It is much to be regretted that a writer so sensible and elegant, and a man so celebrated and amiable, as the late Dr. Robertson, should, in his History of Scotland, have given currency

passed an Act of attainder against the captive queen. But what was this to the Act of Parliament, which owing to the same intrigues, was made to entrap that imprisoned princess? On this Act she was tried for her life, owing to the machinations of Elizabeth's ministers; and, after defending herself against so many statesmen and lawyers, with self-possession, knowledge, and vigour, was she condemned to die. It was the vice and villany of Elizabeth which dictated the guilty letter of Walsingham and Davidson; and Paulet and Drury intimating Elizabeth's wish that some way might be found by them to shorten the life of this. queen. Beyond this, the wickedness of Elizabeth. could not easily go: but Elizabeth, and her ministers, did go one step further. At the beginning of February 1586-7, they spread reports that the Papists had fired London, and that the Queen of Scots had escaped. They even carried their artifices so far, as to send out precepts of hue and cry for retaking the Scottish Queen. Of this singular fact there can be no doubt. But, it may well be asked, on what foundation were these falsehoods raised? The only answer can. be, that as the incitement of Paulet and Drury to shorten the life of the. Queen of Scots had failed, there was another attempt, by the same ministers, to, raise universal indignation against the unfortunate:

to the heinous charges against Mary, by identifying the fictitious circumstances

which they were founded with the real events of her life. It was a disgraceful accommodation to popular prejudice; a base sacrifice of truth and humanity to party spirit. The “damning proofs" of the calumnies fabricated against her reputation were within his reach: he had leisure and industry to search; sagacity to appreciate; and judgment to determine on the weight of their authority, and the force of their evidence. But the public voice was against her; and the historian preferred popularity to honour. Such treatment, however, of posthumous character is not without great culpability. The fair fame of those who are no more, is a sacred thing; and to criminate them without full proof of their guilt, is both mean and

queen, that, in the midst thereof a popular tumult might arise, which, by one outrageous stroke, might close her life for ever. But they were again disappointed in obtaining the assassination of the Queen of Scots. When she fell under the axe of Elizabeth, the surrounding multitude" sighed and sorrowed," saith Camden: the Earl of Kent, on that occasion, alone shewed his fanaticism and fury.”—Ib. p. 484.

inequitable—mean, because the accused are disabled from replying to the charge-inequitable, inasmuch as the first rule of justice demands that there should be no condemnation without an opportunity of defence. However objectionable the axiom may be, "de mortuis nil nisi bonum," substitute verum for the last word, and its authority is not to be contravened.

That Hume should have taken the same side of the question, with respect to the criminal conduct of Mary, was to be expected from his literary character and opinions; but the influence of his authority is limited, compared with the extent of the sanction of Robertson's name. Hume's historical unfaithfulness, and insufficiency for the task he had undertaken, are now notorious; his aversion to the necessary investigation of original documents; his neglect of the means and opportunities of accurate information; and his contempt of that important part of the historian's duty, the weighing of evidence, and the comparison of authorities. But his History was intended to be the vehicle of his opinions, political and

(in some measure) speculative; these were in unison with the temper of the public; and his object was attained in the immediate favourable reception of his work. Mr. Hume's fame and authority, however, are now on the decline. The more austere taste of the present times requires truth, rather than ingenuity, in historical composition. Here the candidate for celebrity must now be exact in his information, as well as sagacious or original in his remarks: nor will the pure and polished style be accepted any longer as an equivalent for careless error, or wilful misrepresentation. For instances of Mr. Hume's negligent inaccuracies, (who, as Mr. D'Israeli informs us, wrote his work lolling on a sofa,) and perverse violations of truth, see Brodie's Hist. of the British empire, v. i. passim, 1822; Henry's Hist. Eng. v. xii. p. 403.

BUCHANAN..

The baseness, ingratitude, and malignity of this man, one of the most elegant scholars, and the finest Latin writer of the age, deserve

particular consideration. He, who had been the tutor and friend of Mary; who had shared her confidence, and tasted largely of her bounty; who had eulogized her in print, at the head of his book of psalms, and had actually been indebted to her for his life, if we may believe Brantome (Eloge de Marie Stuart)this man, we repeat, bought by the offers and gifts of the confederate lords, and the allurements of Elizabeth, became the pander of Mary's accusers, and the execrable tool of the English Queen in the infamous plot, which was first to rob his own sovereign of her fame, and, ultimately, of her life. To her defamation he prostituted his History, by broadly accusing Mary of a criminal intercourse with Rizzio, which no other contemporary writer dared to advance; (Scot. Hist. p. 340-344;) and against her he published his scurrilous work called Eclaircissement; of which Varillas says, "Buchanan's History of Scotland is not the worst of his works against Mary; there is another, to which he durst not set his name, more satirical, beyond all comparison, than the other. It is written in French, and printed at