FATHER KELLY'S LECTURE ON MARY STUART.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume IV, Issue 202, 16 February 1877, Page 15

FATHER KELLY'S LECTURE ON MARY STUART.

Amokg all the great names of romance or history there is, perhaps, none more deathless, or one around which more undying interest centres, than that of Mary Stuart, the last, the loveliest, and most illfated queen that ever reigned in Scotland. She, whose life promised bo fair at the dawn, and closed in such deep tragic gloom. As her beauty, her grace, and accomplishments were once the theme of every poet's song, bo, even at this distant day, does the story of her wrongs and her untimely death awaken the chord of chivalry in every generous heart. Dark shadows have always surrounded her name, and though these may never be entirely cleared away, yet much has been done to free her memory from the guilt of that worst crime imputed to her by many historians, that of having been an accomplice injthe murder of her second husband, Lord Henry Darnley. This was the point upon which the lecture of the Eev. Father Kelly, delivered in the Temperance Hall on Monday evening last, turned. Those who were present and heard the conclusive arguments of that learned gentleman, must have felt that if, three hundred years ago, Mary Stuart had had such an advocate to plead her cause, that deep, dark stain would never have rested upon her name. The rev. gentleman premised his lecture, by stating that he had no intention of appealing to the sympathies or feelings of his audience ; he would simply lay before them the result of careful historical investigation. It might be asked, knowing who and what he was, could he be supposed to take a fair and impartial view of any circumstance concerning the guilt or innocence of the Scottish queen. To that he would simply say that, were he not fully persuaded of her guiltlessness, her name or life would never have been chosen as the subject of a lecture by him. He then proceeded briefly to sketch the events which led Mary and Darnley to reside in the place near Edinburgh, known as Kirk o' Fields. These circumstances are so well known as to render recapitulation unnecessary. On the evening of the 9th February Mary was absent from the house in which her husband lay ill, in order to attend a ball in Edinburgh, given in honor of the marriage of one of the royal household, during which time the house in Kirk o' Fields was blown up by gunpowder, and the unfortunate Lord Darnley was killed. Bothwell was Buspected and brought to trial; but in consequence of no

one coming forward to give evidence against him, he was acquitted. The abduction of Mary by Bothwell shortly after, and her marriage with him, together with other circumstances, had bean adduced by historians as tending to establish a prima facie case of guilt against Mary. He denied that Mary's marriage with Bothwell was through her love for him but in compliance with the request of the Scottish lords, and not in accordance with her own inclination. Upon the day of her marriage with Bothwell, the French Ambassador, who, through Mary's relations with the French Court, entertained a warm interest in all her affairs, visited her, and found her iv tears, Now it was very unlikely that if Mary had plotted so long to bring about this marriage then when her schemes were about to be crowned with success she would betray such signs of unhappiness and distress. Ue then referred to the celebrated letter said to have been found in the silver casket, and said to hare been written by Mary to Both* well prior to Darnley's murder, and in which she minutely detailed every circumstauce of the plot. Upon that letter and the confession of Mary's page, French Paris, all real evidence of her guilt rested ; the rest was only suspicion and might easily be explained. He admitted that if that letter was written by her, and if the page's confession was true Mary's guilt was unquestionable; but it was impossible, he said, viewing the matter without prejudice, to arrive at the conclusion that she should have written a letter to Bothwell, fully revealing her crimes, and, in the unsettled state of the times, entrust it to the care of French Paris to be carried throughout the breadth of Scotland, when he might at any moment fall into the hands of the Scottish lords. It was quite unnecessary that she should do so, she could easily have made herself understood by Bothwell without going into details. Considering all the circumstances connected with this letter, they had a right to demand the clearest proofs before accepting it as genuine. It should be viewed with the greatest suspicion. The casket had fallen into the hands of Mary's enemies, and the letter came through the hands of one of the most unscrupulous, the Earl of Morton.. Again, as a most convincing proof that Bothwell had never received such a letter from Mary, Morton, in his dying confession, stated that he was cognisant before hand of the plot to murder Darnley, and would have taken part in it if Bothwell could have shown him any writing of Mary's, containing her acquiescence in the proposed assassination. Bothwell was most anxious that Morton should become a participator in the crime, yet he produced no such writing, and if he ever received that letter from Mary, it must at that time have been in his possession. This fact alone went far to prove that the letter was never written by her but was a fabrication and an after invention of her enemies. Neither was there any evidence to show that even if such a letter ever had been written by her that it came from the hands of Morton unaltered. This letter was one great point upon which Mary's guilt rested, the other was the confession of French Paris. He dwelt at great length upon the unreliability of the page's testimony, and showed it to be untrustworthy and deserving very little consideration. His evidence was not given voluntarily but under the influence of fear. Between his first and second statements there were great discrepancies ; in the first he implicated Bothwell alone, in the second both him and Mary. It was extremely improbable that Bothwell would entrust such a message to a page as to send him to Mary for the keys of her chamber for the express purpose of blowing up her husband. The confession of French Paris was signed by George Buchannan, one of the highest names in Scottish literature, who was a most bitter enemy of Mary's; yet in all hiß writings against her he never once mentioned the confession. Therefore it was clear that he attached no importance to it. He (the lecturer) felt disposed to regard the confession as an entire fabrication, and came to the conclusion that Buchanan never signed it. Having disposed of the casket letters, and the confession of French Paris, he next proceeded to answer questions of minor importance, which he did in the most satisfactory and conclusive manner. He concluded by saying that, though dear to him as were the name and fame of Mary Stuart, truth was dearer still, and it was only after the fullest historical research that he asked for a verdict of not guilty in regard to the Scottish queen. The subject was most fairly considered with Froude and Robertson as authorities on one side, and Hosack and Lingard on the other. At the conclusion of the lecture, -which was a brilliant specimen of argumentative oratory, the rev. gentleman -was loudly applauded. A vote of thanks was proposed to the lecturer by Mr. Scanlan, in a neat speech, expressive of his pleasure at what he had just heard, which vote was seconded by Mr. John Callan — a gentleman who is a member of the Victorian bar, and who is preparing himself for the exercise of his profession in New Zealand. He said: — Your Lordship, ladies and gentlemen, — Father Kelly has so delighted me with the lecture he has just finished, that I have great pleasure indeed in seconding the vote of thanks just proposed. The lecture has been, I may truly say, so fascinating that the time of its delivery has seemed to me— to use a common expression — " to pass away in no time," but though the time may have seemed short, the eloquence and erudition lavished upon ua by the rev. lecturer have been, by no means, small. After hearing Father Kelly I cannot help thinking that if it had been his fate to have lived some centuries ago— in the rude times when, in the absence of all settled law, it was the custom to redress the wrongs of injured ladies by the sword and spear, he would have been t£e most valiant and chivalrous of Knights errant. Certainly if the defenders of female honor did their work in those times as effectually with the sword as the rev. gentleman has defended the memory of Mary Stuart to-night with his brains then, all I can say is, they must have been stout warriors. To my mind, Father Kelly has most effectually " blown up " with his arguments, the idea that Mary Stuart ever '• blew up" with gunpowder her husband. It seems that none responded to Bothwell' b challenge of an appeal to the sword when charged with Darnley'B murder. I have Qg jd,c&

that if the rev. gentleman had been alive at the time, the challenge would not have gone unanswered. I second therefore the vote of thanks most heartily. Proceedings closed with a vote of thanks to the Most Eev. Chairman, proposed by Mr. John Carroll.