Johnson Papers Online
  • Search
  • Browse
  • My YDJ
    • Private Groups
  • Resources
    • User Guide
    • FAQ
    • Genres
    • Additional Resources
  • About
    • Overview & Editorial Board
    • Collections
    • Publishers
    • News & Updates
RegisterLog In
Multi Doc Viewing Close
CancelOk

Login Required

A personal account is required to access tags, annotations, bookmarks, and all of the other features associated with the My YDJ.

Username: (email address)
Password:
Forgot password?
Log In
  • Register for a personal YDJ account
  • Need help? Contact us
Not registered?
Register for your My YDJ account
Login
Cancel

Your subscription has expired.

Click here to renew your subscription

Once your subscription is renewed, you will receive a new activation code that must be entered before you can log in again

Close
Next Document > < Previous DocumentReturnReview of William Tytler, Historical and Critic...
You must login to do that
Cancel
You must login to do that
Cancel
You must login to do that
Cancel
You must login to do that
Cancel
Save to my libraryClose
Review of William Tytler, Historical and Critical Enquiry into the Evidence Produced … Against Mary Queen of Scots
-or-
Cancel Save
Print Close
(Max. 10 Pages at a time)


By checking this box, I agree to all terms and conditions governing print and/or download of material from this archive.
CancelPrint
Export Annotation Close
CancelExport
Annotation Close
Cancel
Export Citation Close
CancelExport
Citation Close
Cancel
Close
CancelOk
Report Close
Please provide the text of your complaint for the selected annotation


