DALRYMPLE, James, Viscount of Stair, who bears the greatest name in the annals of Scotish jurisprudence, was the son of James Dalrymple of Stair, by his wife Janet, the daughter of Fergus Kennedy of Knockdaw, and was born in the month of May 1619, at Dunmorchie in the parish of Barr and county of Ayr. The family from which he descended was at an early period distinguished by its love of religious liberty: Dalrymple of Stair is mentioned among the Lollards of Kyle. Before he had attained the fifth year of his age, he lost his father,^[1. Sir John Dalrymple has stated that “he lost his estate in his youth, for killing the murderer of his father; and was obliged, upon that account, to fly from his country. When the civil war broke out, he returned to Scotland, and commanded a troop of dragoons in the parliament’s service.” (Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. i. p. 21G∙) Part of this account, and some particulars which he subjoins, are evidently inaccurate. It is expressly stated by Forbes that Dalrymple commanded, not a troop of dragoons, but a company of foot. This story of murder and vengeance we have not found confirmed by any other authority. ] and the care of his education devolved upon his mother, who is described as a woman of an excellent spirit, and who survived her husband for nearly forty years. The first elements of learning he acquired at Mauchline school, and at the age of fourteen was sent to the university of Glasgow, where he took the degree of A. M. in 1637. He repaired to Edinburgh in the course of the ensuing year, and obtained a commission in the earl of Glencairn’s regiment, but he did not long adhere to the military profession. In 1641 he was encouraged to offer himself as a candidate for a vacant professorship of philosophy at Glasgow. In those old-fashioned times, the comparative merit of candidates was a circumstance not entirely disregarded: their comparative merit was ascertained by a fair and open competition; on this occasion, Captain Dalrymple presented himself in buff and scarlet, and was with great applause declared to be the successful competitor, ∏e retained his commission for some time after he became professor of philosophy. He was admitted on the 12th of March, and became bound by an oath to resign his professorship in case of marriage. As a preparation for such a step, he accordingly resigned it on the 4th of September 1643, and was immediately re-elected. On the 21 st of the same month, he married Margaret, the eldest daughter of James Ross of Balneil in the county of Wigton, with whom he acquired a large estate. They are said to have lived together in great happiness; but, according to the statement of one of his descendants, Lord Hailes, his happiness must have been in his own mind, for “he could not have much happiness from the complacency of his wife.”

After his return to Glasgow, heappears to have applied [7:7:596]his vigorous faculties to the discharge of his particular functions, and to the enlargement of his stock of general learning. His lectures were attended by many young men of rank and fortune,^[2. In the Advocates Library there is an octavo MS. -which bears the following title: “Compendium Logicae sub viro non parum erudito Magistro Jacobo Dalrymple, anno Domini 1643.” It contains notes of the professor’s lectures on logic, taken by a student named Robert Law. ] and he thus had an opportunity of forming connexions which he afterwards found to be of considerable advantage. Not satisfied with his present acquisitions, he devoted much attention to the study of the Greek and Latin languages, with the history and antiquities of Greece and Rome; and to all his other pursuits he added the study of the civil law, in which he must have been his own preceptor. His colleagues had easily discovered his talents for business, and he frequently had occasion to visit the seat of government in the prosecution of some of the university suits: he was thus rendered familiar with the forms of judicial procedure, and became acquainted with the most eminent men on the bench and at the bar. Having adopted the resolution of betaking himself to the profession of the law, he resigned his chair in the year 1647, and was admitted an advocate on the 17th of February 1648, being then in the twenty-ninth year of his age. He soon rose to professional eminence. After the execution of the king, the committee of estates dispatched certain commissioners to his son at Breda, for the purpose of inviting him to Scotland: Dalrymple was appointed to act as their secretary, and he appears to have acquitted himself to the satisfaction of both parties in this weighty negociation. In Holland he visited several learned men, and particularly Salmasius, who held an honorary professorship in the university of Leyden. He returned home in the course of the ensuing year, 1650; but during his absence, he had been nominated by the estates one of the commissioners for revising the old books of law, the acts of parliament, and the practice of the different judicatures. On the 29th of May he was sent to the north, along with Arthur Erskine of Scots-craig, with instructions to attend the king’s landing.^[3. Balfour’s Annales of Scotland, vol. iv. p. 18. ] He experienced a favourable reception, and appears to have engaged very zealously in the royal cause; but it is well known that the efforts of the Scotish royalists to place Charles on the English throne were unavailing to him, and pernicious to themselves.

Dalrymple continued his practice at the bar till the imposition of what was called the Tender, when several other eminent lawyers likewise retired. He however resumed his place when Cromwell’s government either dispensed with the oath, or connived at its omission. In the year 1656, he was included in a deputation of four advocates who were sent to remonstrate with the commissioners for the administration of justice, on the expediency of restoring the ancient practice of the outer-house, which these republican judges had suppressed. This remonstrance was attended with the desired effect. On the 26th of June 1657, Sir James Learmonth of Balcomy, one of the judges, expired on the bench; and on the very same day, a commission, appointing Dalrymple in his place, was signed by General Monk in the name of the protector’s council in Scotland. In a letter written three days before, the general had recommended him to Cromwell as “a person fit to be a judge, being a very honest man, a good lawier, and one of a considerable estate ;” and now, describing him as a person of eminent abilities, he craved his highness’s approbation of the choice which the coun cil had been induced to make.^[4. Thurloe’s State-Papers, vol. vi. p. 3G7∙ 372. ] The annual salary of the J judges was then three hundred pounds sterling. This was a preferment which he had not solicited, and of which he did not accept without considerable reluctance. Whatever might be his views or feelings as to Cromwell’s government, it is probable that his practice at the bar may have been more lucrative. He was admitted on the 1st of July, and his appointment was confirmed by the protector on the 25th of the same month. In this situation, his interest was beneficially exerted in procuring for the gentlemen connected with the counties where his estates were situated, a redress of grievances from the council or the English officers; and by thus enlarging the sphere of his utility, he encreased his connexions, and strengthened his personal influence. He obtained so considerable a share of Monk’s confidence, that the day before he began that march which decided the fate of three kingdoms, he held a private conference with Dalrymple, and requested him to deliver his unreserved opinion as to the best method of restoring tranquillity and regular government. The learned judge readily answered that “the wisest and fairest way was to procure a meeting of a full and free parliament.” This sound advice was ultimately adopted, at least to a certain extent; and of Monk, “who was determined to make his own fortune, without regard to any party,”^[5. Brodie’s Hist, of the British Empire, vol. iv. p. 484. ] it must at least be admitted that he acquitted himself with sufficient dexterity.

