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

Laing, vol. ii. p. 298.

249

Ibid. p. 300.

250

Tytler, vol. i. p. 20.

251

It is unnecessary to enter into any discussion regarding the second Confession of Paris, which has been so satisfactorily proved to be spurious, by Tytler, Whittaker, and Chalmers, and on which Robertson acknowledges “no stress is to be laid,” on account of the “improbable circumstances” it contains. See Tytler, vol. i. p. 286. – Whittaker, vol. ii. p. 305. – Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 50. – Robertson, vol. iii. p. 20.

252

Robertson, vol. iii. p. 21.

253

Goodall, vol. ii. p. 371 and 375. – Robertson, vol. iii. p. 28.

254

The French edition of the Detection, p. 2. – Goodall, vol. i. p. 103.

255

Goodall, vol. ii. p. 235.

256

Laing, vol. i. p. 250.

257

See the Letter in Laing, vol. ii. p. 202; and an unsuccessful attempt to give a criminal interpretation to it, in vol. i. p. 311. It is quite unnecessary to allude here to several other flimsy forgeries which, at a later period, have been attempted to be palmed upon the world as genuine letters of Mary. In 1726, a book was published, entitled, “The genuine Letters of Mary Queen of Scots, to James Earl of Bothwell, found in his Secretary’s Closet after his Decease, and now in the Possession of a Gentleman at Oxford. Translated from the French by Edward Simmons, late of Christ-Church College, Oxford.” These had only to be read, to be seen to be fabrications. Yet so late as the year 1824, a compilation was published by Dr Hugh Campbell, containing, among other things, eleven letters, which the Doctor thought were original love-letters of the Queen to Bothwell, although, with a very trifling variation, they were the same as those published in 1726; only, not being described as translations, and being written in comparatively modern English, which Mary never could write, they bear still more evidently the stamp of forgery. This is put beyond a doubt, by a short Examination of them, published by Murray, London, 1825, and entitled, “A Detection of the Love-Letters, lately attributed, in Hugh Campbell’s Work, to Mary Queen of Scots; wherein his Plagiarisms are proved, and his fictions fixed.”

258

Whittaker, vol. ii. p. 79.

259

Goodall, vol. i. p. 79 – Laing, vol. i. p. 209.

260

Goodall, vol. ii. p. 342.

261

Jebb, vol. ii. 244.

262

Camden, p. 143. – Tytler, vol. i. p. 101.

263

Goodall, vol. ii. p. 31.

264

It is proper to state, that Robertson has considered this argument at some length; and though he has not overturned, he has certainly invalidated the strength of the evidence adduced by Goodall in support of it. – Goodall, vol. i. p. 118. – Whittaker, vol. i. p. 383. – Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 375. – Laing, vol. i. p. 315.

265

Whittaker, vol. i. p. 332.

266

Goodall, vol. ii. p. 64 & 67.

267

Whittaker, vol. i. p. 408.

268

Goodall, vol. ii. p. 51.

269

Regarding these sonnets, the curious reader may consult Whittaker, vol. iii. p. 55. – Stuart, vol. i. p. 395. – Jebb, vol. ii. p. 481 – and Laing, vol. i. p. 230. 347. 349. and 368. For remarks on the marriage-contracts, see Goodall, vol. ii. p. 54 & 56, and vol. i. p. 126. – Whittaker, vol. i, p. 392, and Stuart, vol, i. p. 397.

270

What a picture have we here, of the heroine of England! Wooing a faithful servant to commit a clandestine murder, which she herself durst not avow! The portrait of King John, in the same predicament, practising with Hubert to murder his nephew, then under his charge, shows how intimately the great Poet was acquainted with nature.

O my gentle Hubert,
We owe thee much! Within this wall of flesh,
There is a soul, counts thee her creditor,
And with advantage means to pay thy love,
And, my good friend, thy voluntary oath
Lives in this bosom dearly cherished.