CancelReport
/ -1
Johnson Papers Online
Back to Search
Works of Samuel Johnson
Back to Search
Table of Contents
  • Audiet Pugnas vitio Parentum / Rara Juventus. Hor: Young men—the few who are left after the crimes of their fathers—will hear of battles. [School and College Latin Exercises]
  • Bonae leges ex malis moribus proveniunt: Good laws spring from bad habits [School and College Latin Exercises]
  • Malos tueri haud tutum: Save a thief from the gallows and he’ll cut your throat [School and College Latin Exercises]
  • Quis enim virtutem amplectitur ipsam Praemia si tollas?: For who embraces virtue herself, if you take away the reward? [School and College Latin Exercises]
  • Adjecere bonae paulo plus artis Athenae: Kind Athens Added a Little More Skill [School and College Latin Exercises]
  • Mea nec Falernae Temperant Vites, neque Formiani Pocula Colles: Neither Falernian vines nor Formian hills mellow my cups [School and College Latin Exercises]
  • Scheme for the Classes of a Grammar School
  • Advertisement for the School at Edial
  • Observations on Common Sense
  • Preface to the 1738 Volume of the Gentleman’s Magazine
  • Letter to the Gentleman's Magazine on Political Journalism
  • Appeal to the Publick
  • To the Reader. [Gentleman’s Magazine]
  • Considerations on the case of Dr T.—s Sermons abridg’d by Mr Cave
  • The Jests of Hierocles
  • Preface to the 1741 Volume of the Gentleman's Magazine
  • Review of An Account of the Conduct of the Dowager Duchess of Marlborough
  • Proposals for Printing, by Subscription, the Two First Volumes of Bibliotheca Harleiana
  • An Account of the Harleian Library
  • Notice in Volume Two of Catalogus Bibliothecae Harleianae
  • Proposals for Printing, by Subscription, the Harleian Miscellany with An Account of this Undertaking
  • Introduction to the Harleian Miscellany: An Essay on the Origin and Importance of Small Tracts and Fugitive Pieces
  • Preface to the 1742 Volume of the Gentleman’s Magazine
  • Dedication for Robert James's Medicinal Dictionary
  • Preface to the 1743 Volume of the Gentleman’s Magazine
  • PROPOSALS For Printing every Fortnight, (Price Sixpence) THE PUBLISHER: CONTAINING MISCELLANIES In PROSE and VERSE. Collected by J. CROKATT, Bookseller.
  • Proposals for Printing Anchitell Grey's Debates
  • Some Remarks on the Progress of Learning Since the Reformation
  • Proposals for Printing by Subscription Hugonis Grotii Adamus Exul
  • Postscript to Lauder’s Essay on Milton’s Use and Imitation of the Moderns
  • A Letter to the Reverend Mr. Douglas
  • Preface to The Preceptor
  • The signification of WORDS how varied
  • Letter Concerning the Benefit Performance of Comus for Milton's Granddaughter
  • Proposals for printing by subscription, Essays in Verse and Prose.
  • Notice of The life of Harriot Stuart
  • Dedication to The Female Quixote
  • Dedication to Memoirs of Maximilian de Bethune, Duke of Sully
  • Dedication to Philander
  • Dedication to The Greek Theatre of Father Brumoy
  • Dedication to Henrietta, 2nd Ed.
  • Proposals for Printing by Subscription The Original Works of Mrs. Charlotte Lennox
  • Letter to the Daily Advertiser concerning James Crokatt
  • Preface to A General Index of the First Twenty Volumes of the Gentleman's Magazine
  • Preface to the 1753 Volume of the Gentleman’s Magazine
  • An Account of an Attempt to Ascertain the Longitude by Sea, by an Exact Theory of the Variation of the Magnetical Needle
  • Dedication and Preface to An Introduction to the Game of Draughts (1756)
  • Dedication to An Introduction to Geometry (1767)
  • Preface to Richard Rolt, A New Dictionary of Trade and Commerce
  • Reflections on the Present State of Literature
  • TO THE PUBLIC
  • Review of John Armstrong, The History of the Island of Minorca (1756)
  • Review of Stephen White, Collateral Bee-Boxes (1756)
  • Review of Thomas Birch, The History of the Royal Society, vols. 1–2 (1756)
  • Review of Arthur Murphy, The Gray’s-Inn Journal, 2 vols. (1756)
  • Review of Joseph Warton, An Essay on the Writings and Genius of Pope (1756)
  • Review of James Hampton, The General History of Polybius (1756)
  • Review of Thomas Blackwell, Memoirs of the Court of Augustus (1753–56)
  • Review of Alexander Russell, The Natural History of Aleppo (1756)
  • Review of Four Letters from Newton to Bentley (1756)
  • Review of William Borlase, Observations on the Islands of Scilly (1756)
  • Review of Archibald Bower, Affidavit (1756); John Douglas, Six Letters and Review of Mr. Bower’s Answer (1757); and John Douglas, Bower and Tillemont Compared (1757)
  • Review of Francis Home, Experiments on Bleaching (1756)
  • Review of Stephen Hales, An Account of a Useful Discovery (1756)
  • Review of Charles Lucas, An Essay on Waters (1756)
  • Review of Robert Keith, A Large New Catalogue of the Bishops (1756)
  • Review of Patrick Browne, The Civil and Natural History of Jamaica (1756)
  • Review of Charles Parkin, An Impartial Account of the Invasion under William Duke of Normandy (1756)
  • Review of A Scheme for Preventing a Further Increase of the National Debt (1756)
  • Review of Conferences and Treaties (1756)
  • Review of Philosophical Transactions (1756)
  • Review of Richard Lovett, The Subtil Medium Prov’d (1756)
  • Review of Benjamin Hoadley and Benjamin Wilson, Observations on a Series of Electrical Experiments (1756)
  • Review of Johann Georg Keyssler, Travels (1756)
  • Review of Elizabeth Harrison, Miscellanies (1756)
  • Review of Jonas Hanway, A Journal of Eight Days Journey (1757)
  • Review of Jonas Hanway, A Journal of Eight Days Journey, Second Edition (1757)
