and the depth of
his knowledge, contrafted with the avocations of
his profefiion and the difadvantages of his educa-
tion ; who has all the vigour of a man, that feels he
can confide in himfelf; and who wants only the
cool correftncfs, that only a regular education can
P.*
furnifh.
CHAP. 4. MARY QJTEEN OF SCOTS. 423
furnilTi. But I believe this information ta be
equally a miftake, with that concerning Lord
Hailes. Mr. R. I underftand, is no Scotchman:
He has certainly not been refident of late in Scot-
land. Yet the author of the pamphlet is avowedly
a Scotchman. And, as in one place he mentions
what was " the old-fafliioned word within his me-
" mory" for a watch in Scotland * * fo in another
he refers to " Records, B. 29, N 285, and B. 30,
<f N 572," though he " will not anfwer," he fays,
" for the accuracy of thefe references j- -" and in a
third place refers to the " Detection, i. 2 (or
" p. 65) a copy marked by Mr. Goodall as the,
" firft edition" in Englijh, and now, no doubt, in
the advocates library at Edinborough. Nor is the
work worthy of Mr. R. We have no appearance
of Mr. Warton's antagonift in it. And I attribute
it ftill to fome young Scotchman, who has been a
pupil of Dr. Robertfon's, and. who has ftepped
forward to teach before he has been properly taught
himfelf.
(5) This is another touch concerning Both well's
forgetfulnefs of Mary. And it ferves with the
others, to (hew the violation of the chronology.
Indeed this pair of lovers does in faft, what Lee's
pair only wifhes the Gods to do j and
Annihilates both time and fpace,
To make two lovers happy.
(6) She has therefore heard from him fmce her
* P, 19.. t P- 3- t P- 2*
E e 4 la{l -
424 VINDICATION OF LET. 8.
laft. This lafl being written on Tuefday, the an-
fwer could not arrive before ^hurfday. Yet fhe
left Stirling on Wednefday. And, befides this,
there mud be an interval of two or three days at
lead, to allow for the forgetfulnefs. This will
carry us to Saturday or Sunday, for the date of
this letter. And yet fhe was feized by Both well
upon Thurfday.
" fubdewit unto zouris, that I fuppois yat all that
cf cummis of zow proceidis not be ony of the
" caufis foirfaid, bot rather for fie as be juft and
" reflbnabill, and fie as I defyre myfelf. Quhilk is
" the fynal order ( i ), that ze promyfiit to tak for
" the furetie and honorabil fervice of ye only up-
" hald of my lyfe. For quhilk alone I will pre-
Cf ferve the fame, and without the quhilk I defyre
cc not bot fuddane deith,
III. " And to teftifie unto zow how lawly I
" fubmit me under zour commandementis, I have
<r fend zow, in figne of homage, be Paris, the orna-
* c ment of the heid (2), quhilk is the chief gude of
<f the uther memberis j inferring thairby that, be
" ye feifing of zow in the poffeffioun of the fpoile
" of that quhilk is principal!, the remnant cannot
cc be bot fubject unto zow, and with confenting of
" the hart. In place quhairof, fin I have ellis left
" it unto zow (3), I fend unto zow ane fepulture
"of
CHAP. 4. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 425
fc of hard ftane, collourit with blak, fawin with
" teiris and bones (4). The ftane I compair to
<c my hart, that as it is carvit in ane fure fepulture
" or harbor of zour commandementis, and, abone
all, of zour name and memorie that ar thairin in-
<f clofit, as is"
(i) Here then let us look back to all the pro-
ceedings in this bufy period. Mary had been at
Stirling fome days before fhe wrote the fifth letter,
becaufe fhe fays Bothwell promifed to fend her
word every day, and had not done fo. This, as we
Jtnow fhe reached Stirling on Monday night, will
carry us to Thurfday or Friday at leaft. She then
fends off a letter to him. An anfwer could not
come under a day and a half. Yet fhe appears in
the fixth letter to have received one. And this
fixth, therefore, muft be written on Saturday or
Sunday. The next letter was written foon after-
wards, on the fame day probably. But the anfwer
to either could not have reached her before Mon-
day or Tuefday, in the week following. Yet fhe
has received an anfwer, when fhe writes her eighth
letter. She complains however of his f< lytill re-
({ membrance," and of his " forzetfulnes." And,
from both, the eighth letter cannot be written be-
fore Wednefday or Thurfday. This however is
her laft. It was to produce Bothweli's ' " fynal
*' order." But that order could not reach her be-
fore Friday or Saturday. And thus long, by the
letters, myft fhe be fuppofed to have ftaid at Stir-
ling.
