518 
an hiftorian, in matters of fa&t at®leaft, 
ought to cenfider himfelf as a witnefé in 
a court of jultice; and an hiftoriah, de- 
flitute of veracity, is juftly expofed to 
fomething worfe than contempt. In the 
firft infiance that is given, I had obferved 
that ‘on the fame day that her hufband 
was buried, fhe conferred on Durham, 
the fervant who bad deferted or betrayed 
him, a place about the perfon of her fon, 
together with 2 penfion; and on Both- 
well, the reverfion of the feudal fupe- 
_ Fiority of Leith ;” for which lait fact 
alene the authority was quoted.— Défer?. I. 
49. An impartial or inattentive reader 
mizht fuppofe that the authority for the 
firf fa& had been omiited by acetdent. 
#& more attentive reader would have re- 
cuited to the inftance that bad been ail- 
ready given, of Durham’s treachery in 
deferting or betraying his mafter, for an 
explanation of the reward; or would 
have fearched the index at leaft, for a re- 
ference to the fa&. But when I pur- 
poiely farbore to overload the page with 
fuperfluous quotations fo recently intro- 
duced, I certainly did not imagine that a 
Britifh Critic would overiook or choole to 
forget a paflage, which he muft have 
read a few pages before, (p. 33), when, 
after a minute explanation of Durbam’s 
treachery to his mafter, and his reward 
from Mary, I obferve particularly, in a 
note of fome length, ‘* And on Saturday 
the 15th, when the king was buried, this 
porter of Darnley was appointed, by the 
Queen’s fignature, mafter of the ward- 
sobe to the young prince for life, with a 
yearly falary of an hundred pounds Scots,” 
—Privy Seal Record Baok, 86, f. 15. 
© From which circumftance fome judgment 
may be formed of Mr. Laing’s accuracy 
in making quotations.” 
In the fecond inftance, viz. ** Mr. L.'s 
confufed appeal to Murdin and the State 
Trials,’ I had beftowed fix fentences on 
a feries of facts contained in Bifhop 
Lefly’s confeffion in Murdin, and con- 
cluding with the fubftance of a Ictter 
from Lethington to Mary, in which he 
infarms her, among other things, that ke 
had fent her a copy of her letters tran- 
feribed by his wife. For thefe facts, and 
Méyr. Laing’s Defence of bis Hiftory of Scotland. 
[July ly, 
and in order net to interrupt the argu- 
ment, the remainder of the paflage js 
inferied in a feparate note, with a diitin& 
reference to State Trials, 1. 92, for the 
whole quotation. Whether Lethington’s 
wife had copied the whole, or a part only 
of the letters, is not the queltion, but 
whether thele two references are fufici. 
ently diftinct. But this anonymous wri- 
ter did not confult, and had never feen, 
either Murdin or the State Trials, when 
in order to maintain the impo bility of 
Lethington’s wife copying eight letters, 
(amounting altogether to 570 lines, or 
about twenty pages) in one night, he 
chole to affirm, that Mr. L.*s contufed 
appeal to Murdin and the State Trials, 
Sor the truth wy this extraordinary fad, 
will not have much weight with thofe 
who have carefully attended to bis mote 
of quotation. 
Ia the third inflance I had obferved, 
that the Duke of Norfolk having in- 
formed Lefly that he had feen the letters, 
‘whereby there would be fuch matter 
proved againii his miitrefs as would dif 
honour her for ever,” &c. ** Initead of 
atrempting to dilabufe the Duke or to 
perfuade him that the letters were entirely 
a torgery, Lefly tacitly acknowledges their 
authenticity ; and propofed a device of 
Lethington’s, that the Queen fhould ratify 
her former refignation of the cruwn,” &c, 
p- 151. At the end of the fentence, — 
Murdin, 53, containing Lefly’s confefficn, 
whicn I had repeatedly quoted, and to 
which Hume (voj.v. note, 1, 13,) and 
Rovertfon, Difert. on K. Henry's Murder, 
have both appealed for the fame fa&, is 
again diitinétly referred to, as the fole au- 
thority for every quotation, incident, or 
inference comprehended in the preceding 
part of the paragraph. But inftead of 
conlulting the authority to which I did 
appeal, this anonymous reviewer, who 
had never feen either Murdin or the State 
Tria!s which contain the fame confeflion, 
con{fults.an authority to which I did not 
appeal; in order to affirm, that for this 
wery extraordinary affertion be can find 
iw Lesty (whole defence of Mary he 
has carefully confulted!) xothing that 
the mofi PERVERSE INGENUITY can con- 
for the quotation which I have given of jfrue inte a tacit acknowledgment of the 
Lethington’s letter, Murdin, p. 525 is 
diftinétly referred to at the end of the 
fixth fentence, and is the only authority 
appealed to in the note.—Dzfert. I. 145. 
In the fixteenth fentence I proceed to a 
quotation upon the fame fubject, from 
Barram the Queens (Elizabeth’s) fer- 
geant’s fpeech, upon Norfolk’s trial; 
authenticity of the letters. ~ 
Thefe are but fi:eht and inconfiderable 
fpecimens of the review itfelf, fo different 
from the general tenor even of the Britifh 
Critic, and prolonged for upwards of 
fifty pages, filled throughout. with the 
moi calumnious inGnuations againft my 
character and credit as an hiftorian, and 
with 