  • Reply to a Letter from Jonas Hanway in the Gazetteer (1757)
  • Review of Samuel Bever, The Cadet (1756)
  • Review of the Test and Con-Test (1756)
  • Review of William Whitehead, Elegies (1757)
  • Review of A Letter to a Gentleman in the Country on the Death of Admiral Byng (1757)
  • Preliminary Discourse in the London Chronicle
  • Advertisement for Francis Barber in the Daily Advertiser
  • "Dedication to John Lindsay, Evangelical History of Our Lord Jesus Christ Harmonized
  • Introduction to the Universal Chronicle (1758)
  • Of the Duty of a Journalist (1758)
  • Advertisement Against Unauthorized Reprints of the Idler (1759)
  • Advertisement for the Public Ledger in the Universal Chronicle (1760)
  • To The Public in the Public Ledger (1760)
  • The Weekly Correspondent Number I [Public Ledger]
  • The Weekly Correspondent Number II [Public Ledger]
  • The Weekly Correspondent Number III [Public Ledger]
  • Preface to J. Elmer, Tables of Weights and Prices
  • From The Italian Library Containing an Account of the Lives and Works of the most valuable authors of Italy (1757)
  • Proposals for Printing by Subscription, Le Poesie di Giuseppe Baretti (1758)
  • Dedication to A Dictionary of the English and Italian Languages (1760)
  • Preface to Easy Phraseology, for the Use of Young Ladies Who Intend to Learn the Colloquial Part of the Italian Language (1775)
  • Advertisement [For The World Displayed]
  • Introduction (1759) [From The World Displayed]
  • Advertisement for Pilgrim's Progress
  • Letter I. [Daily Gazetteer]
  • Letter II. [Daily Gazetteer]
  • Letter III. [Daily Gazetteer]
  • Letter to the Society of Arts (26 February 1760)
  • Letter to the Society of Arts (8 December 1760)
  • Address of the Painter’s, Sculptors, &Architects to George III (1761)
  • Preface to A Catalogue of the Pictures, Sculptures, Models, Drawings, Prints, &c Exhibited by the Society of Artists of Great-Britain at the Great Room in Spring Gardens Charing Cross May the 17th Anno 1762 Being the Third year of their Exhibition (1762)
  • Review of William Tytler, Historical and Critical Enquiry into the Evidence Produced … Against Mary Queen of Scots
  • Contributions to John Kennedy, A Complete System of Astronomical Chronology, Unfolding the Scriptures
  • Proposals and Advertisement [for Anna Williams, Miscellanies in Prose and Verse] (1762)
  • Advertisement [for Anna Williams, Miscellanies in Prose and Verse] (1766)
  • Dedication to Jerusalem Delivered (1763)
  • Dedication to The Works of Metastasio (1767)
  • Dedication to Cyrus: A Tragedy (1768)
  • Review of Oliver Goldsmith, The Traveller
  • Dedication for Thomas Percy, Reliques of Ancient English Poetry
  • 23 Sept. 1765 [Political Writing for Henry Thrale]
  • 1–4 Oct. 1765. [Political Writing for Henry Thrale]
  • 20 Nov. 1765. [Political Writing for Henry Thrale]
  • 19 Dec. 1765. [Political Writing for Henry Thrale]
  • 24 December 1765 [Political Writing for Henry Thrale]
  • 3 March 1768 [Political Writing for Henry Thrale]
  • 8 March 1768 [Political Writing for Henry Thrale]
  • 14 March 1768 [Political Writing for Henry Thrale]
  • 23 March 1768 [Political Writing for Henry Thrale]
  • 23 March 1768 [Political Writing for Henry Thrale]
  • 13 March 1769 [Political Writing for Henry Thrale]
  • 1 October 1774 [Political Writing for Henry Thrale]
  • 4 October 1774 [Political Writing for Henry Thrale]
  • 13 October 1774 [Political Writing for Henry Thrale]
  • 4 September 1780 [Political Writing for Henry Thrale]
  • 4 September 1780 [Political Writing for Henry Thrale]
  • 5 Sept. 1780 [Political Writing for Henry Thrale]
  • Dedication for George Adams, A Treatise Describing and Explaining the Construction and Use of New Celestial and Terrestrial Globes
  • Dedication to John Gwynn, London and Westminster Improved
  • Preface to Alexander MacBean, A Dictionary of Ancient Geography
  • Meditation on a Pudding
  • Hereford Infirmary Appeal
  • Dedication for A General History of Music (1776)
  • From A General History of Music, Vol. II (1782)
  • Dedication to An Account of the Musical Performance . . . in Commemoration of Handel (1785)
  • Advertisement for the Spectator
  • Dedication to Zachary Pearce, A Commentary, with Notes, on the Four Evangelists and the Acts of the Apostles
  • Letter of 16 May 1777
  • The Petition of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London, in Common Council Assembled, Friday 6 June 1777
  • Letter to Lord Bathurst, the Lord Chancellor, 8 June 1777
  • Letter to William Murray, First Earl of Mansfield, Lord Chief Justice, Wednesday, 11 June 1777
  • Petition of Mrs. Mary Dodd to the Queen
  • Dodd’s Letter to the King, Sunday, 22 June 1777
  • Petition of William Dodd to the King, Monday, 23 June 1777
  • Dodd’s Last Solemn Declaration, Wednesday, 25 June 1777
  • Johnson’s Observations on the Propriety of Pardoning William Dodd, Wednesday, 25 June 1777
  • Introduction and Conclusion to Occasional Papers (1777)
  • Proposal for Printing William Shaw, An Analysis of the Scotch Celtic Language
  • Dedication to Sir Joshua Reynolds, Seven Discourses
  • Preface to Thomas Maurice, Oedipus Tyrannus
  • The Case of Collier v. Flint
  • Translation of Sallust, De Bello Catilinario
  • General Rules of the Essex Head Club
  • On the Character and Duty of an Academick
< Previous document Next document >
© 2023
Review of William Tytler, Historical and Critical Enquiry into the Evidence Produced … Against Mary Queen of Scots
    • Export Citation
    • Export Annotation

