tended difcovery, if it had once gone out beyond the two, would not long have crept. It would foon have raifed itfelf upon its feet. It would foon have talked forth in gigantic formidablenefs, among the amazed crowds. And it was privately intimated to Throgmorton only, that he might act in conjunction with Lethington and his four affociates in treach ery; that he might write like them to Mary, upon the dangers that were preffing upon her from every fide; and that fo he might unite to drive the poor doe, which they could not hunt down, into the toils prepared for her.'

So rapidly run our author's ideas, and fo plaufible is his relation yet this very able, this quick convenient engine forged, if the other parts of Mr. Whitaker's fufpicion be trae, the letters, fo aukwardly and imperfectly, that two or three editions were neceffary before they were fit to meet the public eye: the dulleft tool of the most uninformed party could not have fucceeded worse,

The variations with respect to the number of letters, the fonnets, &c. at some times said to be found with them, while at other times letters only feem to be spoken of, are arguments of little importance, unless it be proved neceffary to speak in common of fuch things in the style of a leafe, and to repeat, on every occafion, executors, adminiftrators, and affigns, as well as barns, ftables, and out-houses. There is one fact which appears to us very ftrong: the clerk of the privy council men tions the letters as written and subscribed by her own hand. It is impoffible to account for the introduction of the last word, unless the letters there produced had been fubfcribed. The real letters had no fignature, and we cannot avoid joining Mr. Whitaker in his fufpicion, that though they could forge the hand of Mary, they could not imitate her feal. Of course unfealed letters, on fuch fubjects, could not properly have a fignature; and fuch letters must be confequently obfcure and illufive. We are aware of Mr. Hume's anfwer to this point; and though we allow his arguments to have great weight, and that they are not fufficiently confidered by Mr. Whitaker, yet, in this inftance, from the language of the report it is impoffible. to apply the fubfcription to the contract.

We have, in this article, chiefly given a fpecimen of our author's manner, with fome remarks on the management of the controversy; and we have selected rather thofe parts which, are fubfervient to this defign, than thofe in which he has materially elucidated the question. The latter are, indeed, found with much difficulty. He has amplified hints, and has extended the fentences of others to whole pages. From this error, and a want of a pointed and comprehenfive view of the

G 3

argument,

argument, the impreffion left on the mind is weak. We lofe fight of Mary, and fee only a tire fome advocate.

It is a little remarkable, that if the conduct of the regency was fo varying if their defcription of the letters was fo frequently changed, that the Duke of Norfolk had not detected. the impofition. He was a commiffioner at York, and at Westminfter; he was a member of the privy council: and yet these letters at different places feem to have affumed different shapes. From his trial it appeared that he confidered them as genuine : in the conferences with the bishop of Rofs, no doubt of their authenticity appears to have been expreffed. This fact fhould certainly be accounted for better than it has been; though every one who has examined every part of the fubject will be induced to think Mary lefs guilty than fhe has been generally fuppofed,

The fecond Volume contains critical remarks on the letters, and the internal evidence of the forgery. It is tedious, dry, and difgufting. It proves, we think, pretty plainly, though our author contends for a different opinion, that the original, as Hume fuppofed, is loft; and that the Latin and the French are retranflations from the Scotch verfion. The argument, in which Mr. Whitaker is moft fuccefsful, is that which relates to the anachronifms..

The third Volume commences with accounts of fome other forgeries, in order to fhow that it was not an uncommon crime in thofe times, nor peculiar to Lethington. Mr. Whitaker. fuppofes too, that the letters fent as from Mary to Elizabeth were the production of this deceitful fecretary; that the forgery of the letters to Bothwell might be compared with the forgeries of the fame hand in letters to Elizabeth. Indeed, Mr. Whitaker's mind is fo full of forgeries, that he will hardly allow of the exiflence of any public inftrument of that æra, without interpolations. Criticisms on the Sonnets follow, and they are as uninterefting as the critical remarks on the Letters. After a remark on fome obfervations of Lord Hales, he re.. turns to the Sonnets, and endeavours to prove them incompatible with hiftory, and with each other. The Contracts next hare Mr. Whitaker's attention; one of thefe he allows to be genuine, and the two others to be forgeries, framed in. order to depreciate the character of Mary, by leading the reader to fuppofe that they were made before the murder of the king.

Mr. Whitaker next examines the circumftances of the murder of Darnley; and is fe very minute, that if he had attended the confpirators in every movement, he could not have been more accurately informed of their defigns, Murray, Lethington,

Lethington, and Bothwell were, in his opinion, the chief contrivers of the murder; and it was executed by their fervants, or affaffins hired by them,

The Appendix contains fome original papers, with remarks on the forgeries and interpolations which occur in them. Mr. Whitaker thinks that Buchanan repented of his flanders against Queen Mary: but his opinion reits on uncertain evidence; andThuanus, if indeed he was the author of Thuanus Re ftitutus, published at Amfterdam, gives a very different ac

count.

We must now take our leave of Mr. Whitaker, whom we can commend only for his good defigns. If the little that he has added to the labours of Goodall, Tytler, and Stuart, had been compressed into one half of one volume, it might have been of fervice to the cause he has efpoufed.

Additions and Corrections to the former Editions of Dr. Robertfon's Hiftory of Scotland. 8vo. Is. Cadell.

TH

HESE Additions and Corrections are inserted in their refpective places, in the eleventh edition of Dr. Robertson's Hiftory; but are likewife published feparately, for the convenience of thofe who have purchased the former editions. We cannot better inform our readers of the author's conduct, in the execution of these amendments, than by prefenting them with the Preface to the edition above mentioned.