Soon after the Restoration, Dalrymple accompanied the earl of Cassillis to London, in order to pay his respects to the king. On this occasion he received the honour of knighthood; and his name was inserted in the first commission to the judges of the court of session, dated on the 13th of February 1661. During the absence of the lord president, it was customary to appoint a vicepresident; and, except in one instance, when he was himself absent at the same time, the choice uniformly fell upon Sir James Dalrymple. After an interval of two years, he was exposed to some degree of uneasiness by the operation of the statutes which required the oath of allegiance to be accompanied with a declaration against the national covenant adopted in 1638, and the solemn league and covenant adopted in 1643, as being contrary to the fundamental laws and liberties of the kingdom. Dalrymple was in the country attending the funeral of his mother when this ill-timed declaration was tendered to his colleagues, and when all who were in town subscribed it, with the solitary exception of Sir James Dundas of Arniston. The earl of Glencairn, lord chancellor, communicated to him the king’s order to the privy council to declare vacant the places of such judges as refused to subscribe; and in his answer, dated at Ayr on the loth of January 1664, he stated that he had already resigned his commission into the king’s hands.^[6. Of this letter to the earl of Glencairn, the original is in the possession of Thomas Thomson, Esq. to whose kindness we are likewise indebted for the use of various other documents connected with the personal history of Lord Stair. ] After the lapse of a few months, he was invited to court, and was favoured with an audience of his majesty, who graciously received his explanations, and was pleased to inform him that he would not accept his resignation. The conscientious judge stated that he was willing to “declare against no more than what was opposite to his majesty’s just right and prerogative.” A letter from the king, dated on 2lst of April, restored him to his seat on the bench, and his declaration was afterwards received with this qualification[7:7:597]. During the interval, he had made an excursion to France: he left London on the 22d, and reached Paris on the 29th of April.^[7. These dates we copy from a letter which he addressed to the earl of Argyle, from Paris, on the 30th of April 1GG4. The original also belongs to Mr Thomson. Forbes has stated that he made an excursion to France with his eldest son, who was then beginning his continental travels; and having returned by way of London, that he had then the honour of waiting upon his majesty. But the king’s letter, restoring him to his office, was dated on the 21st of April, and he left London for Paris on the following day. ] On the 2d of June ensuing, he was created a baronet. While at the bar, he had refused all employment in criminal cases, and under the protectorate he had declined to act in the criminal court. After the Restoration, he was offered the place of king’s advocate, or that of a judge in the court of justiciary: but, says Forbes, “he excus’d himself, alledging for his reason the danger of acquitting the guilty, or wounding the innocent in such offices; and no doubt the gentleness of his nature, as well as the hazard he foresaw in deciding concerning state-crimes, had influence on that resolution.”^[8. Forbes’s Journal of the Session, p. xxxiii. Edinb. 1714, fol. ] The various regulations which altered and improved the practice of the court from the period of the Restoration to the year 1669, are in a great measure imputed to his influence. He was one of the commissioners appointed under the great seal for regulating judicatures; and the regulations which they recommended were embodied and confirmed by acts of parliament passed in 1669 and 1672. He opposed the distinction which was then projected between lawyers who practised in the inner and those who practised in the outer-house; and he equally opposed the scheme of tendering to the advocates an oath that they would not accept higher fees than were fixed by the authority of the court. For his conduct in resisting these unpalatable measures he received the thanks of the faculty: but in the midst of the arbitrary proceedings which were so prevalent at that period, it was difficult to escape the general odium; and in 1674, during the great schism which took place between the bench and the bar, on the subject of appeals from the court of session to the parliament, he felt the force of that envy which his merit and his good fortune had frequently provoked. In his Apology he has expressly declared that he had no personal concern in the violent measure of banishing the advocates from Edinburgh.

The project of a union between the two kingdoms had been revived in the year 1670, and Sir James Dalrymple was then appointed one of the Scotish commissioners. By his wit and address upon this occasion, he strongly recommended himself to the good graces of Lauderdale.^[9. Mackenzie’s Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland, p. 214. Edinb. 1821, 4to. ] He was soon afterwards nominated a member of the privy council, which at that period was invested with very undefined and arbitrary powers. The office of president of the court of session having become vacant by the resignation of Sir John Gilmour of Craigmillar, he was appointed to succeed him on the 13th of January 1671; and his place as an ordinary judge was supplied by his kinsman Sir Thomas Wallace of Craigie. On the 15th of December 1676, the common council of Edinburgh, having taken into consideration the many great and signal services done to the city by the lord president, resolved that his houserent should be paid from the funds of the corporation, and that the same benefit should be extended to his successors in office. This municipal act continued in force till the year 1741, when the lord president Forbes declined to avail himself of the privilege which it conferred.^[10. Brunton & Haig’s Historical Account of the Senators of the College of Justice, p. 3G7∙ Edinb. 1832, 8vo. ]

Dalrymple’s connexion with so corrupt an administration necessarily exposed him to suspicion and obloquy. Having afterwards been charged with subserviency to the duke of Lauderdale, a name devoted to infamy, he replied that the accusation was “general and calumnious, without an instance given and he then proceeded to state that his influence had always been applied to the most beneficial purposes. The duke, he remarks, “came to Scotland in the year 1677; and upon representations made by me and others, he concurr’d in making several acts of council, correctory of the abuses that then run; as particularly, that persons were cited for church-disorders, without special circumstances of time or place, but generally in one or other of the days of all the months for several years; and were put to their oaths upon the whole libel, whereby many had been holden as confest, and thereupon fined, imprisoned, and transported like slaves to forraign plantations: whereupon the then arch-bishop of St Andrews did represent to the bishops in England, and to the court, that he was overturning the settlement of this nation; and he likewise said that in one moneth after he came hither, he had put the king’s interest further back than could be retrived in seven years. To make up which, he was instigated to bring in the Highland host upon the west of Scotland, who treated them as enemies, not only by free quarter, but by all insolcncies and oppressions; and to obtain an order of council to enjoin a bond to be taken by all in publick trust, and others in that countrey, to delate, apprehend, and bring to judgment all the presbyterian ministers that came ever in their power, that had keeped any conventicles: against both which I did with all freedom and faithfulness disswade him and dissent; and I do not remember of any one person in council or session that could never be induced to subscribe that bond, or to approve that road, but my self. And when in the year 1679 several complaints were made to K. Charles against Lauderdale and his brother, which were published in print,^[11. He apparently alludes to a well-known publication, without date or place of printing, “An Accompt of Scotlands Grievances by reason of the D. of Lauderdales Ministrie, humbly tendred to his Sacred Majesty.” 4to. It is supposed to have been partly written by James Stuart, who was afterwards knighted, and became lord advocate. ] and whereupon K. Charles gave a publick audience, though I was there present, there was not the least insinuation against me.”^[12. Apology for Sir James Dalrymple. ] What he here states in reference to that pillar of the apostolical church Dr Sharp, is sufficiently characteristic. Any departure from the most violent and oppressive measures, was to be , construed as hostile to church and state. In a private letter addressed to Lord Melville on the 1st of January 1690, he thus expresses himself, in homely language, but with no undignified sentiment: “I ador God’s providence in permitting εo much dust against me, thogh the matter, separat from the railing, imports nothing hot my embracing first and last the statione God hath called me to, and the malitious ly of my being author, actor, or approver of the cruelties in the former reigns, which your Lordship and all unbyassed and enformed men know to be fals as hell could make it; bot I thank God I have the peace of my conscience, and I am confident your Lordship will bear witnes for me to his Majestie.”