By Johnson, Samuel

Samuel Johnson: Johnson on Demand

Image view
  • Print
  • Save
  • Share
  • Cite
Translation
Translation
/ 11
  • Print
  • Save
  • Share
  • Cite
REVIEW OF WILLIAM TYTLER, HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL ENQUIRY INTO THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED . . . AGAINST MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS (1760)
[Editorial Introduction]
In his edition of Roger Ascham’s English Works (1761), Johnson indicated in one note that he thought Mary Stewart unfairly treated and Elizabeth’s orders to execute her reprehensible (see Yale, XIX.466). He expressed a similar opinion to Boswell when they were in Scotland (Life, V.40), but the thrust of his review, as Donald Greene has explained, is to insist on the rational examination of history, as of every other human thing, and to resist following the crowd or speaking cant.1 The review is also another chapter in Johnson’s dealings with forgery. The so-called casket letters that incriminated Mary in her trial for the murder of her husband Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley, were forgeries and lies, like William Lauder’s (see p. 139 above), and Bower’s (above, p. 320). The review appeared in the Gentleman’s Magazine for October 1760 (XXX.453–56).
Account of a book, entitled, An Historical and Critical Enquiry into the Evidence Produced by the Earls of Moray and Morton, Against Mary Queen of Scots. With an examination of the Rev. Dr. Robertson’s dissertation, and Mr. Hume’s history, with respect to that evidence.
We live in an age in which there is much talk of independance, of private judgment, of liberty of thought, and liberty of press. Our clamorous praises of liberty sufficiently prove that we enjoy it; and if by liberty nothing else be meant, than security from the persecutions of power, it is so fully possessed by us that little more is to be desired, except that one should talk of it less, and use it better.
But a social being can scarcely rise to complete independance;


Page 474

he that has any wants, which others can supply, must study the gratification of them whose assistance he expects; this is equally true, whether his wants be wants of nature or of vanity. The writers of the present time are not always candidates for preferment, nor often the hirelings of a patron. They profess to serve no interest, and speak with loud contempt of sycophants and slaves.
There is, however, a power from whose influence neither they nor their predecessors have ever been free. Those who have set greatness at defiance have yet been the slaves of fashion. When an opinion has once become popular, very few are willing to oppose it. Idleness is more willing to credit than enquire; cowardice is afraid of controversy, and vanity of answer; and he that writes merely for sale is tempted to court purchasers by flattering the prejudices of the publick.
It has now been fashionable for near half a century to defame and vilify the house of Stuart, and to exalt and magnify the reign of Elizabeth.1 The Stuarts have found few apologists, for the dead cannot pay for praise; and who will, without reward, oppose the tide of popularity? Yet there remains still among us, not wholly extinguished, a zeal for truth, a desire of establishing right, in opposition to fashion. The author, whose work is now before us, has attempted a vindication of Mary of Scotland, whose name has for some years been generally resigned to infamy, and who has been considered as the murderer of her husband, and condemned by her own letters.
Of these letters, the author of this vindication confesses the importance to be such, that “if they be genuine the Queen was guilty, and if they be spurious she was innocent.”2 He has therefore undertaken to prove them spurious, and divided his treatise into six parts.


