Life of Mary Queen of Scots, Volume 2 (of 2)

Eleventh, and Lastly.– A considerable number of Bothwell’s accomplices were tried, condemned and executed, for their share in the murder; and before their death, they all made Depositions and Confessions which still exist, and have been printed by Goodall, Anderson, Laing, and others. Among these are the Examinations, Depositions, and Confessions, of Powrie, Dalgleish, Hay, Hepburn and Paris; the evidence of Nelson, Darnley’s servant, and the Confessions of Ormiston, and the Earl of Morton. Here, then, is a tolerably voluminous collection of facts, supplied by those who were most intimate with Bothwell, and who, if he had any undue intimacy with the Queen, would in all probability have known something concerning it, and have had it in their power to throw some light upon the subject. These Documents, therefore, will be anxiously read by all who aim at discovering the real perpetrators and devisers of the murder. The result of their readings will be the discovery, that in every one of these documents, which is properly authenticated and ascertained to be genuine, Bothwell, and Bothwell alone, is mentioned as the executor of the deed; and there is not a syllable in any of them which can be construed to the disadvantage of the Queen. On the contrary, various particulars are mentioned, which have a direct tendency to disprove her connexion with him. Some of these have been already alluded to; but a few of the circumstances most decisive in the Queen’s favour may be recapitulated here. 1. Hepburn deponed, that as it took longer time to get the powder into the lower part of Darnley’s house than was expected, Bothwell became impatient, and told them to make haste, for they would not find so much commodity if the Queen came out.245 2. Hepburn and Paris deponed, that Bothwell got false keys made for opening all the doors of the house in which Darnley lodged, for which he would have had no occasion, if the Queen had been in the plot with him.246 3. Ormiston being asked if ever the Queen spoke to him at any time concerning the murder, or if he knew what was her mind unto it, replied – “As I shall answer to God, she spoke never to me, nor I to her, of it, nor I know nothing of her part, but as my Lord Bothwell told me.” As if alluding to some bribe which had been offered him, if he would accuse the Queen, he added, – “I will not speak but the truth for all the gold of the earth, which I desire you, good minister, bear record of, and as you have written, I pray you read over to me; let me also see it.”247 4. Paris can have had no suspicion that the Queen countenanced the proposed murder; for, in the conversation he had with Bothwell, when the Earl first disclosed his intention to him, he beseeched him to desist from his enterprise, telling him that he was “already the most powerful nobleman in the country, and that, having lately married, he ought now or never to be anxious to keep himself out of trouble.”248 5. Paris further deponed, that Bothwell asked him to procure the key of the Queen’s chamber, at the Kirk-of-Field, telling him that he had got him transferred to the Queen’s service, solely in the hope of finding him useful on this occasion. Had Mary herself known of the plot, Bothwell need not have run the risk of disclosing it to Paris.249 6. Though Dalgleish was minutely examined regarding all the circumstances of the murder, not one question was put to him upon the subject of the box and letters which were of so much importance; nor was it ever mentioned till after his death, that the casket had been in his custody. On the 20th of June 1567, Dalgleish is said to have been seized, and this is probably the fact; he was examined six days afterwards, before Morton and the other Lords of the Privy Council, and his examination has been preserved entire. “This remarkable particular,” says Tytler, “naturally occurs to be observed in it, that it was surely of great importance for Morton, who then had the box in his custody, to have confronted Dalgleish with the persons who apprehended him, and to have asked him some questions relating to this box; such as, Whether or not this box was in his custody when he was seized? – What orders he received from his master Bothwell concerning it? – Who delivered it to him? or where he found it? – Whether open, or locked? – If open, what it contained? and where he was to have carried it? Dalgleish, and the persons who seized him, in a matter so recent, only six days before, could have given distinct answers to those questions.”250 There can be little doubt, that as no such questions were put, no such transaction, as the seizure of a box and papers had taken place. Laing endeavours to account for this very suspicious circumstance in the following manner: “The depositions are strictly confined to the murder, as the design was to procure judicial evidence against Bothwell and his associates, not to implicate the Queen in his guilt.” But in the first place, these letters were themselves the very best “judicial evidence” they could have found; and in the second, questions might have been put concerning them, without, in the mean time making any disclosure of their contents. The total silence of the Privy Council, and of Dalgleish, is fatal to their supposed existence. 7. The Earl of Morton confessed, that though he told Bothwell he would give him more active assistance if he could show him any writing of the Queen, which proved that she sanctioned the murder; yet that Bothwell, after undertaking to procure such writing, was never able to fulfil his promise; and this was at a time posterior to the date of some of the love-letters, which Mary was afterwards alleged to have written to him. Thus, these Confessions, Depositions, and Examinations, though they were collected with the anxious wish of eliciting some circumstances which would seem to criminate Mary, must have been felt by the rebel Lords themselves, to be as much in her favour as it was possible for any negative evidence to be.251