In the year 1679, the duke of York came to reside at FIolyroodhouse, and the judges and other members of the College of Justice made him a visit of ceremony. The lord president addressed him in a congratulatory speech, [7:7:598]which contained the following uncourtly sentiment: “ ’Tis matter of great joy to this nation to see one of the royal family among them, after being for so many years deprived of that honour; and the nation being entirely protestant, it is the fittest place your Royal Highness could have made your recess to at this time.” He took other opportunities of endeavouring to impress the duke with a conviction, that it was not for his own advantage to attempt any measure which might have the least tendency to injure the protestant establishment. In the parliament of 1681, in which the duke acted as his majesty’s commissioner, Sir Janies Dalrymple sat as a member for the county of Wigton, and was nominated one of the lords of the articles. When the test was under the consideration of the house, he proposed and carried a clause, that all persons holding public offices should swcar that they sincerely professed the protestant religion as contained in the Confession of Faith approved by parliament in 1567. According to the statement of one historian, he drew up such an oath as was neither consistent with itself, nor with his own principles, nor such as could be taken without the guilt of perjury.^[13. Cunningham’s Hist, of Great Britain, vol. i. p. 50. ] He was dissatisfied with a test which described the presbyterians as fanatics; and as he could not prevent its being adopted, he seems to have devised the expedient of introducing one clause in order to nullify another. As soon as the act was passed, the duke of York declared that the president had ruined all honest men, that is, all papists, by introducing that Confession. For subscribing this test with a particular explanation, the earl of Argyle was subjected to a prosecution, which formed one of the most flagrant acts of that disgraceful era of our national history. Dalrymple himself declined to subscribe it; and in the month of October he proceeded to London, for the purpose of explaining his conduct to the king, and perhaps of recommending his eldest son as his successor;^[14. Wodrow’s Hist, of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 197∙ ] but before his arrival, a new commission, appointing Sir George Gordon president, and superseding Sir Thomas Murray of Glendoick, and Sir John Baird of Newby th, had been issued under the great seal. As he had quitted Scotland without obtaining leave from the commissioner, the king refused him an audience, and Murray, the secretary of state, commanded him to leave England. “That quarrel,” he remarks in his Apology, “with my freedom to the then duke, at his first coming to Scotland, against attempting to weaken the protestantinterest, in a publick speech I had at his entry, made me to be the first person laid aside that ever was looked after. I was cited before the criminal judges, before the council, before the parliament, and hundreds of examinations and re-examinations were taken against me, even of my most intimate domestick servants, and my sisters in law, not in the regular way of probation, but by way of inquisition to found a process upon any special matter, which was never done, because nothing was found against law. Can any judge in Christendom show such a trial of integrity, who did so long a time serve in such an eminent station? No man was found to witness the least malversation or baseness, by indirect interest in any cause, by taking any bribe or reward, by partiality or insolency, though nothing would have been more acceptable to the court, than by one blow against my fortune and fame, to have ruined me upon malversation in my trust as a judge.” The only offence that could be traced amounted to a suspicion that some presbyterians, who had been at the battle of Bothwell-Bridge, lived upon his estates, or lurked about his house in the country, when he was occupied with his public duties in town. This was considered as an adequate ground for proceeding against him for “harbour and reset of rebels;” a charge sufficiently indefinite to leave ample room for the operation of laws arbitrary in themselves, and administered with little regard to substantial justice. Dalrymple had previously found it expedient to quit the kingdom. His tenants were harassed in the various modes devised by the instruments of oppression, his rents were arrested, and on applying to the king’s advocate, Sir George Mackenzie, he found that he himself incurred the danger of being committed to prison: he therefore sought a place of refuge in Holland, where he arrived towards the close of the year 1682. He chiefly resided at Leyden, the seat of a very famous university.

While he was exposed to these persecutions, he prepared for the press those works which have chiefly recommended him to the notice of posterity. His first and greatest work was printed before he went into exile. “The Institutions of the Law of Scotland, deduced from its originals, and collated with the Civil, Canon, and Feudal Laws, and with the customs of neighbouring nations.”^[15. Lord Elchies, who died in the year 1754, wrote Annotations on Lord Stair’s Institutions of the Law of Scotland. Edinb. 1824, 4to. ] Edinb. 1681, fol. This volume includes a “ Modus Litigandi, or Form of Process observed before the Lords of Council and Session.” After a considerable interval, his Institutions appeared in a “second edition, much enlarged.” Edinb. 1693, fol. A much longer period elapsed before the appearance of “the third edition, corrected and enlarged, with notes.” Edinb. 1759, fol. This edition was begun by John Gordon, who only conducted it to the eighty-fifth page, and the undertaking was completed by William Johnstone, afterwards more conspicuously known by the name of Sir William Pulteney. But the labours of these editors appear very insignificant, when compared with those which are exhibited in “the fourth edition, with commentaries and a supplement, by George Brodie, Esq. Advocate.” Edinb. 1826-31, 2 vols. fol. It is a proof of the estimation in which the author continues to be held, that another elaborate edition has since been given to the public, “with notes and illustrations by John S. More, Esq. Advocate.” Edinb. 1832, 2 vols. 4to. Of the Institutions of Lord Stair there are no fewer than ten manuscript copies in the Advocates Library, and many others are to be found in private collections. It must apparently have been considered as a useful exercise for apprentices in the law to make a complete transcript of a book which was sufficiently accessible in print. During his exile, he published a work which, although requiring less genius and learning in its author, was at that time of great practical utility. “The Decisions of the Lords of Council and Session, in the most important Cases debated before them: with the Acts of Sederunt.” Edinb. 1683-7, 2 parts, fol. This work comprehends a report of cases decided from the re-establishment of the court to the month of August 1681.

His next publication was of a very different nature. It bears the following ample and descriptive title: “Physiologia nova Experimentalis, in qua generales Notiones Aristotelis, Epicuri, et Cartesii supplentur, Errores deteguntur et emendantur, atque clarae, distinctae, et speciales causae praecipuorum experimentorum, aliorumque phoenomenon naturalium aperiuntur, ex evidentibus principiis quaenemo antehac perspexit et prosecutus est: authore D. de Stair, Carolo IL Britanniarum Regi a Consiliis Juris et Status. Nuper Latinitate donata.” Lugduni Batavorum, 1686, 4to. The expression “nuper Latinitate donata,” would seem to indicate that the book had first appeared in an- [7:7:599]• other language: we cannot discover that this was actually the case, but he may have employed some person to translate his manuscript into Latin.^[16. A curious document, in the form of a ratification, under the privy seal, of a contract between Sir James Dalrymple and his printer, enumerates among other works a “Treatise containing four Inquiries concerning Humane Knowledge, Natural Theologie, Moralitie, and Phisiologie.” (Dallas’s System of Stiles, p. 152. Edinb. 1697, fol·) The ratification is dated on the 11 th of April 1681. This Inquiry concerning Phisiologie was probably the first sketch of the work afterwards published in Latin. What related to natural theology he perhaps incorporated in his Vindication of the Divine Perfections. In his Apology he mentions another work which was never published, namely, a treatise on the rights of kings and subjects. ] The learned author had at an early period of his life been accustomed to read lectures in that language, and could himself have performed such a task. This publication received a very favourable notice from Bayle.^[17. Nouvelles de la République des Lettres, Decemb. 1685, p. 1336—Bayle gives the date of 1685. The Physiologia must have been published at the end of that year, and dated on the following. ]

In the mean time, Dalrymple and bis family were not exempted from persecution. On the charge of absenting herself from church and frequenting conventicles, his lady was cited before the privy council in the year 1683;^[18. Fountaínhall’s Decisions of the Lords of Council and Session, vol. i. p. 224. Edinb. 1759, 2 vols. fol. ] and their eldest son Sir John Dalrymple was harassed by many vexatious proceedings. On the complaint of Graham of Claverhouse, he was in the course of the same year compelled by the council to pay L.500 sterling, on the pretext that, as heritable bailie of Glenluce, he had interfered with the jurisdiction of the sheriff, and exacted too small fines from his own and his father’s tenants for frequenting conventicles. Although he had taken no share in the political measures of the time, he was in September 1684 seized during the night in his own house at Newliston, and, without any colour of law or justice, was next day committed to prison like a common malefactor. After having been detained for three months, he was released on giving security to the amount of L.5000 sterling.^[19. Fountainhall, vol. i. p. 191. 201. 217- 220. 303. 386. ] By his talents and dexterity, he not only prevented the escheat of his father’s estate, but speedily raised himself to power and influence. The father having been implicated in the Ryehouse plot, was prosecuted for treason, and sentence of outlawry was pronounced against him on the 17th of March 1685;^[20. Fountainhall, vol. i. p. 353. Wodrow, vol. ii. p. 492. ] but his son, who was appointed lord advocate towards the close of the ensuing year, had sufficient interest and address to procure a pardon, not only to him, but likewise “to his mother, his brethren and sisters, and particularly for their reset and converse with traitors, and to his little son, who had accidentally shot his brother.”^[21. Fountainhall, vol. i. p. 447∙ See likewise Wodrow, vol. ii. p. 586. ]