Page 475

In the first is contained the history of the letters from their discovery by the earl of Morton,3 their being produced against Q. Mary, and their several appearances in England before Q. Elizabeth and her commissioners, untill they were finally delivered back again to the earl of Morton.4
The second contains a short abstract of Mr. Goodall’s arguments for proving the letters to be spurious and forged;5 and of Dr. Robertson and Mr. Hume’s objections by way of answer to Mr. Goodall,6 with critical observations on these authors.
The third contains an examination of the arguments of Dr. Robertson and Mr. Hume, in support of the authenticity of the letters.
The fourth contains an examination of the confession of Nicholas Hubert, commonly called French Paris, with observations shewing the same to be a forgery.7
The fifth contains a short recapitulation or summary of the arguments on both sides of the question. And,
The last is an historical collection of the direct or positive evidence still on record, tending to show what part the earls of Murray,8 and Morton, and secretary Lethington9 had in the murder of the lord Darnley.
The author apologises for the length of this book, by observing, that it necessarily comprises a great number of particulars, which could not easily be contracted:1 the same plea may be made for the imperfection of our extract, which will


Page 476

naturally fall below the force of the book, because we can only select parts of that evidence, which owes its strength to its concatenation, and which will be weakened whenever it is disjoined.
The account of the seizure of these controverted letters is thus given by the queen’s enemies.
That in the castell of Edinburgh thair was left be the Erle of Bothwell, before his fleeing away, and was send for be ane George Dalgleish, his servand, who was taken be the Erle of Mortoun, ane small gylt coffer, not fully ane fute lang, garnisht in sindrie places, with the Roman letter F. under ane king’s crowne; wharin were certane letteris and writings weel knawin, and be aithis to be affirmit to have been written with the Queene of Scottis awn hand to the Erle.2
The papers in the box were said to be eight letters in French, some love sonnets in French also, and a promise of marriage by the Queen to Bothwell.
To the reality of these letters our author makes some considerable objections, from the nature of things, but as such arguments do not always convince we will pass to the evidence of the facts.
On June 15, 1567, the queen delivered herself to Morton, and his party, who imprisoned her.3
June 20, 1567, Dalgleish was seized, and six days after was examined by Morton; his examination is still extant, and there is no mention of this fatal box.4
Dec. 4, 1567, Murray’s secret council published an act, in which is the first mention of these letters, & in which they are said to be “written and subscrivit with her awin hand.”5 Ten days after Murray’s first parliament met, and passed an act, in which they mention “previe letters written halelie [wholly] with her awin hand.”6 The difference between “written and


Page 477

subscribed,” and “wholly written,” gives the author just reason to suspect, first, a forgery, and then a variation of the forgery. It is indeed very remarkable, that the first account asserts more than the second, though the second contains all the truth, for the letters, whether written by the queen or not, were not subscribed. Had the second account differed from the first only by something added, the first might have contained truth, though not all the truth, but as the second corrects the first by diminution, the first cannot be cleared from falshood.7
In October 1568, these letters were shewn at York to Elizabeth’s commissioners, by the agents of Murray, but not in their publick character as commissioners, but by way of private information, and were not therefore exposed to Mary’s commissioners. Mary, however, hearing that some letters were intended to be produced against her, directed her commissioners to require them for her inspection, and, in the mean time, to declare them “false and feigned, forged and invented,”8 observing that there were many that could counterfeit her hand.
To counterfeit a name is easy, to counterfeit a hand through eight letters very difficult. But it does not appear that the letters were ever shewn to those who would desire to detect them, and to the English commissioners a rude and remote imitation might be sufficient, since they were not shewn as judicial proofs; and why they were not shewn as proofs no other reason can be given than they must have then been examined and that examination would have detected the forgery.
These letters, thus timorously and suspiciously communicated, were all the evidence against Mary; for the servants of Bothwell,9 executed for the murder of the king, acquitted the Queen at the hour of death. These letters were so necessary