Having thus stated the leading External Evidences against the genuineness of these Letters, it will be worth while to examine, for a moment, Robertson’s “external proofs” in support of them, – which, when contrasted with those stated above, will be found to be of little weight. The Historian argues for their authenticity, on the following grounds: —First, “Murray and the nobles who adhered to him, affirmed, upon their word and honour, that the letters were written with the Queen’s own hand, with which they were well acquainted.” This is a very powerful argument to begin with, as if men who forged letters for a particular purpose, would themselves confess that they were forged. Second, “The Letters were publicly produced in the Parliament of Scotland, December 1567, and were so far considered as genuine, that they are mentioned in the Act against Mary, as one chief argument of her guilt.” This is nothing but a repetition, in other words, of the former powerful argument; for the Parliament of December 1567 was the Parliament assembled by Murray, after he had been elected Regent, and he was able to secure the passing of any act he chose. Where Robertson learned, that at this Parliament “the letters were publicly produced,” does not appear, as his reference to Goodall (vol. ii. p. 66) by no means authorizes the assertion. Third, “The Letters seem to have been considered genuine by Elizabeth’s Commissioners, both at York and Westminster, as appears by letters which Norfolk, Sussex, and Sadler, wrote from York; and as, in the journal of the proceedings at Hampton Court, it is said that, when the letters supposed to be written by the Queen of Scots, ‘were duly conferred and compared for the manner of writing and fashion of orthography, with sundry other letters long since heretofore written, and sent by the said Queen of Scots to the Queen’s Majesty, in the collation no difference was found.’” It has been seen, however, that whatever Norfolk chose to write concerning those letters with the view of pleasing Elizabeth, and concealing from her his own engagements and designs, he was, in truth, so little influenced by them, that he avowed a passion for Mary, and risked his life and fortune in order to become her husband. It has been also seen, that the hasty collation, made by the nobles at Hampton Court, of these pretended letters, with others, “long since heretofore written” and furnished by Elizabeth herself, is, in truth, no collation at all, or one upon which no dependence be placed. Fourth, “The Earl of Lennox, both in public, and in a private letter he wrote to his own wife, so expressed himself, that it is plain he not only thought the Queen guilty, but believed the authenticity of her letters to Bothwell.” This matter has been already investigated. The Regent Lennox was obliged to maintain Mary’s guilt for his own sake; and it is scarcely to be supposed he would have been so imprudent as write to his wife, to inform her that the opinions he had so strenuously supported before the world were not those of his heart and conscience. Murray himself would as soon have acknowledged that the letters were fabricated as Lennox. But it is a strong fact, that, though she had every inducement to think as her husband did, Lady Lennox believed Mary innocent. These are all Robertson’s “external proofs of the genuineness of Mary’s letters.”252

The external evidence against these writings, is probably enough to convince every impartial reader that they are forgeries. But, as they exist in one shape or other, it may be as well to go a step further, and see whether their perusal will strengthen or weaken the belief of their fabrication. This brings us to the second division of the subject, which will not detain us so long as the first.