His own experience had rendered him too familiar with the miseries inseparably connected with arbitrary government, and he was therefore sufficiently prepared to engage in an attempt to rid the kingdom of an incorrigible tyrant. When the prince of Orange was on the eve of embarking for his memorable expedition, Dalrymple enquired into the real object of his enterprise; and when the prince declared that he designed the glory of God, and the security of the protestant religion, the venerable exile pulled off his wig, and pointing to his head, exclaimed, "Though I be now in the seventieth year of my age, I am willing to venture that, my own, and my children’s fortunes in such an undertaking.” It is stated by Forbes, that “the kindness and tender affection express’d by his Royal Highness upon that occasion to my Lord Stair, exposed him to the envy of several persons; which afterwards broke out in pamphlets stuff’d with personal reflections, and other injurious writings against restoring him to his rightful office of president of the session, and aspersing his administration thereof. This good old man, with all imaginable cheerfulness, came over in that glorious expedition, to preserve our constitution, when religion, liberty, and property, the dearest concerns of mankind, seem’d to be at stake. The prince, upon his landing at Torbay, sent to inquire concerning my Lord Stair’s health; and perceiving that his horses were not come up, ordered a Neapolitan horse belonging to himself to be sent to the Lord Stair for his accommodation.” When he arrived in Scotland, his influence was very usefully exerted in providing that the election in boroughs should be conducted by a general poll of freemen, and thus securing a majority of Whigs and presbyterians in the convention of estates.

Sir George Lockhart, president of the court of session, fell by the hand of an assassin on the 31 st of March 1689, and on the 28th of October Sir James Dalrymple was reinstated in his former office. This appointment, so equitable and judicious in itself, excited a considerable degree of popular clamour, on the alleged ground, that when the court was entirely dissolved by this change in the government of the kingdom, it was not competent for the crown to restore it without the authority of parliament. The lord president was very fiercely attacked in an anonymous pamphlet ascribed to Robert Ferguson, a restless and unscrupulous individual, who was known by the descriptive appellation of the Plotter, and who was “remarkable for serving his party, and saving himself in all plots.”^[22. Dalrymple’s Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. i. p. 20 The pamphlet bears the following title: “The late Proceed ings and Votes of the Parliament of Scotland, contained in an Address delivered to the King, signed by the Plurality of the Members thereof, stated and vindicated.” Glasgow, 1689, 8vo. This title is not to be found in Ferguson’s list of “all the pieces he ever wrote before the present August 1712.” See Original Letters, fol. Adv. Libr. ] This publication produced “An Apology for Sir James Dalrymple of Stair, President of the Session, by himself.” Edinb. 1690, 4to.^[23. This pamphlet, which consists of four leaves, has a colophon, but no title-page. It has lately been reprinted for the Bannatyne Club. Edinb. 1825, 4 to. ] He appears to us to have defended his character and conduct in a manner at once able and satisfactory. In the course of the same year, on the 21st of April, he was elevated to the peerage, by the title of Viscount of Stair, Lord Glenluce and Stranraer, with limitations to the heirs male of his body. He had now acquired great influence in the management of affairs in Scotland; and this influence derived no inconsiderable support from his son, who was conspicuous for the elegance of his person, and the power of his eloquence. The last publication of the distinguished author was worthy of his declining years, and of his former reputation. It bears the title of “A Vindication of the Divine Perfections, illustrating the Glory of God in them, by Reason and Revelation: methodically digested into several Meditations. By a Person of Honour.” Loud. 1695, 8vo. A preface, written by Dr Bates and Mr Howe, two eminent individuals among the English non-conformists, contains a very high commendation of the author and his performance. “The clearness and vigor of his spirit,” they remark, “are [7:7:600]illustriously visible in managing a subject so deep and difficult. And as in the blessed God there is a union of all glorious and amiable excellencies as are perfective of our minds, and attractive of our wills; so in our author’s unfolding them, there is joined with the strength of argument, that beauty of perswasion as may enlighten and engage all understanding readers to be happy in the entire choice of God for their everlasting portion.” He must apparently have been indebted to some of his English friends for purifying his style from provincial idioms, which are sufficiently numerous in his other works. But his long and eventful life had nearly reached its close: he died on the 25th of November 1695, after having attained the seventy-seventh year of his age, and his remains were interred in St Giles’s church.

He left behind him a numerous and prosperous family.^[24. Wood’s Peerage of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 522. ] Lady Stair had died in the year 1692. John, his eldest son, who became a judge, and secretary of state, was created earl of Stair: he was equally distinguished by his talents, but possessed less consistency of character; and his concern in the massacre of Glenco has affixed an indelible stain upon his memory.^[25. See Laing’s History of Scotland, vol. iv. p. 238. ] The second earl acted a very conspicuous part in the wars and diplomacies of his own age. Sir James Dalrymple, Bart, the second son of the lord president, was one of the principal clerks of session; and, as an antiquary, he is favourably known by his “Collections concerning the Scottish History.” Edinb. 1705, 8vo. Sir Hugh Dalrymple, Bart, the third son, succeeded his father as president of the court of session. The fourth son was Thomas Dalrymple, Μ. D. physician in ordinary to the king in Scotland. The youngest son, Sir David Dalrymple, Bart, was, like many other members of the same family, bred to the legal profession, and was successively solicitor general, lord advocate, and auditor of the Scotish exchequer. He was the grandfather of the late Lord Hailes. The president had four daughters, all of whom were married, two of them into the noble families of Catheart and Dumfries.

Lord Stair, like every other individual who has rendered himself highly conspicuous in times of great public excitement, is mentioned by different writers with a very different measure of praise or censure. According to Bishop Burnet, he was “a man of great temper and of a very mild deportment, but a false and cunning man, and a great perverter of justice; in which he had a particular dexterity of giving some plausible colours to'the greatest injustice.” This general and heavy charge of perverting justice we have not found supported by any particular instances. The fountains of justice were at that unhappy period very extensively polluted, but we are disposed to class him among the most unexceptionable judges who had then sat upon the Scotish bench. We must not however conceal the fact, that, when he resumed his seat after the Revolution, his conduct as a judge was a frequent and angry topic of discussion;^[26. Carstares’s State-Papers and Letters, p. 154. 167. 257. Edinb. 1774, 4to. ] nor can we venture to determine how far this circumstance is to be imputed to the force of political animosity. It was his misfortune to live in most flagitious times, and by his public station to be necessarily connected with a government which evinced a total disregard of the first principles of justice and humanity. The arbitrary proceedings of Lauderdale he seems to have resisted, with consummate prudence indeed, but still with decent firmness; and of the integrity of his character he exhibited repeated proofs, by preferring the loss of office and emolument to a compliance with the iniquity of the times. At a period when the nobility and gentry of Scotland furnished so many and such flagrant examples of cool and deliberate villany, Lord Stair acted with a very unusual degree of moderation and consistency; nor would it perhaps be easy to mention any person of rank in the profligate reign of Charles II. whose character could so well endure a severe scrutiny. He was a man of the most gentle deportment,^[27. Sir George Mackenzie has given him the following character: “Stair was a gentleman of excellent parts, of an equal wit, and universal learning; but most considerable for being so free from passions, that most men thought this equality of spirit a mere hypocrisy in him. This meekness fitted him extremely to be a president; for he thereby receiv’d calmly all men’s informations, and by it he was capable to hear, without disorder or confusion, what the advocates represented. But that which I admir’d most in him was, that in ten years intimacy, I never heard him speak unfriendly of those who had injur’d him.” (Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland, p. 214.) ] joined with a prudence which seemed to be constitutional; and as extreme prudence not unfrequently lingers on the verge of meanness or artifice, it may in some cases be difficult to trace the line where virtue ends and vice begins. The force of his talents and the respectability of his character rendered him an acquisition to any party in the state. He was importuned to accept of a seat on the bench under the government to which, as an advocate, he had declined to take the oath of allegiance; and when he was admitted, it only appears that he took an oath to discharge his office with fidelity. A similar line of conduct was pursued in another kingdom by Sir Matthew Hale, whose name can never be mentioned but with high respect. When Stair became a member of the privy council, he was indeed associated with men whose breath was contamination; but even in this difficult situation he seems to have maintained his integrity, and to have resisted to the utmost of his power the pernicious and profligate measures which then disgraced the nation. An individual of a more bold and decided character might have signalized his opposition by more prominent acts; but, in the midst of such associates, it must have proved less beneficial to the community, and more ruinous to himself.^[28. In Carstares’s State-Papers, p. 143, we find a characteristic instance of his smooth and skilful management. In the privy council, he recommended the measure of calling out the militia during the year 1691; and the mode in which he endeavoured to remove the opposition of some of the members is here detailed by the ear! of Crawfurd, one of their number. ] In all the relations of private life, his enemies have not denied him the praise of being mild and amiable. He was zealously attached to the protestant faith, and exhibited an edifying example of domestic piety.^[29. “He knew not,” says Professor Forbes, “what it was to be idle, and took a strict account of his time; dividing himself between the duties of religion, and the studies of his profession, which he minded more than the raising of a great fortune. He was sober, temperate, and mighty regular. He duly prayed always and read a chapter of the Bible to his family before they sat down to dinner, and performed the like divine service after supper; which he would not interrupt upon any consideration of business, how important soever. He had a great spirit, and equal temper in the harshest passages of his life: by the constant bent of his thoughts to what was serious or profitable, he knew how to divert them from any uneasy impression of sorrow. He was apt to forget, at least not to resent injuries done to him, when it was in his power to requite them.” (Journal of the Session, p. xxxix.) ]