Page 478

to Murray, that he alledges them as the reason of the queen’s imprisonment, tho’ he imprisoned her on the 16th,1 and pretended not to have intercepted the letters before the 20th of June.
Of these letters, on which the fate of princes and kingdoms was suspended, the authority should have been put out of doubt, yet that such letters were ever found, there is no witness but Morton, who accused the queen, and Crawfurd,2 a dependant on Lennox,3 another of her accusers. Dalgleigh, the bearer, was hanged without any interrogatories concerning them, & Hulet,4 mentioned in them, tho’ then in prison, was never called to authenticate them, nor was his confession produced against Mary till death had left him no power to disown it.
Elizabeth, indeed, was easily satisfied, she declared herself ready to receive the proofs against Mary, and absolutely refused Mary the liberty of confronting her accusers, and making her defence. Before such a judge a very little proof would be sufficient. She gave the accusers of Mary leave to go to Scotland, and the box and letters were seen no more. They have been since lost, and the discovery, which comparison of writing might have made, is now no longer possible. Hume has, however, endeavoured to palliate the conduct of Elizabeth, but “his account,” says our author, “is contradicted almost in every sentence by the records, which, it appears, he has himself perused.”5
In the next part, the authenticity of the letters is examined, and it seems to be proved beyond contradiction, that the French letters, supposed to have been written by Mary, are translated from the Scotch copy, and, if originals, which it was so much the interest of such numbers to preserve, are


Page 479

wanting, it is much more likely that they never existed, than that they have been lost.
The arguments, used by Dr. Robertson, to prove the genuineness of the letters are next examined. Robertson makes use principally of what he calls the “internal evidence,” which, amounting at most to conjecture, is opposed by conjecture equally probable.
In examining the confession of Nicholas Hubert, or French Paris, this new apologist of Mary seems to gain ground upon her accuser. Paris is mentioned in the letters, as the bearer of them to Bothwell; when the rest of Bothwell’s servants were executed, clearing the queen in the last moment, Paris, instead of suffering his trial with the rest at Edinburgh, was conveyed to St. Andrews, where Murray was absolute, put into a dungeon of Murray’s citadel, and two years after condemned by Murray himself nobody knew how. Several months after his death, a confession in his name, without the regular testifications,6 was sent to Cecil, at what exact time nobody can tell.7
Of this confession, Lesly, bishop of Ross, openly denied the genuineness, in a book printed at London, and suppressed by Elizabeth;8 and another historian of that time declares that Paris died without any confession; and the confession itself was never shewn to Mary, or to Mary’s commissioners. The author makes this reflection:
From the violent presumptions that arise from their carrying this poor ignorant stranger from Edinburgh, the ordinary seat of justice; their keeping him hid from all the world, in a remote dungeon, and not producing him with their other evidences, so as he might have been publickly questioned; the positive and direct testimony of the author of Crawford’s manuscript, then living, and on the spot


Page 480

at the time; with the public affirmation of the bishop of Ross at the time of Paris’s death, that he had vindicated the queen with his dying breath; the behaviour of Murray, Morton, Buchanan, and even of Hay, the attester of this pretended confession, on that occasion; their close and reserved silence at the time when they must have had this confession of Paris in their pocket; and their publishing of every other circumstance that could tend to blacken the queen, and yet omitting this confession, the only direct evidence of her supposed guilt; all this duly and dispassionately considered, I think, one may safely conclude, that it was judged not fit to expose so soon to light this piece of evidence against the queen; which a cloud of witnesses, living, and present at Paris’s execution, would surely have given clear testimony against, as a notorious imposture.9
Mr. Hume, indeed, observes, “It is in vain at present to seek for improbabilities in Nicholas Hubert’s dying confession, and to magnify the smallest difficulties into a contradiction. It was certainly a regular judicial paper, given in regularly and judicially, and ought to have been canvassed at the time, if the persons, whom it concerned, had been assured of their innocence.”1—To which our author makes a reply, which cannot be shortened without weakening it:
Upon what does this author ground his sentence? Upon two very plain reasons, first, that the confession was a judicial one, that is, taken in presence, or by authority of a judge. And secondly, 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 presence of Mary’s commissioners; at which time she ought to have canvassed it, says our author, if she knew her innocence. That it was not a judicial confession, is evident: The paper itself does not bear any such mark; nor does it mention that it was taken in the presence of any person, or by any authority whatsoever; and, by comparing it with the