VINDICATION OF LBT. S.
ling. Yet fhe reached Stirling on Monday, and
left it on Wednefday ; riding thither on Monday
from Edinborough, and riding back on Wednefday
to Linlithgow. She ftaid only one whole day at
Stirling. And this day the letters have cut and
minced into ELEVEN at leaft.
(2) What is this, that Mary fends him? It is
" the ornament of the heid." Of whofe head ? Of
her own. She fends it " in figne of homage;"
" and that, by feifing of him in the pofieflioun of
c< the fpoile of that quhilk is principal!, the rem-
<f nant cannot be bot fubject unto him." It was
one of Marys own head-dre/fes, one of her own
SCOTCH MOBS. This was furely a very ftrange
prefent for a man. And the letter-writer muft
have been compleatly infatuated, to think of fuch a
prefent for him.
(3) By her Will, I prefume fhe means.
(4) This appears to be a ring, the ftone of
which was black in the ground, and reprefented a
fcpulchre ftrewed with bones and tears. But, to
iheW the eternal clafhing of falfhoods, the letters
fend the ring from Stirling in April, while Paris's
fecond confeflion fends it from the road betwixt
Glafgow and Kalendar, in the January preceding.
" Elle refcript une lettre, et y mift dedans un an-
Goodall, ii. 78.
my
CHAP. 4. MARY QJJiEN OF SCOTS,
4*7
" my hear [hair] in this ring, never to cum furthj
" quhill deith grant unto zow to ane trophee of
cf victorie of my banes ; as the ring is fullit, in
" figne that yow haif maid one full conqueis of
" me, of myne hart, and unto yat my banes be left
** unto yow in remembrance of your viftorie, and
" my acceptabill lufe and willing, for to be better
cc beftowit then I merite (i). The ameling that
" is about is blak, quhilk fignifyis the fteidfaftnes
c< of hir that fendis the fame. The teiris ar without
cc number, fa ar the dreddouris to difpleis yow, the
" teiris of your abfence, the difdane that I cannot
" be in outwart effect zouris, as I am without fen-
" zeitnes of hart and fpreit; and of gude reffoun,
cc thocht [though] my mentis wer mekle greiter
'* then of the maift profite that ever was, and fie as
" I defyre to be, and fall tak pane in conditiounis
" to imitate, for to be beftowit worthylie under your
" regiment.
IV. " My only wealth, reflaif thairfoir in als
gude part ye fame, as I have refiavit your mar-
" riage (2) with extreme joy, the quhilk fall not
cc part furth of my bofum, quhill yat mariage of
c< our bodyis be maid,in publift, as figne of all that
I outher hope or defyris of blis in yis warld."
(i) What all this means, it is not eafy to divine.
To" I fuppofe to be too. I have therefore
10 printed
42$ VINDICATION OF LET. 8,
printed it u to." The mention of " deith" fhews
<f banes" to mean bones. And then the fenfe, fuch
as it is, feems to be this : that fhe fends the ftone as
an emblem of her heart ; that the ftone, being
carved into the form of a fepulchre, reprefents her
heart fepulchred in his love ; that his name and
memory are inclofed in her heart as firmly, as
her hair is in the ring ; that they fhall never part
from her heart till (he dies j and that the ring is
" fullit," either filled with the hair, or (as I rather
think, and as we call the moon a full one, when it
is quite round) is compleatly circular, in token of
his full conqueft of her till death.
All this is, as Dr. Robertfon obferves very juft-
ly*, " much refined myfticifm about devices, a folly
" of that age ; of which Mary," he adds, " was
" very fond, as appears from feveral other circum-
<c ftances, particularly from a letter concerning
imprefas, by Drummond of Hawthornden. If
Mary's adverfaries forged her letters," the Doctor
proceeds to fay, " they were certainly employed
very idly when they produced this." They cer-
tainly were. Mary, however fond of devices,
could never have written fuch nonfenfe as this about
them. To be fond of devices, and to write with
the folly of a driveler concerning them, are very
diftinft things ; however the Doftor may choofe to
confound them. Homer fwnetimes nods ; but
then his dreams are fuperior, even to the waking
thoughts of a Zoilus. And, when Mary concfc-
* Diff-34.
fcends
CHAP. 4. MARY QJJEEN OF SCOTS. 429
fcends to write upon " imprefas," (he will be found,
I doubt not, to write like Mary. Some fparks of
elegant vivacity muft be ftruck off from her pen.