His character as a lawyer is too well known to require any illustration in a work of this nature. He was evidently a man of a great capacity, and of various learning; he was not only skilled in ancient literature and in jurisprudence[7:7:601], but likewise in philosophy, and even in theology. He was the first writer who reduced the law of Scotland to the form of a system, and confessedly the ablest writer who ever made such an attempt.^[30. Of all the singular opinions maintained by Lord Kames, there is perhaps none more singular than the following: “Lord Stair, our capital writer on law, was an eminent philosopher; but as he was not educated to the profession of law, his Institutes chiefly consist of decisions of the court of session; which with him are all of equŭl authority, though not always concordant.” (Elucidations of the Common and Statute Law of Scotland, pref. Edinb. 1777, 8vo.) ] Sir Thomas Craig, who preceded him by nearly a century, found it a rude and undigested mass, and in arranging and methodizing one extensive and important branch, he exerted no mean talents or learning. Lord Stair adopted a more general design, and, with great sagacity extracting order out of confusion, combined his loose and heterogeneous materials into a compact and lucid form; nor would it perhaps be easy to mention an instance of another individual having effected so signal an improvement in the jurisprudence of any modern nation. (x.)

Dalrymple, Sir David, a Scottish lawyer and judge, was born in Edinburgh on the 28th of October, new style, 1726.^[31. He was the eldest son of sixteen children. Alexander Dalrymple, the eminent hydrographer, who died in 1808, was his younger brother. ] His father was Sir James Dalrymple of Hailes, in the county of Haddington, Bart., auditor-general of the exchequer in Scotland, and his mother Lady Christian Hamilton, a daughter of Thomas, sixth earl of Haddington. His grandfather Sir David Dalrymple, lord advocate from 1709 to 1720, was the youngest son of James, first Viscount Stair, president of the Court of Session, and author of the Institutions of the Law of Scotland; and he is said to have been the ablest of a family of whom several, in their different capacities, civil, military, and judicial, were so eminently distinguished for ability. Sir David Dalrymple received his classical education at Eton, where he was remarkable for his proficiency in classical learning and for exemplary conduct, and where he acquired a marked predilection for English manners and customs, which adhered to him through life. From thence he went to Holland, and studied civil law at the university of Utrecht, being intended for the Scottish bar. On his return to his native country, after∙ passing the ordinary trials, he was admitted advocate on the 24th of February 1748. Although possessing an ample fortune (his father having died on the 24th of February 1751), and attached to the pursuits of elegant literature, he was not seduced from close application to the study of a dry profession. As a barrister, however, his success was not equal to the expectations which had been formed of him; and as he did not attain any high distinction or very extensive practice in his profession, he was still enabled to pursue his favourite literary and antiquarian researches. This want of success at the bar was, it is said, chiefly owing to the circumstance of his being unfitted to shine as a public speaker, by an ill-toned voice, an ungraceful elocution, and a dryness of manner too much in contrast with the eloquence and fluency of some of his more popular brethren. The character, however, which he had secured for sound knowledge, acuteness, unwearied application, and strict probity in his profession, made up for the want of more imposing attractions, and eminently fitted him for filling a judicial situation. He was elevated to the bench, and took his seat as one or the senators of the college of justice on the 6th of March 1766; and ten years later, on the 3d of May 1776, he was also appointed a lord of justiciary, having on the former occasion, according to the usage of the court, assumed the title of Lord Hailes, the name by which he is generally known among the learned of Europe.

As a judge of the supreme civil and criminal courts, it is here sufficient to observe, that he merited and obtained high confidence and approbation; and he is particularly remembered for the solemnity of his demeanour when it fell to him to pass sentence upon criminals. We shall therefore proceed to consider his literary character and pursuits, in which, although not ambitious of mere literary fame, he had early in life attained considerable eminence. This led to an extensive and friendly intercourse with many persons of learning and genius in England, and in the number of his correspondents were such men as Bishop Warburton, Lord Hardwicke, Dr Percy, afterwards bishop of Dromore, T. Warton, Dr Birch, Dr Kippis, Bishop Hurd, and Horace Walpole.^[32. From a letter addressed to Air John Pinkerton by Mr Malcolm Laing, the historian, July 9,1800, we learn that the greater part of Lord Hailes’ correspondence was unfortunately destroyed. “I am desired (he says) to ask you by Air Thomson, an advocate, whether you have any letters of the late Lord Hailes, that could contribute to furnish an account of his life and writings. From some stupidity of his administrators, Lord Hailes’ letters, &c. were destroyed, I believe, at his death; and, unless in the hands of his correspondents, there are no materials for his life, which Air Thomson has some thoughts of undertaking, together with a new edition of his works. He left the first volume of his Annals corrected and enlarged for a new edition; and if you can contribute any thing to an account of his life, it will be received as a great obligation.” (Pinkerton’s Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 177∙) ] It may also be noticed, that the honorary distinction of doctor of laws was conferred on Sir David Dalrymple by the university of Edinburgh on the 5th of December 1760.^[33. No minutes of the proceedings of the Senatus Academicus for that year are preserved, which prevents our being able to state at whose recommendation this degree was conferred upon Sir David Dalrymple. ] With what assiduity he must have devoted his leisure hours to literary and antiquarian pursuits will appear from the list which is subjoined of liis various publications.^[34. “The erudition of Lord Hailes (says his friend the late Lord Woodhouselee), was not of a dry and scholastic nature. He felt the beauties of the composition of the ancients; he entered with taste and discernment into the merits of the Latin poets, and that peculiar vein of delicate and ingenious thought which characterises the Greek epigrammatists; and a few specimens which he has left us of his own composition in that style, evince the head of a master.” ] From this list it will be evident that the objects of his investigation may almost exclusively be referred to two distinct classes; the one connected with the history and literary antiquities of his own country, and the other with the earlier state of the Christian church; and a few remarks may be made in reference to the most important of his works in each of these classes.