Page 481

judicial examinations of Dalgleish, Hay, and Hepburn, in page 146, it is apparent, that it is destitute of every formality requisite 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 second assertion, that it was regularly and judicially given in, and therefore ought to have been canvassed by Mary during the conferences. We have already seen that this likewise is not fact: the conferences broke up in February 1569: Nicholas Hubert was not hanged till August thereafter, and his dying confession, as Mr. Hume calls it, is only dated the 10th of that month. How then can this gentleman gravely tell us that this confession was judicially given in, and ought to have been at that very time canvassed by queen Mary and her commissioners? Such positive assertions, apparently contrary to fact, are unworthy the character of an historian, and may very justly render his decision, with respect to evidences of a higher nature, very dubious. In answer then to Mr. Hume: As the queen’s accusers did not chuse to produce this material witness, Paris, whom they had alive, and in their hands, nor any declaration or confession from him at the critical and proper time for having it canvassed by the queen, I apprehend our author’s conclusion may fairly be used against himself; that it is in vain at present to support the improbabilities and absurdities in a confession, taken in a clandestine way, no body knows how; and produced after Paris’s death, by no body knows whom; and from every appearance destitute of every formality requisite and common to such sort of evidence: For these reasons, I am under no sort of hesitation to give sentence against Nicholas Hubert’s confession, as a gross imposture and forgery.2
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 still extant, and he


Page 482

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 commissioners, and were never collated by one man, who could desire to disprove them.
Several of the incidents mentioned in the letters are confirmed by the oath of Crawfurd, one of Lennox’s defendants, and some of the incidents are so minute as that they could scarcely be thought on by a forger. Crawfurd’s testimony is not without suspicion. Whoever practices forgery endeavours to make truth the vehicle of falshood. Of a prince’s life very minute incidents are known, and if any are too slight to be remarked, they may be safely feigned, for they are likewise too slight to be contradicted. But there are still more reasons for doubting the genuinness of these letters. They had no date of time or place, no seal, no direction, no superscription.3
The only evidences that could prove their authenticity were Dalgleish, and Paris, of which Dalgleish, at his tryal, was never questioned about them, Paris was never publicly tried, tho’ he was kept alive thro’ the time of the conference.
The servants of Bothwell, who were put to death for the king’s murder, cleared Mary with their last words.
The letters were first declared to be subscribed, and were then produced without subscription.
They were shewn during the conferences at York privately to the English commissioners, but were concealed from the commissioners of Mary.
Mary always sollicited the perusal of these letters, and was always denied it.
She demanded to be heard in person by Elizabeth, before the nobles of England, and the ambassadors of other princes, and was refused.
When Mary persisted in demanding copies of the letters,


Page 483

her commissioners were dismissed with their box to Scotland, and the letters were seen no more.
The French letters, which for almost two centuries have been considered as originals, by the enemies of Mary’s memory, are now discovered to be forgeries, and acknowledged to be translations, and perhaps French translations of a Latin translation. And the modern accusers of Mary are forced to infer from these letters, which now exist, that other letters existed formerly, which have been lost in spite of curiosity, malice, and interest.
The rest of this treatise is employed in an endeavour to prove that Mary’s accusers were the murderersa of Darnley; thro’ this enquiry it is not necessary to follow him, only let it be observed, that, if these letters were forged by them, they may easily be thought capable of other crimes. That the letters were forged is now made so probable, that perhaps they will never more be cited as testimonies.


