1807.J  Belsham’s Comparison between Robertson and Hume. 42h 
tory for romance, will accede to the hy- 
pothesis which pretends to establish the 
linmaculate virtue and innocence of that 
unfortunate princess. When the History 
of Scotiand, by Dr. Robertson, frst made 
its appearance, near haif a century ago, 
be was very generally thought far too 
partial to Mary: but divers of the histo- 
ries and disquisitions which have since 
made their appearance, have stigmatised 
him as a traducer of her fair fame. M1 
Hume who has treated the same ade 
of history with still more freedom, has, 
of course, undergone still more obloquy 
on the same account. As some few cri- 
tics, however, consider even Mr. Hume 
as biassed a little too much in favour of 
the Scottish queen, or at least as shrmk- 
ing from the explicit avowal of his opi- 
nion, it may not be improper to examine 
and compare the accounts of these two 
great historians with the most material 
parts of evidence connected with the ge- 
neral question, in order to be able to 
pronounce an impartial verdict. 
In the elegant Memoirs of Dr. Robert- 
son’s Life, prefixed to his Writings, by Pro- 
fessor Dugald Stewart, we have the jude 
ment of several very well informed and 
sagacious persons on tlis curious topic. 
Mr. Hume, in particular, thus, in a let- 
ter to Dr. Robertson, confesses the tao 
great indulgence of himself and his illus- 
trious friend and rival :—“1I am afraid 
that you, as well as myself, have drawn 
Mary’s character with too great soften- 
ings.” “Tt is plain (says Mr. H. Wal- 
pole, who received, from reading the 
Tlistory of Dr. Robertson, the same ge- 
neral impression of partiality, but with 
incomparably less knowledge of facts, ) 
that you wish to excuse Mary ; ; and yetit 
is so ve nin that you never violate truth in 
her favour, tat | own I think still worse 
of her than I did, since I read your His- 
tory.” Dr. Birch thus expresses himself 
to the same purpose :—‘ If the second 
volume of the State Papers of Lord Bur- 
leigh, published since Christmas here, 
had appeared before your History had 
been finished, it would have furnished 
you with reasons for entertaining a less 
favourable opinion of Mary in cne or two 
points, than you seem at present pos- 
sessed of.” Dr. John Blair, in a letter 
to Dr, Robertson, observes, that ‘ the 
only general objection to his work was 
founded on his tenderness for Queen 
Mary. Lord Chesterfield (says he) 
though he approves much of your His- 
tory, told me that he finds this to a a 
bias which no Scotchman can get th 
« 
better of.” His biographer, Dugald Stewr 
art, remarks, that * all bis prepossessions 
must be in iavour of the queen; for it 
was chiefly from the powerful interest 
excited by her story that he could hope 
for popularity with the multitude.” This 
is designed and is weil calculated to serve 
as an answer to those who charge Dr. 
Robertson with unmerited Lavsbviess to 
Mary; but unfortunately it corroborates 
the accusation of such as think the histo- 
rian has fallen into the opposite extreme 
of lenity and indulgence. 
In a letter dated November 18, 1758, 
some months previous to the publication 
of Dr. Robertson’s History of Seotland, 
Mr. tlume observes to his friend, among 
other things, “ that he has not the good for- 
tune to agree wich him respecting tie in- 
nocency on Mary 1 in the affaw of Babing= 
ton’s conspiracy. Allow ie to say, that, 
even if you be in the right with revard to 
this point, of which notwithsta anding my 
deference to your autizority, Lc Anas per- 
ceive the least appearance, you are cer- 
tainly too short and abrupt in handling 
it.” And in an ensuing letter, January 
25,1759, hetells Dr. Robertson “ chat , by 
Murden’s State Papers, receutly pr inted, 
the matter is put beyond all question.” 
And he urges him strongly, to “ stop the 
press, 11 order to correct an error so ma- 
terial.” The points on which [ propose 
to examine and compare the sentiments 
Dr. Robertson and Mr. Hume, relate, 
ist, to the queen’s violent and very suspi- 
cious partiality for Nizzio; 2dly, to her 
criminal passion for Bothwe ll, and subse-, 
quent participation in the mutder-of her 
husband; and Sdly, her knowledge and 
approbation of the conspiracy of Babing- 
ton against the life of Elizabeth, 
1st. In regard to Rizzio, the substance 
of Dr. Robertson’s relation is as iollows : 
—‘ Rizzio was the son cf a musician in 
Turin, and having accompanied the Pied- 
-montese ambassador into Scotland, gained 
adinission into the queen’s family, by his 
skillin music. As his dependent condi- 
tion had taught Lim suppleness of spirit, 
‘andi insinuating maniers, he quickly crept 
into the queen’s favour, and, her French 
secretary happeniig to return at that time 
into his own country, was preferred by her 
to that office. He vow beganto make a 
figure in court, and to appeuw as a man 
of consequence. His recommendations 
were observed to have great influence 
over the queen; and he grew to be cun- 
sidered not only as a favouri te, but asa 
minister. He affected to talk otten and. 
familiarly with the queen in public. He 
equalled 
—— 
SS 
