“His elevation to such unexpected dignity [the reader will observe that it was _unexpected_] inspired him with new passions, with haughtiness and reserve: and instead of his natural manner, which was blunt and open, he affected the arts of dissimulation and refinement. Fond, towards the end of his life, of flattery, and impatient of advice, his creatures, by soothing his vanity, led him astray, while his ancient friends stood at a distance, and predicted his approaching fall.” Certainly the facts stated by Dr Robertson in the preceding part of his narrative, do not prepare the mind of his reader for these charges. The severity of the regent’s virtues had, indeed, been mentioned, and it had been asserted that his deportment had become distant and haughty. The authority of Sir James Melvil was referred to in support of this statement; and I am satisfied that it was upon his testimony chiefly that the historian proceeded, when he gave the above account of Murray’s conduct during the latter part of his life. I submit to the reader the following remarks on the degree of credit due to the authority of Melvil. In the first place, there is every reason to think, either that Melvil’s Memoirs have been unfaithfully published by the editor, or that the narrative which the author of them has given of affairs, from the queen’s marriage with Bothwell to the death of the earl of Murray, is incorrect and unfaithful. I shall not take it upon me to determine which of these is the most probable supposition, but am of opinion that either the one or the other must be admitted. The charge which was brought against queen Mary of participation in the murder of her husband, with all the proofs produced in support of it, is suppressed, and studiously kept out of view in the Memoirs. There is not one word in them respecting the celebrated letters to Bothwell, although they formed the grand vindication of the regent and his friends. The same inference may be drawn from the ridiculous account given of the appearance made by the regent {339} before the commissioners at York, when he presented the nameless accusation against Mary (Memoirs, 96, 97, Lond. 1683); an account which is completely discredited by the journals of both parties, and which neither Hume nor Robertson thought worthy of the slightest regard. It is observable, that Melvil could not be ignorant of the real transaction, as he was present at York; and that the design of this, as well as of the subsequent part of his narrative, is to represent the regent as weakly suffering himself to be duped and misled by designing and violent counsellors. Mr Laing has adverted to both of these things as discreditable to the Memoirs. History, ut supra, i. 118.――I shall produce only one other instance of the same kind. Speaking of the queen’s marriage with Bothwell, Melvil says: “I cannot tell how nor by what law he parted with his own wife, sister to the earl of Huntly.” Mem. 80. Is it credible, that one who