His inquiries regarding Scottish history and antiquities were at first more particularly directed to objects connected with the ancient ecclesiastical and statute laws of the country. In regard to the latter of these subjects, he never carried his intentions into full effect, having left only partial “Specimens,” to evince what were his intentions. His “Canons of the Church of Scotland,” and “Historical Memoirs concerning the Provincial Councils of the Scottish Clergy,” are tracts of great importance. But so little attention did they excite at the time, that of the first he thought proper to state, “for the benefit of those who may be inclined to publish any tracts concerning the Antiquities of Scotland, that twenty-five copies of the Canons were sold:’ In the disputed case of succession to the Sutherland peerage, Lord Hailes, as one of the guardians of Lady Elizabeth, the infant daughter of the last earl (and the present Duchess of Sutherland), in their name prepared[7:7:602], in 1770, for the House of Lords, the very elaborate memorial entitled « The Additional Case of Elizabeth, claiming the title and dignity of Countess of Sutherland.” In this volume, to which is affixed the names of two of her ladyship’s counsel (Alexander Wedderburn, afterwards the Lord Chancellor, Earl of Rosslyn, and Sir Adam Fergusson), Lord Hailes has displayed the greatest accuracy of research in regard to the family history of the Scottish nobility, and the rules of descent in this country; while lie managed the question at issue with such dexterity of argument, as not only clearly to establish the right of his pupil, but also to form a precedent at the same time for the decision of all such questions of succession in future. About the same time Lord Hailes published, anonymously, selections from George Bannatyne’s manuscript collection of early Scottish poetry; a volume which displays great judgment and good taste on the part of the editor, and which is accompanied with illustrative notes not less valuable than interesting. He is somewhat severe upon Allan Ramsay, who, in 1724, had published several of the same poems, for liberties taken with the text. Ramsay’s mode of publication was not such as accords with our ideas of editing early remains, as he felt no scruple in omitting or altering what he disliked or did not understand, in improving, as he thought, what required improvement. Still we do not see why, as one of the first persons to call public attention to the works of the older and neglected Scottish poets, his attempts at emendation should be visited with more severe censure than the similar or still greater liberties taken by Dr Percy in publishing his Reliques of Ancient English Poetry.

Three years later, in 1773, appeared Lord Hailes’ “Remarks on the History of Scotland,” consisting of nineteen chapters, each of them treating of subjects calculated (in the words of Lord Elibank in his “Letter” to the author) “to revive that spirit of inquiry into the antiquities of this country, which, to our shame, was almost totally extinguished; and which, if it was possible to abolish, would at once destroy the most powerful incitement to private virtue and public spirit.” The “Remarks” might be considered as gleanings of the historical research which he was making at that time, and discovered his lordship’s turn for minute and accurate inquiry “into knotty points” of history. This publication, whilst it displayed the candour and liberality of his judgment, prepared the public for the favourable reception of the “Annals of Scotland,” the first volume of which appeared in 1776. This is a work so well known, and its value is so justly appreciated, that it would be unnecessary to enlarge upon its merits. The chronological plan adopted was somewhat novel in English history, but was not calculated for a popular work. It was, however, quite suited to the author’s peculiar turn of mind; his great object being that of clearing away the fables, unsupported theories, and partial statements, of former historians. Several general histories of the country had recently been published, such as Maitland and Grainger’s, and Guthrie’s, whilst public attention bad been in a more especial manner directed towards the subject by the writings of Robertson and Hume. The period which Lord Hailes intended to treat of began with the accession of Malcolm Canmore, in 1057, “because the History of Scotland, previous to that period, is involved in obscurity and fable;” and because he was enabled to ascertain and establish its subsequent details by the authority either of contemporary writers, or by references to public records and other original documents which had been preserved. Although the “Annals” presented no attractions of style, being devoid of all the graces and amenities of writing, yet the author’s patient elaboration of minute facts and dates, his acuteness in detecting error, his strict impartiality, and his scrupulous attachment to truth, excited the admiration of the great English moralist, to whom he had sent the sheets for révisai, and whose opinion of the work is worthy of quotation. “It is in our language, 1 think,” says Dr Johnson, “a new mode of history which tells all that is wanted, and, I suppose, all that is known, without laboured splendour of language or affected subtilty of conjecture. The exactness of his [Lord Hailes’ĵ dates raises my wonder. He seems to have the closeness of Henault without his restraint.” This opinion he takes a pleasure in repeating in a subsequent letter to Mr Boswell. “Be so kind,” he says, “as to return Lord Hailes my most respectful thanks for his first volume; his accuracy strikes me with wonder; his narrative is far superior to that ofHe-nault, as I have formerly mentioned.” Again, he says, “Lord Hailes’ Annals of Scotland have not that painted form which is the taste of this age; but it is a book which will always sell, it has such a stability of dates, such a certainty of facts, and such a punctuality of citation. I never before read Scotch history with certainty'' On the appearance of the second volume in 1779, he says, it “lies by my bed-side; a booh surely of great labour, and, to every just thinker, of great delight” Johnson, however, was not blind to its cardinal defect, namely, the dispassionate and dry statement of facts; but this he hints with a delicacy, arising no doubt from the high regard he entertained for the author’s private character. “Lord Hailes’ Annals of Scotland,” he says, in a subsequent letter to Mr Boswell, “are very exact; but they contain mere dry particulars. They are to be considered as a dictionary. You knowsucb things are there, and may be looked at when you please. Robertson paints; but the misfortune is, you are sure he does not know the people whom he paints; so you cannot suppose a likeness. Characters should never be given by a historian, unless he knew the people whom he describes, or copies from those who knew them.”

Lord Hailes’ Annals terminate with the accession of the house of Stuart, in the person of Robert III. in 1370. He intended to have carried them on to the restoration of James I. in 1424; but for “various and invincible reasons,” which are not stated, he left this portion to be resumed by some future historian. We have seen it mentioned, that when urged by Dr Carlyle to write the history of the house of Stuart, by continuing the Annals to the period of the union between Scotland and England, he declined such a project, alleging “he had not temper to write the annals of such men.” At a later period of life he turned his thoughts to the literary history of bis country, and published several sketches of lives as specimens of a Biographia Scotica ; a work, he thought, which, if executed “on a large and liberal plan, would deserve approbation and he engaged, if others would co-operate, “to assist in the general design.” The only person, we believe, who came forward on the occasion was the Earl of Buchan, but, with all his zeal and patriotism, his lordship’s habit of mind presented a striking contrast when compared with the extent and accuracy of Lord Hailes’ literary and biographical knowledge, in which he probably excelled all his contemporaries: the scheme accordingly was abandoned.

We may now-turn to the other class of Lord Hailes’ publications, which consists of those relating to the history and antiquities of the Christian church. His attention must have been led to this subject previously to the appearance of the obnoxious chapters in Gibbon’s History of the Roman Empire; for no allusion to that work is contained in the notes to his account of the Martyrs of Smyrna, published in the same year, 1776. He may therefore have been the more deeply impressed with a sense of the mistakes and partialities of that splendid writer; and he certainly, in no subsequent work, loses an opportunity[7:7:603] to expose his unfair statements in tracing the progress and establishment of Christianity during the earlier persecutions of the church. In all these publications Lord Hailes was evidently actuated by a fervent and enlightened zeal; and, by the light which he throws upon difficult passages of ancient writers, he vindicates such sentiments and conduct as are conformable to the word of God, against the insinuations of the historian of the Roman empire in its decline, and directly supports the cause of our most holy faith. His continued investigations of the subject at length, in 1786, led to the publication, in a substantive form, of his most elaborate work, entitled “An Inquiry into the secondary Causes which Mr Gibbon has assigned for the rapid Progress of Christianity.” This work has too much the character of a collection of detached critical remarks; but, besides the extent of learning which it displays in common with his minor publications, it is both solid and acute in argument, and most satisfactorily establishes “that the things which Mr Gibbon considered as secondary or human causes, efficaciously promoting the Christian religion, either tended to retard its progress, or ivere the manifest operations of the wisdom and power of God.”