Internal Evidences. – Considering the weight which Mary’s enemies have attached to these letters, the first question the impartial inquirer would naturally ask is, whether properly authenticated copies of what Mary is alleged to have written can still be seen, – whether the ipsissima verba which she used have been preserved, – and whether an opportunity can thus be had of judging of the precise shade of meaning of particular passages, and of the general style and tenor of these strange compositions. In answer to these inquiries it has to be stated, that the letters, as taken out of the casket, were exhibited only to a few noblemen, who acted under Elizabeth; and that nothing but translations of them are now extant. The Latin edition of Buchanan’s “Detection,” published in 1571, contained only the three first letters translated into Latin; in the Scottish edition, all the eight letters were translated into Scotch.253 The originals were thus left at the mercy of translators; and, in particular, at the mercy of such a translator as Buchanan, who cannot be supposed to have had any great desire to be scrupulously accurate. In 1572, a French edition of the “Detection” was published at London, to which were subjoined seven French letters and the love-sonnets. For two hundred years, no one doubted but that these were Mary’s original letters, and they were always referred to as such in any controversies which took place on the subject. In 1754, however, Mr Walter Goodall, keeper of the Advocates’ Library at Edinburgh, published his “Examination of the Letters,” and showed, in the clearest manner, that these seven French letters were nothing but re-translations from the Latin and Scottish translations which had been previously published. This was certainly an important and interesting discovery, although it scarcely warranted the conclusion which Goodall thought he was entitled to draw from it, that no French copy of the letters had, in reality, ever existed until the Latin and Scottish editions were first fabricated. Robertson and others have maintained more justly, that, though they acknowledge Goodall to have proved that the existing French copies of the letters are only translations from translations, there is, nevertheless, no reason to believe that these are the French letters which were produced by Murray at York and Westminster, copies of which they grant have never been given to the world. That this is the true state of the case, appears by the French editor’s own admission in his Preface. “The letters subjoined to this work,” he says, “were written by the Queen, partly in French and partly in Scotch, and were afterwards translated altogether into Latin; but having no knowledge of the Scottish language, I have preferred translating accurately from the Latin copy, lest, by being over scrupulous about changing a single syllable, I might frustrate the reader in his desire to ascertain precisely to whom the fault of the execrable murder, and other enormities mentioned in them, ought to be ascribed.”254 Thus, both by the ignorance which this translator evinces, in alleging, contrary to the assertions which had been made by Murray, that the letters were originally written partly in French and partly in Scotch, and, by his own confession, that he preferred translating from the Latin wherever he could get it, rather than from the Scotch, it is perfectly evident that no such thing as the original French letters have ever appeared, and that the French letters which do exist, are not so much to be depended on as even the Scotch or Latin, which were probably translated directly from the epistles which Murray produced.

In what condition, then, do we find these wonderful letters about which so much has been written? We have three in Latin, eight in Scotch, and seven in French. The French are only re-translations from the Latin and Scottish; and they, in their turn, are translations from the invisible French originals. And under whose superintendence were these translations, into the Scottish and Latin, made? It must have been either under that of Murray, or of Elizabeth and Cecil. The former, after merely showing the letters at Westminster, took them back with him to Scotland; but intrusted the latter with copies.255 It is not very likely that the Scottish translation could be made in England; and the three that have been rendered into Latin, have been commonly attributed to George Buchanan. Laing, however, labours to show, that this is a mistake, and that the translation was made by a Dr Wilson, Elizabeth’s master of requests. Be this as it may, in what court of law or equity would such documents as these be admitted as evidence? The grossest errors have often been made by translators, even where they were anxious to be as faithful as possible. Yet we are now called upon to form an opinion of letters, which exist in languages different from that in which they were originally written, and which are either translations from translations, or translations executed by those who had every motive and desire to pervert the original, and make it appear much worse than it really was. What jury would for a moment look at such letters? What impartial judge would allow his mind to be biassed by them, altered and garbled as they must unquestionably be, even supposing that their originals once existed? It was to Buchanan’s Detection that these letters were always subjoined. At Westminster, Murray produced a Book of Articles, in five parts, containing certain presumptions, likelihoods and circumstances, whereby it should evidently appear, that as Bothwell was the chief murderer of the King, so was the Queen a deviser and maintainer thereof. “From the explanation given in Buchanan’s History,” says Laing, “the book of articles corresponds, and was undoubtedly the same with the Detection of the doings of Mary.”256 Buchanan, identifying as he did, his interests with those of Murray, was from the first one of the most active of the Queen’s prosecutors. The dependence to be placed upon his accuracy and honesty as a controversialist, has been already pretty clearly established; and the sort of translations he would make, of any of Mary’s writings, may be very easily conjectured.

