In the mean time, publications upon publications were multiplied in favour of Mary. Anderfon and Jebb published collections relating to her history; lives of her were wrote in all the polite languages, adorned with elegant prints of her face. What did all this avail? The public believed her to be handfome, witty, generous, and affable-but, bæret lateri lætha. lis arundo -it ftill believed her to be an amorous loose woman, to have carried on an intrigue with the murderer of her husband, and to have even acted as an accomplice in that black catastrophe.

The cause of Mary thus received its deepest wounds from moderate writers; writers who would not, what we may call, fpoil the bon ton of history by critical investigations. Erravimus cum patribus (fays Mr. H. and Dr. R.); we write from the authorities of Thuanus, Rapin, and hundreds of other moderate writers; and time has stamped a fanction on what we deliver. "I have, fays one of thofe gentlemen, gone as far as poffible in Mary's vindication; but I cannot stir an inch farther. Confiftency with my own character does not suffer me to pronounce Mary to be abfolutely innocent of all the criminality alledged against her by her enemies." With all due deference to the reverend author, this is faying nothing; for if the was not innocent, fhe was criminal. Having premifed thus much, we now proceed to the new matter contained in this edition.

Our author having entirely overthrown Dr. R's. arguments brought in fupport of the infamous letters fuppofed to have been written by Mary to Bothwell*, proceeds upon the fame principles to investigate the authenticity of the fonnets; and fhews, that they are fo far from being without the characteristics which the Doctor has affixed to genuine productions (meaning imperfect hints, obfcure intimations, and dark expreffions), that it is impoffible for the pureft veftal to miftake the lewd tendency of their meaning, as they make Mary speak a language which would difgrace even a modern Drury Lane nymph. This must be a fufficient apology for our giving no extracts from this part of our author's performance, fenfible and irrefragable as it is. Two of Mary's moft declared enemies +, but who would think it facrilege to descend from the bon ton of history into accuracy, have fhrewdly obferved, that had the earl of Effex been fixty-eight, it is probable queen Elizabeth would not have been in love with him. Apply this obfervation to Elizabeth's rival Mary. Bothwell, at the time when she is

* Vide ut fupra. + See a Catalogue of the Royal and Noble Authors, vol. i. p. 129. Ddz

faid

faid to have been enamoured with him, must have been confiderably more than fixty, as appears from the evidences this author produces, and Mary was but twenty-four. Add to this, that even according to Buchanan's account he was then ar old battered beau, and had gone through as many scenes of lewdnefs as any man in his time.

The next original matter added by our author to this edition, relates to the falfhood of Buchanan with regard to the intrigue between Rizio (who is confeffed to have been a mon fter of uglinefs, and confiderably advanced in years) and Mary,. which our author has difcuffed and confuted with his usual precifion. We are forry our limits will not adinit of a quotation.

The new forgery of Murray and his affociates is the fubject of the next addition to this work, and is of the utmost im portance to the fubject. Mr. Hume and Dr. R. imagine, that the queen must have approved of, and consented to, a match with Bothwell, because many of her friends fubfcribed the bond that warranted and preceded it. I fhall (fays our au• thor) fairly recite their arguments.

First, fay they, Bothwell, to induce the lords to fign the bond, gave out that the queen approved of it. 2aly, Murray and Morton, at the conferences at York, did actually produce a paper, which they faid was the confent of the queen, and a previous warrant for the nobles to fign the boad of affociation. And what Dr. Robertson is pleased to say confirms and amounts to a direct proof of queen Mary's approbation and confent to the above scheme, is the teftimony of Sir James Melvill, who fays, That he and his brother, having a fecret correfpondence in England with those who favoured the queen's pretenfions to that crown, he received a letter from them, representing in ftrong terms what would be the fatal effects of her marriage with Bothwell, which letter he fhowed to the queen, and inforced with warmth; that the not only difregarded this remonftrance, but communicated the matter to Bothwell; where upon, fays Melvill, he was obliged to fly from court, until the earl's rage was abated. Melvill in the fame account tells us, that lord Herries likewife remonftrated against the marriage, and conjured the queen on his knees, to lay afide all thoughts of fo difhonourable an alliance.

I fhall make anfwer to thefe pretended proofs of the queen's confent, in the fame order as I have ftated them. And, first, There is no doubt that Bothwell would ufe every argument to induce the nobles to join in the bond of affociation in his favour; but this with no fhadow of reafon can be regarded as a proof of the queen's confent,

2dly, Of as little avail is the story of Murray and Morton, their pretending to show a paper or warrant under the queen's hand, implying her confent. This we fhall by and by prove to a demonftration to be a moft grofs forgery and impofition. We have already feen and examined feveral pieces afferted to be the queen's, which came from the fame mint, that will not pafs as current coin. The arguments against these in general hall not be repeated.

Had there ever existed such a paper as this pretended confent of the queen, would not thofe nobles, most of them the queen's enemies, who had figned the bond, have infifted on this warrant of the queen, by way of juftification for their figning it yet this they never pretended to do. Confcious," as Dr. Robertfon admits, "that their conduct in this affair would redound little to their fame, the nobles always touch unwillingly upon it, and feem defirous that it should remain in darkness, or be buried in oblivion." Is not this a tacit admiffion of the Doctor himfelf, as if he was fenfible that no great ftrefs could be laid on this fpurious paper? However, as this evidence has been, introduced by thefe learned gentlemen, I muft beg leave to examine him a little more narrowly before I let him pafs.