But here the whole is unmeaning dulnefs. . Nor is
this all. There is a much greater abfurdity than this
behind. Mary is made to indulge herfelf in thefe
weak and filly fpeculations, at a time when her
head and heart muft have been full of the great
enterprize before her. The pretended feizure of
her was to be attempted. She had fome perfons in
her retinue, who would rather die than fuffer it.
The commandant of her retinue was afraid of their
refolution, and trembled for the confluences. It
was her decifive ftroke for appropriating Bothwell
to herfelf. On this critical incident hung the ba-
lance of her happinefs. And her heart muft have
been torn with hopes and fears. Yet this very
period of her life, and the very laft minute of this
period, have the forgers chofen ; to make her fit
down to her table in one ftupid apathy of uncon-
cern, to be unthinking of the moment of decifion
that was preffing upon her, and to be wholly taken
up in hunting fome fantaftical devices, in purfuing
fome imaginary refemblances, in marking the
courfe of a butterfly, or in gazing at the combina-
tions of the clouds. And thus the woman, " all
" whofe fenfations were exquifite, and all her emo-
" tions ftrong *," becomes blunt in her fenfations
* Robertfon, i. 386. This touch of Mary's charafter, like
a variety of other particulars, is all borrowed from Buchanan,
39, Anderfon, ii. and 251, Jebb, i.
and
VINDICATION OF LET. 8.
and weak in her emotions, at the very inflant when
they would naturally have been moft exquifite and
mod ftrong.
(2) This means the marriage-contract, as it is
not to cc part furth of her bolum." It muft alfo
mean the fecond or large one j as the firft was only
figned by Mary, and would certainly be kept by
Bothwell. Yet the fecond was rather too large to
be kept in a Queen's bofom. It would be too
ample, even for a modern bouquet. And why fhould
Mary have it rather than Bothwell ? It was figned
by both. Indeed this and the other contract were
aftually kept by Bothwell, " as Jefuits fay, who
" never lie." Murray, that general of the order, fays
fo. Morton alfo, that prime-ajjijlant to him, fays
the fame. In their refpective receipts for their own
originals, they mention " ane filver box, overgilt
" with gold, with the miflivc letteris, contracts or
" obligatiounis for marriage,'' &c. ; " quhilk box,
" and haill pecis within the famin, wer takin and
tf fund with umquhill George Dalgleifche, fervand
" to the Erie Bothville V Bothwell therefore
kept the two contracts. And die letter, which in-
timates Mary to have kept one of them, is as con-
trary to fact according to the rebels, as it is repug-
nant to reafon in the opinion of others, and 13
proved by both to be a forgery.
Appendix, Niv.
V.
CHAP. 4 . MARY OJfBEN Of SCOTS.
431
V.-- Zit my hart feiring to difpleis you as
mekle m the reiding heirof, as I delite me in ye
writing, I will mak end; efter t'lat I have ki4
"zpur handis with als greit affeftoun, as I pray
cc , (o ,Ir^ ? phald of my W to & y
lang and bliffit lyfe, and to me zour gude favour
as the only gude yat I defyre, and to ye quhilk I
" pretend.
VI. I have fchawin unto this oeirer that
f quhilk I have leirnit, to quhome I remit me
-knawand the credite that ze gaifhim; as fcho'
dois that will be for ever unto zow humbill and
obedient lauchfull wyfe, that for ever dedicates
" unto zow hir hart, hir body, without ony change,
as unto him that I have maid pofleflbur of hart-
ff of quhilk ze may hald zow aflurit, yat unto ye
tf deith fall na wayis be changeit, for evill nor gude
" fall never mak me go from it."
END OF THE SECOND VOLUME.
University of California
SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
Return this material to the library
from which it was borrowed.
DA
78?
v.2
A 000006137 4
n iv^i *v