Laing, however, claims the merit of a discovery, which, at first sight, appears somewhat remarkable. It is a copy of one of the eight Love-letters, in the original French, and found in the State-Paper Office in a book containing, “Letters upon Scottish Affairs to Queen Elizabeth.” Whether it be in the original French or not, it is certainly different from the French translation published with the French edition of the Detection in 1572, and has altogether a greater air of originality about it. But being confessedly only a copy, it is quite impossible to say whether it is Mary’s French, or that of some one who chose to write French in her name. It is, besides, remarkable, that, even though it could be proved to demonstration to be a copy of a genuine letter, it does not contain a single word which, in the slightest degree, implicates Mary. Introduced, it is true, as one of a series, all of which, it is maintained, were addressed to Bothwell, something suspicious might easily be made out of it. But, as it stands by itself, it must be taken by itself; and as it bears no address or date, it may just as well be supposed to have been written to Darnley, or even to a female friend. The subject spoken of, is the ungrateful conduct of one of Mary’s female attendants; and the advice of the person to whom it is written is asked, as to what is proper to be done in consequence. To this person, whoever it was, several natural terms of endearment are also applied, such as, “Mon cœur,” and, “Ma chere vie;” and these are all the grounds of suspicion which this “Copy from the State-Paper Office,” contains.257

Having thus shown the extreme uncertainty which must attend any argument against Mary, founded on any minute or literal examination of these Letters, a very few objections further may be stated to them, upon evidences which they themselves afford.

Although it is impossible to form any opinion of the words which Mary may have used in these letters, some conclusions may be drawn from the sentiments which the translators of course pretend not to have altered. These are, in many respects, directly contradictory of the character which history proves her to have possessed. Whatever follies Mary may have committed – whatever weaknesses she may have fallen into – it cannot be denied, even by her worst enemies, that she was a woman of a proud spirit, and too much accustomed to admiration and flattery, to consider her esteem a gift of little value. Yet, through all these writings, she is made to evince a degree of ardour and forwardness of affection for Bothwell, at once against every notion of female delicacy, and all probability. She is continually made to express fears that he does not return her love with an equal warmth, – that he loves his wife, the Lady Jane Gordon, better than he does her, – and that he is not so zealous in bringing about their mutual purposes as she could wish. If Bothwell had ever carried on these criminal intrigues with Mary, one of his first objects would have been to remove from her mind all suspicion that he was not in truth devotedly attached to her. Whether he was successful in deceiving her or not, is it likely that Mary Queen of Scots, whose hand had been sought by all the first Princes in Christendom, would have condescended to servility, meanness, and abject cringing in her advances to him? If the letters were forged, Murray would naturally wish to put in as strong a point of view as possible, Mary’s anxiety to urge Bothwell on to all the crimes which he perpetrated. But if letters had been really written by her, many compunctious visitings of conscience would surely be apparent in them, – many a fear would be expressed, – many a symptom would be discovered of the reluctance with which she yielded to the overwhelming strength of Bothwell’s passion and entreaties. Yet in these letters nothing of the kind is to be found. Passages occur continually, in which, far from there being any of the conscious confusion and hesitation which would necessarily have marked the style of one who was, for the first time, deviating so far from the paths of virtue, nothing is to be discovered but the hardened vice and shameless effrontery of a confirmed and masculine villain.

