316 Monthly Review of Literature, 
retired. habits, to which he was disposed 
both by ‘the delicacy of his constitution, 
which brought him to an early grave, and 
by his insatiable love of study. Of supe- 
rior talents perhaps, and unquestionably of 
superior .acquirements, he was narrowed 
by the prejudices of his profession, that is, 
by the bigotries of his day ; but not incapa- 
ble of business, or indisposed to assert his 
rights—a stickler for the privileges of his 
college, he boldly and dexterously, on se- 
veral occasions, opposed the “ mandates ”’ 
and encroachments of the court, by timely 
filling up the vacancies on which it propose 
to fix its grasp. ; 
The biographer himself was the youngest 
brother, and survived the rest mauy years. 
He was a pleader, and under the auspices 
of the Chief-Justice and Keeper very suc- 
cessful. His respect, or rather reverence 
for the Keeper, is not only grateful, but 
profound—not only profound, but prostrate. 
The feelings of fraternity are lost in admira- 
tion of greatness—with the beggarly humi- 
lity of a grovelling protegé. Be his bro- 
thers what they might, he himself appears, 
on his own shewing, most unamiable. His 
sentiments are those of the most undisci- 
plined prejudice. There is not a grain of 
liberality, or of independent thinking, in his 
whole composition. Hale and Jefferies are 
tarred with the same brush. We have the 
characters of all the distinguished men of 
the time—particularly of the bar; but his 
sole criterion plainly is—were they the 
friends, or the foes and the rivals of his 
‘Lordship ??—The book is amusing—we 
speak of the Keeper’s life chiefly: but we 
can scarcely take the representation of a 
Jefferies from the Hon. Roger North—or 
any such ‘honest chronicler.’ 
Mary, Queen of Scots ; her Persecutions, 
Sufferings and Trials, from her Birth till her 
Death : witha full Exposure of the Intrigues 
of Queen Elizabeth ; the Conspiracies and 
Perfidies of the Protestant Lords ; the For- 
geriesof Buchananand Walsingham ; and the 
Calumnies, Misrepresentations and Mistakes 
of Knox, Randolph, Robertson, Laing, 
M Crie, and Miss Benger.—Unassuming 
as is the appearance of this little vo- 
lume, and tranchant as the title may 
seem, it is a- capital performance—an inde- 
pendent, vigorous and comprehensive sketch 
of Mary and her times.. We welcome the 
publication as an event of good augury. 
Our histories want all. writing over again, 
and this:specimen may shew us how. The 
tone of most of them is taken from/some 
one contemporary writer, whose labours 
‘were seldom. spontaneous, and. therefore 
rarely disinterested ; and the rules of sound 
criticism haye never been severely applied 
to ancient authorities. Credulity has been 
the besetting sin of our historians and 
biographers. It is only slowly that colla- 
teral and unsuspicious documents cume to 
light, and still more slowly that they are 
employed to detect established errors. But, 
[Sepr. 
what is worse, these errors, though detect- 
ed, are not, therefore, removed; tle nar- 
rative continues. to. be, reprinted im its 
original deformity, and the detections are, 
known only to a few careful inquirers; 
With all its depravities, the bane passes 
from mouth to mouth—rarely accompanied 
by its discovered antidote, which, is; thus, 
for the most part, provided in yain, There- 
fore it is, that we say our. histories and 
biographies, require re-writing, as, well ‘to 
admit the corrections of particular facts, as 
to receive the change of tone, which the 
multiplicity of such corrections would com- 
pel anew historian to throw over the whole 
expanse of the narrative. Authorities de~ 
mand close questioning; the great principles 
of human conduct, self-interest and self- 
delusion, eternally operating, should neyer 
for a moment be lost sight of in estimating 
the actions of mankind—no, nor the mo- 
tives of those who represent them. 
What are our authorities for Mary’s 
character and conduct? Knox, an intem- 
perate fanatic—an audacious rebel—an in- 
sulting contemner of female royalty, anda 
blind detester of papalinfluence. Randolph, 
Elizabeth’s supple and subtle agent, des- 
patched as her spy to the court of Scotland, 
to promote her unrighteous purposes, and 
ready to adopt any tone to flatter her ya- 
nities and prejudices. Next comes Bucha- 
nan—Murray’s, Maitland’s, and Morton’s 
despicable tool—the flexible instrument of 
those ambitious hypocrites to colour all 
their plans and plottings. These were all 
palpably Mary’s enemies. Then follews 
her sole defender and friend, the generous - 
Bishop of Ross. Buchanan’s ‘ Detection,’ 
and Leslie’s ‘ Defence of Mary’s Honour,’ 
were contemporary publications ; but had 
they equally fair play? No: Buchanan’s 
calumnies were eagerly and profusely. cireu- 
lated by Elizabeth’s orders; and Leslie’s 
defence as eagerly and solicitously suppres- 
sed. It was seized at the printer’s before it 
was finished; but afterwards printed on 
the Continent. Baillie was imprisoned and 
tortured on account of copies found in his 
possession ; and Lord Southampton impri- 
soned for ‘ speaking’ with the author. 
Buchanan had thus undisputed possession 
of the field, and generations were thus 
taught to imbibe with, their milk, impres- 
sions. of Mary’s .crimes-. Two. centuries 
afterwards Robertson gives a modern Natrae 
tive. On. whose.authority relies he ?, Bu- 
chanan’s, blindly. | Could his, testimony, be 
doubied—a presbyterian—a foe of catho- 
licism—the friend. of covenanters—ascholar 
—a writer of latinity of acknowledged ele- 
ganee? Hume follows ‘on the same side. 
Tytler, Whittaker, Chalmers, in sut¢éssion, 
have examined their narratives and éxposed 
their blunders; but who, reads any_but 
Robertson? Laing, notwithstanding , 
‘powerful assistance he received, is scarcely 
‘worth regarding. ., More, recent still» comes 
an incarnation of Knox—Dr..M’Crie)(in 
