thought her guilty, if they had thought her probably fo, if they had thought her fo in appearance only. And a conduct, totally the reverfe of all this, proves what they never reflected it would prove, the falfehood of their pretences, the profligacy of their own conduct, and the purity of hers. Knaves little think, when they are exerting their arts of impofition, and exhaufting their fund of deceit, for the profecution and concealment of their feandalous purposes, that they are telling the world they are fcandalous, by their very concealment.. Unapprehenfive of fuch future obftructions to the fight of the letters, Mary, in her original directions to her commiffioners, had ordered them thus: "In cais thay al" ledge thay have ony writingis of "mine, quhilk may infer prefump❝tioun against me in that cause, ze fall defyre the principalis to be 66 producit, and that I myself may "have inspection thereof, and mak "anfwer thairto." Ignorant equally of thefe precluding artifices afterwards, the commiffioners accordingly demanded the fight of the originals now. Thefe were exhibited to the commiffioners at Weftminster on the 8th of December 1567, and to the privy council on the 14th. And on the 25th Mary's commiffioners appeared before the latter, with afpecial command "fra thair Maiftres;" delivered her meffage, "producit the fpecial wri tingis and inftructionis fent be "thair Maiftres to thame ;" and then "maift humblie defyrit the "Quene's Majeftie to caufe tham "have fic writingis, as wer producit aganis thair Maiftres be thair "Maiftres's adverfaris." Thofe inftructions of Mary's are still in being. They are dated the 19th of December, and run thus: "Ze "fall defire the inspection of all thay "haif producit aganis us; and that "we may sè the alledgit principal "writingis, gif thay haif ony, pro-, "ducit; and with God's grace we "fall make fic answer thairto, that our innocence fall be knawin to "our guid fifter, and to all utheris. "princes." So little was Mary made acquainted, even with the fact of the production of the letters on the 8th; and fo ftudiously was even this concealed from the commiflioners of Mary, that fhe was not yet certified of it on the 19th! She had only heard of it by report. But fhe inftantly required an infpection of the letters, if any fuch had been produced; and expreffed her full conviction of afcertaining her innocence completely, to the fatisfaction of Elizabeth and all the fovereigns on the costinent. This was the natural challenge of innocence, in Mary. But her "guid fifter" wanted not to have her "innocence knawin." She rather chofe to confider her as guilty, and to have "all utheris "princes" do fo too. Yet fhe could not object to the request, though fhe never meant to grant it. This "defire," fay Mary's commiffioners; "hir Majestie [of England] "thocht verie reffonabill." She could not do lefs. But did she grant it? The reader fhall fee. If Elizabeth had had one fpark of honour yet unquenched in her breaft; fhe would inftantly have given the requifite orders. But the did not give them. She faid fhe would confider of the petition. "To the effect hir Majeftie micht be "the better aavift upon thair defyris, " and give anfwer thairto, fhe "defyrit ane extract of the faid "writing," their inftructions, “to "be gevin to her Hienes; quhilk "the faid commiffionaris did on the "morn deliver." She would confider, whether the fhould give to Mary the only poffibility of expofing the fpurioufnefs of a handwrit ing, which was to fupport a charge Whitaker's Vindication of Queen Mary." of murder against her; by permit ting her, or by permitting her commillioners, to infpect the writing. She pretended the wanted time to confider, becaufe even he had not the audacity to deny. She had the audacity, however, to with-hold. And it is plain from her conduct, that the whole compounded mafs of flagitioufnefs muft inftantly have been refolved into duft, if he had granted the requifition. She there fore pretended ftill to confider. دو But Mary was too keen, and too interested to be fo put off. On the 7th of January 1568, the commiffioners of Mary again entered the privy council, and declared to Elizabeth, that "thay had prefentlie "reffavit writingis fra the Quene's "Majeftie of Scotland, thair Soverane, who "difirit the writingis "producit be hir inobedient fubjectis 66 to be delivered unto thame." But Elizabeth was still obliged to with. hold her confent, and ftill compelled therefore to procraftinate. She accordingly took fhelter again behind her old fubterfuge of confider ation. "The Quene's Majeftie of England tuik to be advyfit thair" with." Mary, in her firft requifition, defired not only to fee the originals, but to have copies of them. She demanded"the infpection and dou"billi's" of all that her rebels had produced against her. She wanted a fight of them, to examine the nature of the handwriting. She wanted duplicates, to examine the matters contained in them. But when the received an account of Eliza beth's affected delay to fuch an obvions act of juftice, the faw through her whole defign. She was fully convinced in her mind, that the originals would never be fubmitted to her view, or the view of her commiffioners. Yet he was eager to enter upon her vindication. She refolved to engage her enemies imVol, VI No. 31. 