It is now twenty-eight years fince I published the History of Scotland. During that time I have been favoured by my friends with feveral remarks upon it; and various strictures have been made by perfons who entertained fentiments different from mine, with respect to the tranfactions in the reign of queen. Mary. From whatever quarter information came, in whatever mode it has been communicated, I have confidered it calmly, and with attention. Wherever I perceived that I had erred, either in relating events, or in delineating characters, I have, without hesitation, corrected thofe errors, Wherever I am fatisfied that my original ideas were juft and well-founded, I adhere to them; and, refting upon their conformity to evidence already produced, I enter into no difcuffion or controversy in order to fupport them. Wherever the opportunity of confulting original papers, either in print or in manufcript, to which I had not formerly accefs, has enabled me to throw new light upon any part of the history, I have made alterations and additions, which, I flatter myself, will be found to be of fome importance.'

In our preceding article we own that our opinion was formed from the general force of all the arguments; and if it were

not, it would not be fuitable to our plan to engage particuJarly in defence of the unfortunate queen. The arguments adduced in the pamphlet are very ftriking and Dr. Robertfon urges the opinion of the duke of Norfolk, with great force. It is an argument which it is difficult to elude. We fhall felect it as a fpecimen of the author's mildness in this controversy, after fo much illiberality has been difplayed by fome of his antagonists.

Nor did Norfolk declare these to be his fentiments only in public official letters, he expreffed himself in the fame manner to his most confidential friends. In a fecret conference with the bishop of Rofs at York, the duke informed him that he had feen the letters, &c. which the regent had to produce against the queen, whereby there would be fuch matter proved against her, as would dishonour her for ever. State Trials, edition of Hargrave, i. 91. Murdin, 52. The bishop of Rofs, if he had known the letters to be a notorious forgery, must have been naturally led, in confequence of this declaration, to undeceive the duke, and to expofe the impofture. But, instead of this, the duke and he and Lethington, after confulting together, agreed, that the bishop fhould write to Mary, then at Bolton, and inftruct her to make fuch a propofal to Elizabeth as might prevent the public production of the letters and other evidence, State Trials, i. 94. Murdin, 45. Indeed, the whole of this fecret conference feems to imply, that Lethington, Rofs, and Norfolk, were confcious of fome defect in Mary's caufe, and therefore exerted all their ingenuity in order to avoid a public accufation. Murdin, 52, 53. To Banifter, whom the duke feems to have trufted more entirely than any other of his fervants, he expreffed him felf in fimilar terms with respect to the queen of Scots. State Trials, i. 98. The words of Banister's evidence are remarkable: I confefs that I, waiting of my lord and mafter, when the Earl of Suffex and Mr. Chancellor of the dutchy that now is, were in commiffion at York, did hear his grace fay, that upon examination of the matter of the mur. der, it did appear that the Queen of Scots was guilty and privy to the murder of lord Darnly, whereby 1 verily thought that his grace would never join in marriage with her." Murdin, 134. Elizabeth, in her inftructions to the Earl of Shrewsbury and Beale in 1583, afferts, that both the duke and earl of Arundel did declare to herself, that the proof, by the view of her letters, did fall out fufficient against the queen of Scots; however they were after drawn to cover her faults and pronounce her innocency.'

Winter Evenings; or Lucubrations on Life and Letters. 12mo. 3 Vols. 95. in Boards. Dilly.

IN

N the dreary moments of winter we receive an entertaining companion with pleasure: we ftir the fire, and fnuf

the

the candles; look around with calm complacency, while the burst of elements rages around us; and, in our own little circle, at least, feel no ftorm. The author of these Lucubrations has cheered the moments of folitude by his own remarks; and, by bringing a few old,—a few almoft forgotten companions with him, has renewed the pleasing recollection of former days. His fubjects are too numerous to be even tranfitorily defcribed; and in each, he difplays much learning and information. His language is always neat; and, if we except a few anomalies, we dare not call them errors, very correct. His tafte, formed on the pureft claffic models, is accurate and refined; his piety is rational, and his morality unstained.

But we must stop our career of commendation; we can proceed no farther; for juftice requires we fhould reverse the tablet; our impartiality will not permit us to clofe the account in the favourable ftrain we could have wifhed to have continued. If the reader of thefe volumes looks for information which other works do not contain; if he disdains fometimes to pursue reflections that at once fuggeft themselves on the flighteft confideration, he will be disappointed. There is no idea fo hackneyed on any fubject which occurs among the titles of thefe Effays, that' may not occafionally be found in them; there is no quotation fo trite, that our author will not tranfcribe. He has defended the practice of quoting from the Latin poets, by just argu ments; but we think they only prove that citations are admiffible when either a new or an appofite remark occurs in authors of antiquity; when a common fubject is adorned by a peculiar, a curious felicity' of expreffion. In every other circumstance, they have the effect of proverbs in conversation, which are not fuppofed to add to the elegance of discourse.

From retirement, probably, our author has become faftidious on the fubjects of newspapers and the theatre, he is occafionally uncandid, and frequently too fevere. His ftyle is too little varied to render a fucceffion of effays pleafing; and the Letters, fuppofed to be written by correfpondents, are languid and uniform. If he had not hinted at their being his own productions, they would foon have betrayed their author.

If, however, we wish for a companion who will not fatigue the mind, perhaps already wearied by complex investigation; who will innocently, and fometimes profitably, draw it to fubjects where, though no novelty occurs, the fentiments of others are decorated in pleasing language; who preferves the ftricteft propriety, and the niceft decorum, our author may be felected without danger of disappointment. If he only reflects images we have already feen, or tranfcribes from authors whom we have formerly read, he may affift the mind, by contributing

to