1806.] 



Mr. Laing's Ecpl^ to Dr. Gleig. 



Z']:S 



to utter all he could againfl: the Queen, 

 and to that elicct had earned with him 

 all the letters which he had to produce 

 agaiiill her for proof of the murder, 

 whereof he (Lethington) had recovered 

 the copy, and had caufed his vvife to 

 write thcin, which he lent to the Queen." 

 At the end of the next i'entence, JSLur- 

 din, 52, is diftinilly referred to for the 

 preceding quotation. In the fucceeding 

 fentencc I proceed thus. " According 

 to the explanation given by Rarram, the 

 Queen's Serjeant, on Norfolk's trial, Le- 

 thington " itole the letters from Murray, 

 and kept them one night ; hovvbeit the 

 fame were but copies tranllated out of 

 French into Scotch, which when Le- 

 thington's wife had written, he caufed 

 them to be fent to the Scottifli Queen." 

 The remainder of the quotation, and the 

 reference to State Triais, I., 92, are in- 

 ferted in a feparate note ; and whoever 

 infpefts the page, will be latisfied, that 

 nothing can Ije more dillinft than the 

 two quotations, not appealed or referred 

 to, but tranfcribed verbatim and fepa- 

 rately, from Murdin and the State I'ri- 

 als. But tliis writer has himfelf acknow- 

 ledged, that, not having confulted the 

 State Trials, and finding no mention in 

 Murdin of the time in which Lething- 

 tdn's wife is faid to have copied the let- 

 ters, he thovLilit it not impolfible tliat Mr. 

 Laing, throngli inadvertence, or too 

 great cageruefs in the caui'e of his cli- 

 ents, might have introduced that circum- 

 Jiunce which renders the talc utterly in- 

 credible. This I cannot hefttate to Hate, 

 diftincily and explicitly, to be precifely the 

 condurt of an anonymous libeller, who, 

 not holding himfelf refponfible for his af- 

 fertions, while his name is unknown, con- 

 verts his own idle furmifes into matters 

 of jjublic accufation and reproach. Mea- 

 furing the iize of the letters by the bulk 

 of the commentaries, he concludes that 

 it was impolTible to copy the former in 

 one night, and, as he vow Jays, not find- 

 ing in Murdin a fact tranfcribed from the 

 State Trials, he fcrupled not to infmuate, 

 that a quotation marked with inverted 

 commas, and inferted in the language pe- 

 culiar to the age, was a fibrication of my 

 own, and for that purpofe he has chofen 

 to alFert, that " Mr. Laing's confajed ap- 

 peal to Murdin and the State Irials will 

 not have much weight with thofe wl;o 

 Jiave auefully allended to his mode of 

 fjuotalion." 



IIL In ti»e third inftance, " Infload of 

 coiifulting the autliority to which I did 

 appeal, this writer, who had ncv^i' feco 



MoMULY Mao., JN'o. M9. 



eitlier Murdin or the State Papers, con- 

 fulted an authority to wluch I did not ap- 

 peal, in order to athrm, tliat " for ttns 

 very estrayrdinary afl'ertioii he cmriind' 

 in Lelly (whuiii Defence of Mary's ho- 

 nour he has carefully coni'ulted !) no- 

 thing that the moji perverj'e ingenuiti/ can 

 coujiruc into a tacit acknowledgement of 

 the authenticity of the letters." The 

 explanation which he has given is, that, 

 on coufulting Murdin, to which I refer- 

 red, lie found that Norfolk informed 

 Lelly that he had talked with Murray 

 and Lethington at Leith, and on that 

 occafion had feen the letters by which 

 the Queen would be diflionoured for 

 ever ; and that Leily, inlicad of difa- 

 vowing the letters which he had not feen, 

 liftened to the propofal of Lethington to 

 prevent his niillrefs from being calumni- 

 ated ; in which there is nothing that evea. 

 the moil pcrve I fe ingenuity can conftrue 

 into a tacit acknowledgeuient of their 

 authenticity. Neither Murdin, nor the 

 State Trials containing the lame confef- 

 hon, are within my reach at prefent ; 

 but the facts thenifelves may be eaiily ex- 

 plained. Norfolk never v,as in Scotland, 

 unlefs ij) loCO, ^\hen he formed the 

 Treaty of Bejwick with the Lorrls of the 

 Congregation, many years before the ex- 

 iftcnce of the letters, and before the ar- 

 rival of the Queen from Fi-ance. His 

 iulbrniation tiierefore to Leily, that lie 

 had talked with iMurray and Lethington 

 at Ltith, either relates to that period 

 vv!ion Lethington cilltivated his friend- 

 fliip, or is more probably an error of the 

 pen or prefs. The only occafion on 

 which he could have feen the letters, 

 was, when they were produced at York, 

 to the Englifli Commilfioners ; and when 

 on that occafion he informed Lelly that 

 they would di/lioriour his millrefs for ever, 

 the filence of the latter concerning the 

 forgery was confidered by Ilmne and Ro- 

 bertlon, as well as by myfeif, as a tacit 

 acknowledgement of the authenticity of 

 the letters. 



But a heavier charge awaits the writer 

 who now pretends to have confulted 

 Murilin, to whom I had referred, and 

 athrms, that his having confulted Lelly's 

 Defence of Mary's honour, to which 1 

 did not appeal, is an interpolation of 

 my own. In his former explanation, 

 tranfmitted by Mr. Nares, " His (Mr. 

 Laing's) alTcrtion refpecting Lelly, in tlie 

 third indancc, certainly nppeured to i/ic, 

 and to many others much utoro acute, to 

 be fo made, as trot to he refcr'-td to Mur- 

 din, but to Lrjly's own publications in 

 .X. X dej'iiice 