33 mediately. And fhe was determi ned to clofe with them, even under every difadvantage of ground Such was the natural gallantry of innocence ! Her commiffioners, therefore, lowered their tone. a little in their fecond requifition. They ftill demanded a fight of the originals. But they would be con tent to be indulged with copies only. They accordingly, in the name of their mistress, "defirit the wri"6 tingis producit be her inobedient 22 fubjectis, or, at the leift, the copies "thairof, to be deliverit unto thame." And Mary's inftructions to them for this requifition were even in a ftill lower key, being only to "re "quire of our faid guid fifter, that "copies be given zou thairof." This was certainly not judicious, because it committed her honour to the hazard of a battle, in which he might not have been victorious. Yet it was the genuine heroism of an honeft heart. And, as is frequently feen in life, the injudicioufnefs conftitutes the heroicalness of it. But this very gallantry of innocence, this very heroifm of honefty, made Elizabeth to fhrink the more from a conflict. She retired as Mary advanced. She entrenched herself behind her delays. She dared not to engage an enemy for her bravery, whom he might have defeated perhaps from her rafhnefs, She dreaded the dignity of pro voked worth, now it was rifing in its own defence. She was afraid of the lion, that he had bafely wounded under the mask of friendfhip, even caught as it was in her its voice of terror against her." toils; when it now began to raise "Elizabeth was thus bufy in completing her own infamy, while the was labouring for Mary's. She had plotted to ruin Mary's character. She had tried a thoufand frauds for that purpofe. Yet he had been com compelled, in her own despite, to acknowledge the innocence which fhe had endeavoured to disapprove; and then she returned, with a double portion of malignity, to her origi nal purpofe; published the papers as genuine, which he had plainly owned to be fpurious before; and arraigned, tried, and condemned that Queen in print, whom she had found herself forced to acquit with honour, upon the real trial. She thus became the polluted mother of a long brood of evils. She prepared the way with too fatal a fuccefs, for her "other purposes." She became her own feducer and leader into murder. She became the wretched caufe of worse. With an equally-fatal fuccefs, fhe buried the reputation and honour of Mary under the rubbish of her own accufations: And the now ftands forward, in the eye of reafon and religion, as the grand author of all the calumnies upon calumnies that have been heaped by a continual fucceffion of flanderers on the head of Mary for two centuries paft. She did not indeed foresee the amazing extent of her crimes at the time. Nor do any criminals foresee the extent of theirs. Like Elizabeth, they look not beyond the prefent moment. They reflect not. that there is a venom in iniquity, which runs farther than the line of human life; which corrodes and fefters, when the heart that dictated and the hand that executed it, are both crumbled into duft; and which continues to burn on, to other ages, and to other worlds. And let me, in the proper fentiments of Chrifti anity, add, that the foul of Elizabeth, at this inftant, whether it is confined in the manfions of mifery, or lodged among the fpirits of the bleffed, is now, I doubt not, looking back to all her long tranf actions with Mary, and to their longer confequences, either with a folemn figh of penitence over them, or with the pangs and the groans of an overwhelming remorse for them." The history of the wonderful let ters and fonnets is minutely examined. The reflections on the ac count given of their difcovery are ingenious and spirited. "Having now, with fome portion of a Dutchman's patience, gone over the whole account which the rebels chofe to give pofteriourly, of their feizing the letters on the 20th of June; and having demon ftratively proved it, I hope to be charged with abfurdities on every fide, and even to be contradicted by all the numerous documents of the time: I fhall proceed, as I propofed, with the regular hiftory of thefe important writings. I fhall therefore begin firft with the rife and origin of them. I have already difproved the rebel accounts of their rife, and I fhall now point out their real origin. In a work that intends to trace fteadily the course of the Nile, from its beginning to its end; the fountain of the whole must be an object of peculiar inveftigation. The fource of these letters, like that of the Nile, has long been hid in obfcurity: Caput inter nubila condit. Some inquirers have come near it, but none have decifively reached it. I have fhewn it not to be in the mountains of the moon, in which the rebels had placed it. I fhall now endeavour, like another BRUCE, to find out where it is, and to go di rectly to the well-fpring of the whole. This I hope to do with a fuccefs fo far fuperior to a Bruce's, that all fhall fee, and all fhall be fatisfied. And I fhall then fall down the current, following its bends and curves, and tracing its growing progrefs to its ample conclufion. We have already feen the rebels, whatever they latterly afferted, not Whitaker's Vindication of Queen Mary." 35 to be in poffeffion of any of Mary's villainy often attempts and betrays letters on June the 20th. Nor were its own purposes of impofition! In they on July the 24th, whatever confequence of both, the letters, they affirmed at the time. This thus faid to be in the poffeffion of the very manner in which they the rebels, were never fhewn to mention them fhews. They fpeak the English embaffadour, were ne"of her own hand-writing, which ver fhewn to their own council of "they have recovered." This is all lords on the 23d, and were never the account they give us concerning fhewn to a fingle perfon at the time. their poffeffion of the letters. They They were even not fo much as affert the fact; but they tell not dwelt upon in the council. They the circumstances. They fay not were even not fo much as mention when they "recovered" the letters. ed in the message from it to Mary. They fay not where they "recover. They were even not fo much as ed" them. They fay not of or from hinted at, by that Lord Lindsay whom they "recovered" them. A who came from the Queen to be ftery fo devoid of all the neceffary prefent at the council, and