His lordship’s constitution had been long in an enfeebled state, and being predisposed to corpulence, his habits of studious application, and the want of regular exercise, were unfavourable for the prolongation of life; yet he attended his duty on the bench till within three days of his death, when he was attacked with symptoms of apoplexy r on his way from the Court of Session, and was carried off by a second attack on the 29th of November 1792, in the sixty-sixth year of his age. Lord Hailes was twice married. By his first wife, Anne, daughter of the Honourable George Brown, Lord Coalston, he left one daughter, who still inherits the family estate. By his marriage with Helen, daughter of the Honourable Sir James Fergusson, Baronet, Lord Kilkerran, who survived him, he had another daughter, afterwards married to her cousin, the grandson of Lord Kilkerran. As Lord Hailes left no male issue, the title of baronet descended to his nephew John, eldest son of his brother John Dalrymple, formerly Lord Provost of Edinburgh.

A list of the several works of Lord Hailes, as nearly as possible in the order of publication, is here subjoined. Many of them are anonymous, and those marked j∙ were printed merely for private distribution.

1. Sacred Poems, or a collection of translations and paraphrases from the Holy Scriptures. Edin. 1751, 12mo.

2. j∙ Proposals for carrying on a certain Public Work in the City of Edinburgh, 8vo. No date. I∏752.] This jeu-d’esprit, dedicated to “the Patron and Pattern of all Castle-builders,” was a parody on the “Proposals for carrying certain Public Works,” &c. written by Sir Gilbert Elliot of Minto, and circulated under the patronage of the Convention of the Royal Burghs in August 1752, which contained the first proposals for extending and improving the city of Edinburgh, which was still confined within its ancient and narrow limits.

3. The Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus. Edin. 1755, 18vo.

4. Three papers in The World; No. 140, Sept. 4, 1755; No. 147, Oct. 23, 1755; No. 204, Nov. 25, 1756.

5. A Discourse of the unnatural and vile Conspiracye attempted by John Earl of Gowrye, and his brother, against his Majestie’s Person, at Saint Johnstoun, upon the 5th of August 1600. No date [1755Ĵ, 12mo. This tract is the narrative published in 1600 as King James’s account of the Earl of Gowrye’s Conspiracy, reprinted with explanatory notes, intended to serve as a specimen of historical collections illustrative of that still mysterious point of Scottish history. This reprint has no date, and is usually assigned to the year 1757; but it is mentioned in the list of new books, in the Scots Magazine for December 1755. There is another edition of the tract reprinted about the same time, but without notes. Sir David Dalrymple afterwards communicated such papers as he had collected, and explained his sentiments regarding the “Conspiracy” to Dr Robertson, which enabled him, in his History of Scotland, “to place that transaction in a light which dispels much of the darkness and confusion in which it has been hitherto involved.”

6. † British Songs, sacred to Love and Virtue. Edin. 1756, 12mo.

7. Select Discourses by John Smith, late fellow of Queen’s College, Cambridge. Edin. 1756, 12nio.

8. † A Sermon which might have been preached in East Lothian, on the 25th of October 1761. Edin. 1761, 12mo. Occasioned by the country people pillaging the wreck of two vessels cast away on the coast of East Lothian, between Dunbar and North Berwick. This “Sermon” is mentioned in the Scots Magazine, Nov. 1761, p. 614, where the author is styled “a gentleman distinguished no less for humanity and religion, than for politeness and learning.” His object in composing this discourse was the restitution of the stolen goods. It was “printed on his own charges, and caused be distributed in that country, not permitting a single copy to be sold ;” and we are told it produced the designed effect. It was reprinted, Edin. 1794, 8vo.

9. Memorials and Letters relating to the History of Britain in the reign of James the First, published from the originals. Glasgow, 1762, 12mo. There is an enlarged edition of this volume, Glasgow, 1766, 8vo.

10. The Works of the ever memorable Mr John Hales of Eaton, now first collected together. Glasgow, 1765, 3 vols. 12mo. Lord Hailes, in this edition, modernised the language, which Dr Johnson blamed, and blamed justly; for, says he, “An author’s language is a characteristical part of his composition, and is also characteristical of the age in which he writes. Besides, sir, when the language is changed, we are not sure that the sense is the same.”

11. A specimen of a book intituled Ane compendious Booke of Godly and Spiritual Sangs, &c. Edinburgh, printed by Andrew Hart [1621Ĵ. Edin. 1765, 8vo.

12. Memorials and Letters relating to the History of Britain in the Reign of Charles 1. published from the originals. Glasgow, 1766, 8vo.

13. An Account of the Preservation of Charles II. after the Battle of Worcester; drawn up by himself: to which are added, his Letters to several Persons. Glasgow, 1766, 8vo. Some copies of the volume have a reprinted title-page, dated Edinburgh, 1801.

14. The Secret Correspondence between Sir Robert Cecil and James VI. Edin. 1766, 12mo.

15. A Catalogue of the Lords of Session from the Institution of the College of Justice in the Year 1532, with Historical Notes. Edin. 1767, 4to. Reprinted with additional notes by an anonymous editor. Edin. 1794, 4to. More recently it has served as the basis of a work entitled “An Historical Account of the Senators of the College of Justice, by George Brunton and David Haig.” Edin. 1832, 8vo. The 1794 edition of the Catalogue of the Lords of Session is occasionally to be met with in a volume, along with Nos. 18, 19, 20, and 21 of this list, having a separate title-page: “Tracts relating to the History and Antiquities of Scotland.” Edin. 1800.

16. † A Specimen of Notes on the Statute Law of Scotland. Lord Hailes, in the Scots Magazine, May 1768, announced that “for some time past he had been engaged [7:7:604]in drawing up Notes on the Statute Law of Scotland, from the First Parliament of James I. to the Accession of James VI.” requesting " the aid of the learned, and of the lovers of antiquity,” and inserted a specimen of the notes. This request being complied with by only one gentleman, he reprinted the “Specimen of Notes” in an enlarged form, without date, but probably in 1768, 8vo, pp. 37, and circulated copies, addressed to such persons as were likely to afford the information and assistance which he wished.

17. † A Specimen of similar Notes on the Statute Law of Scotland during the Reign of Mary Queen of Scots. No date, 8vo, pp. 69, probably not printed till some time ιfter No. 16. Lord Hailes appears to have contemplated some publication of the kind, even at a late period of his life. In a letter to Pinkerton, dated Sept. 28, 1790, after observing that he had no view of beginning where he had left off in the History of Scotland, he says, “Any thing that I have [collected] as to the five James’s and Queen Mary, will come in properly among my notes on their acts of parliament; a work which has been long under my hands, and which I am unwilling to lose sight of.”

18. The Private Correspondence of Dr Francis Atterbury, Bishop of Rochester, and his Friends, in 1725, never before published. [Edin.] 1768, 4to∙

19. An Examination of some of the Arguments for the high Antiquity of Regiam Majestatem ; and an Inquiry into the Authenticity of the Leges Malcolmi. Edin. 1769, 4to.

20. Canons of the Church of Scotland, drawn up in the Provincial Councils held at Perth A. n. 1242 and A. d. 1269. Edin. 1769, 4to.

21. Historical Memoirs concerning the Provincial Councils of the Scottish Clergy, from the earliest accounts to the era of the Reformation. Edin. 1769, 4to.

22. Ancient Scottish Poems, published from the MS. of George Bannatyne, 1568. Edin. 1770, 12mo.

23. † Specimen of a “Glossary” of the Scottish Language. No date, 8vo.

