cerned, had been affured of their innocence."-To which our author makes a reply, which cannot be shortened without weakening it:

"Upon what does this author ground his fentence? Upon two very plain reasons, first, That the confeffion was a judicial one, that is, taken in prefence, or by authority of a judge. And fecondly, That it was regularly and judicially given in; that must be understood during the time of the conferences before queen Elizabeth and her council, in prefence of Mary's commiffioners; at which time he ought to have canvaffed it, fays our author, if she knew her innocence.

That it was not a judicial confeffion, is evident: the paper itself does not bear any fuch mark; nor does it mention that it was taken in presence of any perfon, or by any authority whatsoever; and, by comparing it with the judicial examinations of Dalgleish, Hay, and Hepburn, it is apparent, that it is deftitute of every formality requifite in a judicial evidence. In what dark corner, then, this strange production was generated, our author may endeavour to find out, if he can.

As to his fecond affertion, that it was regularly and judicially given in, and therefore ought to have been canvaffed by Mary during the conferences, we have already feen that this likewife is not fact: the conferences broke up in February 1569: Nicholas Hubert was not hanged till Auguft thereafter, and his dying confeffion, as Mr. Hume calls it, is only dated the 10th of that month. How then can this gentleman gravely tell us, that this confeffion was judicially given in, and ought to have been at that very time canvaffed by queen Mary

and her commiffioners? Such pofitive affertions, apparently contrary to fact, are unworthy the character of an historian, and may very justly render his decifion, with respect to evidences of a higher nature, very dubious. In answer then to Mr. Hume: As the queen's accufers did not chufe to produce this material witness, Paris, whom they had alive, and in their hands, nor any declaration or confeffion from him at the critical and proper time for having it canvaffed by the queen, I apprehend our author's conclufion may fairly be used against himfelf; that it is in vain at present to fupport the improbabilities and abfurdities in a confeffion, taken in a clandeftine way, no body knows how; and produced after Paris's death, by no body knows whom; and from every appearance destitute of every formality requifite and common to fuch fort of evidence: for these reasons, I am under no fort of hesitation to give fentence against · Nicholas Hubert's confeffion, as a grofs impofture and forgery."

The state of the evidence relating to the letters is this:

Morton affirms that they were taken in the hands of Dalgleish. The examination of Dalgleish is ftill extant, and he appears never to have been once interrogated concerning the letters.

Morton and Murray affirm that they were written by the queen's hand; they were carefully concealed from Mary and her commiffioners, and were never collated by one man, who could defire to difprove them.

Several of the incidents mentioned in the letters are confirmed by the oath of Crawfurd, one of Lennox's defendants,

Z 2

defendants, and fome of the incidents are fo minute, as that they could fcarcely be thought on by a forger.· Crawfurd's teftimony is not without fufpicion. Whoever practices forgery, endeavours to make truth the vehicle of falfhood. Of a prince's life very minute incidents are known; and if any are too flight to be remarked, they may be fafely feigned, for they are likewife too flight to be contradicted. But there are still more reafons for doubting the genuineness of thefe letters. They had no date of time or place, no feal, no direction, no fuperfcription.

The only evidences that could prove their authenticity were Dalgleish and Paris, of which Dalgleish, at his trial, was never queftioned about them; Paris was never publicly tried, though he was kept alive through the time of the conference.

The fervants of Bothwell, who were put to death for the king's murder, cleared Mary with their laft words.

The letters were firft declared to be fubfcribed, and were then produced without fubfcription.

They were fhewn during the conferences at York privately to the English commiffioners, but were concealed from the commiffioners of Mary.

Mary always folicited the perufal of thefe letters, and was always denied it.

She demanded to be heard in perfon by Elizabeth, before the nobles of England, and the ambaffadors of other princes; and was refufed.

When Mary perfifted in demanding copies of the letters, her commiffioners were difmiffed with their box to Scotland, and the letters were seen no more.

The

The French letters, which for almost two centuries. have been confidered as originals, by the enemies of Mary's memory, are now difcovered to be forgeries, and acknowledged to be tranflations, and perhaps French tranflations of a Latin tranflation. And the modern accufers of Mary are forced to infer from these letters, which now exift, that other letters exifted formerly, which have been loft in fpite of curiofity, malice, and intereft.

The reft of this treatife is employed in an endeavour to prove, that Mary's accufers were the murderers of Darnley; through this enquiry it is not neceffary to follow him only let it be observed, that, if these letters were forged by them, they may eafily be thought capable of other crimes. That the letters were forged, is now made fo probable, that perhaps they will never more be cited as teftimonies.