who adjuncts of time, place, and perfon, carried back the meffage to the could hardly obtain credit, even a Queen from it. That they were mong the pitiable inhabitants of St not fpoken of in the one, and not Luke's Hospital. But it appears the noticed in the other, is plain from more idiotish still, when we com- Throgmorton's account of both bepare it with the account of the dif- fore. That they were not even covery on June the 20th. This is remotely hinted at to Mary by Lord as particular as that is general. This Lindfay, amidst all his bluftering carries the air of a story calculated and brutish addreffes to her, is efor reception, while that prohibits qually plain from an account which its admiffion by its afpect at once. I fhall foon give from Mary herself. And every thinking mind, at the And the whole was left to be infifirst glance, must reject fuch a tale nuated privately, to be fuggefted from fuch men with the fcorn of covertly, to be spoken of with all indignation. The rebels alfo act in the vaguenefs of fomething merefuch a manner concerning the let ly contingent and ideal, and fo to ters, as fhews strongly their con- fkulk with the timidity of guilt at fcioufness of their own falfehoods. firft in holes and corners." They do not come forward with them in a bold exultation of fpirits, natural to fo fortunate an incident. They have no boldness. They have no exultation. So different are the cold mimickries of art, from the warm realities of nature! They fay barely, that they have "recovered" fome of her letters. They fay merely, that they fhall build up on them a charge of murder against her. And they fay only, that they intend to do this at fome future and indeterminate time, and in cafe the does not comply with fome requifition of theirs. Such is the creeping and sneaking pace, with which Here follows a fpecimen of the author's hard fayings against Mr Hume and Dr Robertfon, "The French letters, then, were only a tranflation from the Scots. This had been much difputed formerly. Mr Goodall was the firft who fufpected it. And the fufpicion appears at prefent, to have done high honour to his fagacity, It is now carried into certainty; it is now founded upon the basis of facts. But he faw it only from a view of the letters themfelves, by the light which they bore in their own bofom. Yet this is managed fo well, that he illuftrated his pofiE 2 tion tion very ftrongly by it. He gave raise fuppofition upon fuppofition, έσ and to pile affertion upon the head of affertion, "imponere Pelia Offam," in order to afcend thither. But let us purfue them into this their laft retreat; and we shall foon bring them back to earth again. indeed fuch convincing proofs of the point, that no man of candour in the bufinefs of thinking, no man of honour in the intellectual commerce of life, could poffibly deny the force of them. Yet Mr Hume and Dr Robertfon did. For the It is very obfervable, that Dr dignity of literature, and, what is Robertfon does not pofitively affert infinitely more in value, for the the existence of fuch an imaginary majefty of virtue itself, I am forry original. He only infinuates it; I am compelled to fay it. They de- and he calls upon Mr Goodall to dif nied it in reality, when they were prove it. This is the very policy obliged to acknowledge it in ap- of literature, the joint device of pearance. They owned the French prudence and of fear. But what is copy which we have at prefent, to Mr Goodall called upon to prove, be undoubtedly a tranflation from in order to difprove that? He is to the Scots. But then they begged fhew, that "the French letters, as leave to fuppofe, and they even 66 we now have them, are a true. prefumed to maintain, that the pre- copy of those that were produced fent copy was not the fame as was by Murray and his party at the exhibited at Westminster. "We "Scottish parliament, and at York "have not," fays Mr Hume," the " and Weltminster." This indeed originals of the letters, which would be labour for Hercules. " were in French; we have only This would be a task for Jupiter a Scots and Latin tranflation from himself. It would be to prove what "the original, and a French tranf- I have hiftorically difproved. lation profeffedly done from the would be to prove, in contradic"Latin." "We may obferye," tion to facts themselves; and I fays Dr Robertfon, that all this have already fhewn it would be author's," Mr Goodall's, " premifes this, by fhewing the copy pre66 may be granted, and yet his con- fented to the parliament, and pro"clufion will not follow, unless he duced at York, not to be French at likewife prove that the French all. So little had Dr Robertfon atletters, as we now have them, tended to the History of the letters! are a true copy of those which "were produced by Murray and his party in the Scottish parliament, and at York and Weftminfter. Our author might have "faved himself the labour of fo "many criticisms, to prove that the prefent French copy of the letters is a tranflation from the Latin. The French editor himself ac"knowledges it, and, fo far as I "know, no perfon ever denied it." This is furely the laft and defperate effort of baffled credulity. Having no longer any footing upon earth, they endeavour to fix themfelves in the clouds And they are ready to But both he and Mr Hume exprefsly acknowledge the prefent French to be a tranflation from the Scots, and, what is much more, a tranflation through the medium of the Latin. Mr Hume affumes it as a certain principle. Dr Robertfon adds, that he never knew any perfon to deny it. Yet who taught this principle to them both? Mr Goodall. Who proved the certainty, of it to them both? Mr Goodall. From the publication of the French letters, to the very day of Mr Goodall's writing concerning them, the published French had been taken by all to be the very original of the whole |