5. Who were his old friends who lost his favour? They could be no other than Balfour, Maitland, Kircaldy, and Melvil himself. Of the two former I need not say a word. Kircaldy of Grange was a brave man, and had long been the intimate friend of the regent; but he was already corrupted by Maitland, and had secretly entered into his schemes for restoring the queen. Robertson, ii. 307. Of Melvil I have already spoken; nay, he himself testifies that the regent continued to the last to listen to his good advices. “The most part of these sentences, (says he,) drawn out of the Bible, I used to rehearse to him at several occasions, and _he took better with these at my hands, who he knew had no by‑end, than if they had proceeded from the most learned philosopher_. Therefore _at his desire_ I promised to put them in writing, to give him them to keep in his pocket; but he was slain before I could meet with him.” Mem. 104. How this is to be reconciled with other assertions in the Memoirs, I leave others to determine. It required no great sagacity in the ancient friends of the regent to “predict his approaching fall,” when repeated attempts had already been made to assassinate him, and when some of them were privy to the conspiracy then forming against his life; and it says little for their ancient friendship, that they “stood at a distance,” and allowed it to be carried into execution. There are three honourable testimonies to the excellence of the regent’s character, which must have weight with all candid persons. The first is that of the great historian De Thou. He not {342} only examined the histories which both parties had published of the transactions in Scotland, which made so much noise through Europe, but he carefully conversed with the most intelligent and candid Scotsmen, papists and protestants, whom he had the opportunity of seeing in France. When that part of his history which embraced these events was in the press, he applied to his friend Camden for advice, acquainting him that he was greatly embarrassed, and apprehensive of displeasing King James, who, he understood, was incensed against Buchanan’s History. “I do not wish (says he) to incur the charge of imprudence or malignity from a certain personage who has honoured me with his letters, and encouraged me to publish the rest of my history with the same candour, and regard for truth.” Camden, in reply, exhorted him to study moderation, and told him the story which he had received from his master, imputing the disturbances in Scotland chiefly to the ambition of Murray. Durand, Histoire du XVI. Siecle, tom. vii. contenant la Vie de Monsieur De Thou, p. 226‒231. But notwithstanding the respect which he entertained for Camden, and the desire which he felt to please James, De Thou found himself obliged, by a sacred regard to truth, to reject the above imputation, and to adopt in the main the narrative of Buchanan. I shall quote, from his answer to