Page 484

Editorial Notes
1 The Politics of Samuel Johnson (1960), pp. 181–83.
1 SJ himself contributed to exalting the reign of Elizabeth in his lives of Drake and Ascham, for example (see Yale, XIX.83–169; 427–46), and in his introduction to the Harleian Miscellany (p. 97 above).
2 This is a paraphrase of Tytler’s statements in his preface (Historical and Critical, p. ii). Tytler (1711–92) was a lawyer and historian who lived in or near Edinburgh.
3 William Douglas, sixth Earl of Morton (c. 1540–1606).
4 In this and the next five paragraphs SJ closely follows Tytler, Historical and Critical, pp. iv–vi.
5 Walter Goodall, An Examination of the Letters, Said to be Written by Mary Queen of Scots, to James Earl of Bothwell: Shewing by Intrinsick and Extrinsick Evidence, That They Are Forgeries, 2 vols. (1754).
6 See William Robertson, “A Critical Dissertation concerning the Murder of King Henry, and the Genuineness of the Queen’s Letters to Bothwell,” in The History of Scotland during the Reigns of Queen Mary and of King James VI, 2 vols. (1761), separately paginated, II.1–47 [488–535], and David Hume, The History of England, under the House of Tudor, 2 vols. (1759), II.497–500.
7 Hubert was the purported deliverer of the letters.
8 James Stewart, first Earl of Moray (1531/2–70).
9 William Maitland of Lethington (1525x30–73), secretary to Mary.
1 Tytler, Historical and Critical, p. vii, though he is less analytical than SJ on this point.
2 Tytler, Historical and Critical, pp. 2–3.
3 Tytler, Historical and Critical, pp. 4–5.
4 Tytler, Historical and Critical, pp. 5–6.
5 Tytler, Historical and Critical, p. 6. Subscrivit means subscribed (i.e., signed).
6 Tytler, Historical and Critical, p. 7, which includes the parenthetical gloss on “halelie” copied by SJ.
7 The reasoning here is SJ’s and constitutes a refutation of Hume on the subject, different from Tytler’s (Historical and Critical, pp. 7–9).
8 Tytler, Historical and Critical, p. 14, quoting Mary: “false and feinzeit, forgit and inventit.”
9 James Hepburn, fourth Earl of Bothwell (1534/5–78), third consort of Mary.
1 Apparently a mistake for 15th; see above, p. 476 and n. 3.
2 David Lindsay, eleventh Earl of Crawford (d. 1607).
3 Esmé Stewart, first Duke of Lennox (c. 1542–83).
4 A mistake for Hubert, a servant of the Earl of Bothwell, mentioned below.
5 Tytler, Historical and Critical, p. 47.
6 Testification: “The act of witnessing” (Dictionary).
7 William Cecil, first Baron Burghley (1520/21–98); see Tytler, Historical and Critical, p. 53.
8 John Lesley (1527–96), A Defence of the Honour of the Right Highe, Mightye and Nobele Princesse Marie Quene of Scotlande (1599), printed in Paris and Rheims.
9 Tytler, Historical and Critical, pp. 137–38.
1 Tytler, Historical and Critical, p. 24.
2 The quotation of Tytler (Historical and Critical, pp. 147–51) ends here.
3 Superscription: name of an addressee.
a murderers emend] murderer’s
Transcription
/ 0
  • Print
  • Save
  • Share
  • Cite
           
Document Details
Document TitleReview of William Tytler, Historical and Critical Enquiry into the Evidence Produced … Against Mary Queen of Scots
AuthorJohnson, Samuel
Creation Date1760
Publ. DateN/A
Alt. TitleN/A
Contrib. AuthorN/A
ClassificationSubject: Mary Queen of Scots; Subject: History; Subject: Evidence; Subject: Forgery; Genre: Book Review
PrinterN/A
PublisherN/A
Publ. PlaceLondon
VolumeSamuel Johnson: Johnson on Demand
Tags
Annotations
Bookmarks
REVIEW OF WILLIAM TYTL...
Copy this link: Hide
[Editorial Introduction]
Copy this link: Hide
Account of a book, ent...
Copy this link: Hide
Editorial Notes
Copy this link: Hide

  • Yale
  • Terms & Conditions
    |
  • Privacy Policy & Data Protection
    |
  • Contact
    |
  • Accesssibility
    |
  • (C) 2014 Yale University