24. The Additional Case of Elizabeth, claiming the title and dignity of Countess of Sutherland. By her Guardians. No date [Nov. 1770], 4to∙

25. Remarks on the History of Scotland. Edin. 1773, 12mo. The same year there appeared a “Letter to Lord Hailes on his Remarks on the lìistory of Scotland,” Edin. 1773, 12mo. In reply to this tract, which was written by Patrick Lord Elibank, the author communicated in MS. to his lordship, some observations, which were first printed in the third edition of his Annals, vol. iii. p∙ 155, Edin. 1819.

26. Huberti Langueti Epistolae ad Philippum Sydncium Equitem Anglum. Edin. 1776, 8vo.

27. Annals of Scotland, from the Accession of Malcolm III. sirnamed Canmore, to the Accession of Robert I. Edin. 1776, 4to. This volume, along with an appendix containing eight dissertations, has tables shewing the succession of the kings of Scotland during the period embraced in the Annals.

28. Account of the Martyrs of Smyrna and Lyons in the Second Century. Edin. 1776, 12mo. This forms the first volume of the Remains of Christian Antiquity.

29. L. C. F. Lactantii Divinarum Institutionum liber quintus, sive de Justitia. Edin. 1777, 12mo.

30. Remains of Christian Antiquity [Vol. II.ĵ, containing the Trials of Justin Martyr, Cyprian, &c. Edin. 1778, 12mo.

31. Eight Papers in the “Mirror,” communicated between April 1779 and April 1780, being Nos. 21, 46, 56, 62, 75, 86, 97, and 98.

32. Sermons of that eminent divine Jacobus a Voragine, Archbishop of Genoa, translated from the originals. Edin. 1779, 12ιno.

33. Annals of Scotland [Vol. II.Ĵ, from the Accession of Robert I. surnamed Bruce, to the Accession of the House of Stuart. Edin. 1779, 4to. The appendix to this volume has nine dissertations. An edition of the Annals, with tracts relating to the history and antiquities of Scotland, was printed Edin. 1797, 3 vols. 8vo. A still more complete edition, comprising Lord Hailes’ historical and biographical tracts, was published Edin. 1819, 3 vols. 8vo. It includes Nos. 5, 19, 20, 21, 25, and 40 to 44, of the present list.

34. Remains of Christian Antiquity [Vol. III.], containing the History of the Martyrs of Palestine in the third century, translated from Eusebius. Edin. 1780, 12mo.

35. Octavius, a Dialogue by Marcus Minucius Felix. Edin. 1781, 12mo.

36. Of the Manner in which the Persecutors died, a treatise by L. C. F. Lactantius. Edin. 1782, 12mo.

37. Disquisitions concerning the Antiquities of the Christian Church. Glasgow, 1783, 12mo.

38. Miscellaneous Remarks on The Enquiry into the Evidence against Mary Queen of Scots. Lond. 1784, 8vo. This “Enquiry” is Mr W. Tytler of Woodhouselee’s well-known Vindication of Queen Mary. Lord Hailes’ tractis anonymous, and was sent to Dr Kippis at London for publication, as the author was evidently not anxious to have it ascribed to him.

39. An Inquiry into the Secondary Causes which Mr Gibbon has assigned for the rapid growth of Christianity. Edin. 1786, 4to. ∙A translation of this work into Dutch was published at Utrecht, 1793, 8vo. The original work was reprinted at Edinburgh, 1808, 12mo, and again in 1810, accompanied with a “Brief Memoir of the Life and Writings of the Author by the late Dr Charles Stuart of Dunearn, but whose name is not prefixed to either of these editions.

40. Sketch of the Life of John Barclay, author of Ärgerns. No date [1786], 4to.

41. Sketch of the Life of John Hamilton, a secular priest. No date [1787], 4to.

42. Sketch of the Life of Sir James Ramsay, a general officer in the armies of Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden. No date [1787], 4to.

43. Life of George Lesley [of Monymusk, a Capuchin friar.] No date [1787], 4to.

44. Sketch of the Life of Mark Alexander Boyd. No date [1787], 4to.

45. † Davidis Humei, Scoti, summi apud suos philosc-phi, de vita sua acta, liber singularis; nunc primum Latine redditus. [Edin.] 1787, 4to.

46. † Adami Smith i, LL.D, ad Gulielmum Strahanum armigerum, de rebus novissimis Davidis Humei, Epistola, nunc primum Latine reddita. [Edin.] 1788, 4to. This is a translation into Latin verse of Dr Adam Smith’s letter to Strachan, giving an account of the behaviour of David Hume during his last illness, which letter is also reprinted in this tract.

47. The Opinions of Sarah Duchess Dowager of Marlborough, published from her original MSS. Edin. 1788, 12mo.

48. The Address of Q. Sept. Tertullian to Scapula Ter-tullus, proconsul of Africa, translated. Edin. 1790, 12mo.

49. Miscellaneous Communications to Magazines. These being anonymous, cannot be well ascertained; but there are papers by Lord Hailes in the Scots Magazine, the Edinburgh Magazine and Review, the Edinburgh Magazine and Literary Miscellany, the Gentleman’s Magazine, and in various other periodical works. In the Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. lx. 1790, are a series of remarks on the late edition of the Tatler, with notes, in six volumes; also, [7:7:605]in vol. lxi. two letters on the famous miniature, said to be of Milton, in the possession of Sir Joshua Reynolds. The Edinburgh Magazine and Review for February 1774 contains some remarks on the Latin Poems of Dr Pitcairne, by Lord Hailes. (Life of Kames, vol. i. p. 6, note.) He was also a contributor to Kippis’s edition of the Biograpliia Britannica.

In addition to these, Lord Hailes printed several minor tracts without titles, some of them being specimen sheets of his published works. “The Little Freeholder,” a dramatic entertainment, London, 1790, 12mo, has been usually attributed to him, but, we have heard it asserted, on insufficient grounds.

Some of his letters have been printed in Pinkerton’s Literary Correspondence, in Nichols’ Illustrations, and in other works.

After this copious list of the publications by Lord Hailes, it is unnecessary to add any thing to what has been already stated in regard to his literary character, which united acuteness of mind and soundness of judgment with extensive learning and assiduous research. Every true lover of bis country must rejoice that such a man should have devoted himself so zealously to literary pursuits, while they must revere his memory for his successful attempts to subject to the ordeal of rational criticism so many disputed points of historical research, and more particularly for having illustrated three centuries of our national history with a degree of accuracy and information which it is much easier to admire than to emulate. But as in his writings his attention was uniformly directed to promote the interests of religion and virtue, so in his conduct he was actuated by the purest principles of benevolence and fervent piety; and in the private relations of life he was all that was praiseworthy and honourable. “In a word,” says the late Lord Woodhouselee, “he was an honour to the station which he filled, and to the age in which he lived.” “That such a man,” to use the words of an intelligent writer, “should not yet have found a,biographer worthy of his merits, cannot be ascribed either to the obscurity of his character and station, or to the incapacity of his contemporaries. But Lord Hailes was a man of piety of the old stamp, and a strenuous advocate for revealed religion, and therefore did not share, as he would not have been ambitious to share, the celebrity that has been conferred on some of his countrymen of a very opposite character.”^[35. Chalmers’ Biographical Dictionary, art. Dalrymple, vol. xi. p∙ 229. See also Life of Lord Hailes, in the Edinburgh Magazine and Literary Miscellany. March 1793; the brief memoir by Dr Charles Stuart, prefixed to the second and third editions of the Reply to Gibbon; and the “Sermon on the Death of Lord Hailes,” preached at Inveresk, by Alexander Carlyle, D. D∙ Edin. 1792, 8vo. ]