“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 Crawfurd’s manuscript, then living, and on the spot at the time; with the publick 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 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.”

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.”  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 presence of any person, or by any authority whatsoever; and, by comparing it with the judicial examinations of Dalgleish, Hay, and Hepburn, 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.