Another peculiarity is to be observed in the first and longest of these letters. In describing a conversation which she had with Darnley at Glasgow, Mary is made to give very minutely all his defence of his own conduct, in reply to some charges which she brought against him; and to make it evident that he was in the right, and that she herself, even when instigating Bothwell to his murder, must have felt him to be so. “This is another proof of forgery,” says Whittaker; “that the Queen should repeat all the King’s defences of himself, and should not repeat her replies to them, is contrary to every principle of the human heart. Our natural fondness for ourselves puts us constantly upon a conduct the very reverse of all this. We shorten the defences, we lengthen the replies; or, if we are fair enough to give the full substance of the former, we are always partial enough to do the same by the latter.”258 The forger, however, in his anxiety to throw as much odium as possible upon Mary, was willing to diminish some of even Bothwell’s responsibility, and disposed to vindicate Darnley entirely; but he took a clumsy method of effecting his purpose.

Notwithstanding these considerations, Robertson was of opinion, as usual, that the style and sentiments of these letters tended on the whole to prove that they were genuine. His principal reason for entertaining this belief is, that “there are only imperfect hints, obscure intimations, and dark expressions in the letters, which, however convincing evidence they might furnish if found in real letters, bear no resemblance to that glare and superfluity of evidence which forgeries commonly contain.” “Had Mary’s enemies been so base as to have recourse to forgery, is it not natural to think, that they would have produced something more explicit and decisive?” – “Mary’s letters, especially the first, are filled with a multiplicity of circumstances extremely natural in a real correspondence, but altogether foreign to the purpose of the Queen’s enemies, and which it would have been perfect folly to have inserted, if they had been altogether imaginary and without foundation.” There is some plausibility in this view of the subject; and Laing and others have dwelt upon it at great length, and with much confidence. But it is divested of all force as soon as we come to consider the manner in which these letters would be prepared, if they were in truth forgeries. The long time which elapsed after Mary’s imprisonment in Loch-Leven, before any allusion was made to them, and the still longer time they were allowed to lie dormant after their existence had been first asserted, has been already described. Upon the hypothesis that they were fabrications, it was during this period that Murray and his associates were engaged in preparing them; and they would probably reason on the following grounds, as to what ought to be the nature of their contents. The point they wished to establish was, “that as the Earl of Bothwell was chief executor of the horrible and unworthy murder; so was the Queen of the fore-knowledge, counsel, device, persuader and commander of the said murder to be done.” They knew that, in so far as appearances went, nothing made this latter part of the assertion in the least probable, except the circumstance of Mary having been married to Bothwell, which they themselves had declared was a forced marriage, and which Mary had proved to be so by taking the first opportunity which occurred to desert him. It had become necessary, however, even at the expense of their own consistency to accuse the Queen of having acted in concert with Bothwell throughout. No evidence whatever would establish this fact, (the more especially as all the confessions and depositions of Bothwell’s accomplices tended to exculpate her), except writings under her own hand acknowledging her guilt. In order to make it appear possible that Mary had committed an account of that guilt to paper, the idea of letters to a confidential friend naturally suggested itself; and to none could these letters with so much propriety be addressed as to Bothwell himself; because, having subsequently married him, it was to be shown that it was her inordinate affection for him that induced her to wish for the death of Darnley. The train being thus laid, the next question was, in what precise manner Mary was to be made to address Bothwell. The forgers would at once perceive, that it would not do to make her speak straight out, and in plain terms command the perpetration of the murder, and arrange all the preliminary steps for it. This would have been to represent Mary as at once a Messalina and a Medea, – which even Murray felt would have been going too far. The letters were to show her guilt, but to show it in such a manner as she herself might be naturally supposed to have exhibited it, had she actually written them; – and nothing therefore was to be introduced but those “imperfect hints, obscure intimations, and dark expressions,” which, without the “glare and superfluity” of common forgeries, furnished convincing evidence when found in letters alleged to be real. Murray, Morton, Maitland, and Buchanan, were no ordinary forgers; and if they were not able to conceive and express the whole so artfully, that it would cost some difficulty to detect them, then, forgery in every instance must be hopeless and manifest.