The bond of affociation of the whole nobility and clergy, who attended the parliament, joining to acquit the earl of Bothwell of being acceffory to the king's murder, and recommending him to the queen as a fit husband, was furely of great weight, and affords a very strong argument in her favour. At first glance, then, one must perceive of what importance it must have been to her accufers and enemies, most part of whom had figned this band, to have taken off the force of that argument. We accordingly fee them ftruggling hard to gain this point. The abfurdity of being induced through fear tɔ fign it, is equally ridiculous as falfe, and could never be beJieved. Befides, upon that fuppofition, the queen was left innocent, as being impofed upon; and they themselves, as aiding and affifting in the impofition, ought immediately to have -retracted their forced declaration in place of which, according to Buchanan and Lethington's account at York, next morning, after figning the bond, by four o'clock, few or none of them were left in the town, but departed without taking leave.”

66

To have shown, therefore, by an authentic writing figned by the queen, that before the nobility figned the bond, they faw her giving a previous confent; this not only afforded a plaufible excufe for their figning it at her defire, but became an evidence of Mary's paffion for Bothwell, and inclination to marry him.

Dd3

Now

Now fuch a writing, fays Mr. Hume and Dr. Robertson, was exhibited at York to the three English commiffioners there, by Murray, Morton, Lethington, and George Buchanan, as the very first and chief piece of evidence against the queen. Let us fee now the conduct of these perfons in their exhibition of this important writing; and that the reader may judge for himself, we shall fet down the recital of their procedure, in the very words of the English commiffioners. "They (meaning Murray and Morton) fent unto us the lord of Ledington, James Macgill, and Mr. George Buchanan, which in private and fecrete conference with us, not as commiffioners, as they protefted, but for our better inftruction, after declaration of such circumftances as led and induced to vehement prefumptions, to judge her guiltie of the said murder, fhewed unto us a copy of a band, bearing date the 19th Aprile 1567, to which the moft part of the lords and councellors of Scotland have put to their hand, and, as they fay, more for fear than any lyking they had of the fame; which band conteyned two points; the one a declaration of Bothwell's purgation (acquittal) of the murder of lord Darnley, and the other a general consent to his marriage with the queen:-And yet in proof that they did it not willingly, they procured a warrant, which was now shewed unto us, bearing date the 19th of Aprile, figned with the queen's hand, whereby fhe gave them licence to agree to the fame; affirming, that before they had such warrant, there was none of them that did or would fet to their hands, faving only the earl of Huntly."

We here fee with what caution this paper is men ioned and shown to the three commiffioners at York, privately and in fecrete conference, and under a proteft that in this they acted not as commiffioners. This circumfpection is very remarkable :we fhall fee their reafons for it.

Queen Elifabeth, after this, calling the whole commiffioners on both fides to attend her council at Westminster, there, as has been related, the whole evidences which could in the leaft infer any prefumption of guilt against Mary, are produced, and laid before queen Elifabeth and the English nobility in council. This very material writing, importing the queen's consent and warrant to the nobility for figning the bond of affociation, will, no doubt, be thought to have figured confpicuoufly in the black lift of evidences there produced againft her, which are particularly enumerated and fet down in the feveral journals at Westminster: yet, to our aftonishment, no fuch paper appears among them, nor from first to laft, during the whole procedure before queen Elifabeth and the English nobility, is one word mentioned of this most important paper.

This behaviour of Murray and Morton is most striking! Let us examine their reafons for this myfterious way of proceedings and for keeping back and concealing fo material a piece evidence which they had fhown before at York.

• The credibility of the pretended love-letters and fonneis which they produced against Mary, depended entirely on Murray and Morton's own affirmation, and Mary's denial, neither of which could directly be refuted, particularly their affirmation, while they took care to keep the letters in their own hands, and to refufe her a fight of them. It was quite a dif ferent matter with regard to this paper or confent of the queen, which, according to Lethington and Buchanan's tale at York, was produced and fhown to the whole Scotch nobility and clergy, and was the motive which induced them, otherwife unwilling, to fign the bond in Bothwell's favour. If this fact

had been true, this previous confent from the queen was their only juftification; but if falfe and forged, what was the confequence of Murray's thus openly producing fuch a barefaced impofture? No other fure than this, that Mary's commiffioners at London, the bishop of Rofs, the lords Boyd and Her ries, who all had figned the bond, muft inftantly have got notice of, and publicly detected the impofition.?

Our author, in his next addition, makes an apology for the queen's marriage with Bothwell; but, far from being a blindfold advocate for her conduct, he admits it to have been a rafh and ill-advised measure. Some readers of candour, however, may perhaps think, that circumstanced as Mary then was, it was unavoidable.

The next additional matter exhibits the characters of the three principal confederates against Mary. We wish the author had omitted the following account of their deaths, be cause the operations of Providence are by no means, to our perceptions, uniform in its distributions of either rewards or punishments. The unhappy end (fays he) of each of the confederates was suitable to their crimes. Murray was affaffinated, after a fhort enjoyment of his greatnefs; Morton fell by the hands of the executioner; and Lethington by his own hands!”

The last chapter of this work, which is entirely new, expofes Elizabeth's conduct to Mary; the fevere treatment of that princess in England; and we think the author brings indifputable proofs of two very serious negotiations fet on foot by Elizabeth and her minifters for privately putting her to death, firft in Scotland, and when that failed, in England.

We shall make no other apology for the length to which this article has fwelled, except that the fubject, though uncommon, is interesting; and that the author has difcuffed it with abi

Dd4

lities