180G.] 



Dr. Gleigs Bepy fo Mr. Laing. 



123 



tjie world, tlmt this cflablilhraent, creat- 

 ed by Louvois, rcnred by Maillebuis, and 

 modclk'tl by dc Vuulb, is the ricliolt iu 

 tlie yvorld, as to authentic elemeuts of 

 liiltory, topography, and the art of war. 

 It is of a dclcription peculiar to Trance, 

 and on [)rinei|i!eb worthy the nuitatiou of 

 <iiery pohihcd nation iu Europe. 



Prince Charles is laid to be occupied 

 at Vienna, in conltructinL!; a funilar De- 

 pot for tile benefit of the Aulinau arnjv ; 

 and Spain is alio engaged iu inltitutiug a 

 Military Topofiraphical Depurtuient, ou 

 tlie like principles. 



In Eu>;land, unhappily, the Art of War 

 does not extend at prefent iicyi>nd mere 

 {larade dutv, and the buliliefs of cleauint; 

 Ix'lts and polidhng buttons ; but it is to 

 be hoped, that the new Adniiuillration, 

 anionu; its other enlightened nieaiurcs, 

 will turn its attention towards this ini- 

 jjortaut fervice, on the due cultivation of 

 which deiK-nds the uiaiiit'enauce of our 

 tank in the i'cale of nations. 



To the Editor of the Monthly Magiizinc. 



SIR, 



THROUGH the medium of your ]Ma- 

 iiazine tor the laft mouth, Mr. Laing, 

 of Ediubnriih, has appealed to tlie pub- 

 lic from the judgment of the Britilh Cri- 

 tic, on the fecoud edition of his " Hil- 

 tory of Scotland ;" and in that appeal 

 has taken it for granted that I am the 

 critic, ,by whom he fuppolcs hinifelf to 

 have been injured. As he has thought 

 proper to make ^ wanton, and, as I Ihall 

 prove by and bye, a molt unprovoked at- 

 tack on my moral character, a regard for 

 jufticc will, of courfe, induce you to give 

 ■<i place, iu the Magazine for this month, 

 to my count&r-api'eal to the f.mie tribu- 

 linl. I might imieed difd.un to make any 

 reply to a letter ia which my name is not 

 oacc mentioned, but Mr, Laing has clan- 

 defclnely tr.uluced my chara<!;tcr to my 

 frieiids both in London and in Edinburgh, 

 and fo dclcribeJ me iu what lie calls his 

 cupiul, thai ihcij ul ieali cannot millake 

 the perl'rtu whom he wilhe;» to render in- 

 famous and odious. 



That I am refponfiblc for the. arguments 

 v.rs^-tHu- the " Britilh Critic" againtl the 

 coi.c lurjoiis which Mr laing labours to 

 ♦■liablilh concerning the murder of Darn- 

 ley, I readily iwknowlcdgc ; aud I Ihould 

 MJtliOut holitution or dread acknowledge 

 eoci ij review that I liavc written for that 

 or aril/ othi'r joui aul, did not my wretched 

 }i4ud-writing, s\ud iny diilapce from th» 



pref^, render it impoffiblp fi.)r me to pre-' 

 vent fuch typographical errors, as fome- 

 times alter the meaniug, and not unfre- 

 quently deprive of all meaning, the Icu- 

 tence-i ill which they occur. 



Let not this be uuderllood a9 an apo' 

 loai/ for auy thiuii: oftenfive to iMr. Laiii^ 

 in the review of liis DilVertatioii. That 

 review, ihoiigli not entirely tree from 

 fuch errors as I have mentioued, is on 

 the whole correfrtly printed (as indeed' 

 the " Britilh Critic" generally is), and I 

 hope to convince your readers that no-' 

 thing to be found in it Hands in need of • 

 any apology. Mr. Laing objects but to 

 three jiaflajcs of the review, though he 

 fa\s, and favs truly, that there are many 

 othirs *■';(/(///(/ ob|C<lionable ; and there- 

 fore if I \ indicate thele three, [ trull that 

 the public will give me credit lor beini^ 

 equally able to vindicate thole other-;, 

 whenever he may choofe to call thcin iu 

 quetiion. 



TjiO firft paflagc to which he objc61s is ' 

 quoted in page ."il/, and replied to in' 

 page 518, of 3'our Magarir.tr ; and as ik 

 is quoted with tolerable fairncfs, I Ihall 

 not here quote it again ; but only requclt ' 

 the reader to oblerve, that the foft in 

 queftion is jwt " whether, on the day on • 

 which the King was buried, the Queen'* 

 Conferred on Durham a place about the ' 

 perfon of her Ion, together with a pcn- 

 /ion." About this fact, as it is a matter 

 of no importance, I am not aware that ' 

 there has ever been a controverfy. Tlie > 

 queltious at ifl'ue between Mr. J.aing and ' 

 me are, " Whether Durham was purii- 

 culurti/ acciijld of having betrayed hix 

 majier, and the Queen believed to- have 

 conferred on him the place and penlion 

 as u reward for his treachery '(" To ren- 

 der it, as I tiiouglit, impoiiible to iniftake 

 the farts which I called in queltion, I di- 

 rected the words deftrted or bctra^d as 

 well as the words treucheyy and reu-urd to 

 be printed in Italic characters; and in 

 thefe charaners they uere accordingly 1 

 printed in the " Britilli Critic," though * 

 not iu your JMaga/ine. But neither die " 

 privy-feal record quoted by Mr. Laing, in 

 tlie thirty-third page of his Diifertation, 

 nor l^.r. llobcrtlbn, referred 'O for the 

 fame faCts in the forty-ninth page, fays 

 one word of Durh.am's ^-wic/im/ or ju- 

 tiond ; wliilft Ii<-ibcrt, or I'rench Paris, 

 in his fecond dclnration, rcpi-efents the 

 Queen as, fome time before the King's ' 

 murder, having no confidence witatever in 

 Durham ; and Mr. L:unghimfelf in p.^.ge 

 276, vol. ii. exprefsly acquits Durham of 

 that very treachery, by wliich he -had cr- 

 <i 2 ruiit-'ouily 



