LAING, Malcolm, a distinguished constitutional lawyer and historian, was born on the 13th of January 1763, at Strynzia, his paternal estate, situated on the mainland of Orkney. He received the rudiments of his education at the grammar-school of Kirkwall; and, when he had attained the proper age, he was sent to the University of Edinburgh, where he completed his elementary studies. Here he not only made the acquaintance, but gained the friendship, of many young men of great promise, who afterwards rose to eminence in different walks of life. He was admitted a member of the Speculative Society, which had for its object general literature and science. It had been founded about twenty years before, and, during that period, numbered amongst its members all the distinguished youth of Scotland, as well as many foreigners of distinction. “Laing,” says Sir James Mackintosh,“was most acute and ingenious, but his meaning was obscured by the brevity which he too much pursued in his writings, and by an inconceivable rapidity of utterance.^[1. Memoirs, &c. vol. i. p. 27. ]

Mr Laing passed as advocate in the year 1784. Whether he had any predilection for the profession of the law, or made choice of it merely for the respectability it confers, and the opportunity it sometimes affords of attracting notice as a politician, we have had no means of ascertaining. It seems certain, however, that notwithstanding his general talents, and his great powers as a close and vigorous reasoner, he [7:13:21]was never much employed professionally, nor known as a successful practising barrister. It will not altogether account for this failure to attract business, that the manner in which he delivered his arguments was neither dignified nor pleasing; that, in fact, his speeches were uttered with an almost preternatural rapidity, in harsh and disagreeable tones. Such reasoning as he was accustomed to employ scarcely required the extraneous assistance of manner to recommend it, even to a jury; whilst, at the period in question, nearly all the pleading in Scotland was addressed solely to the judges, whose well-disciplined intellects might have been supposed more likely to acknowledge the force of reason and of argument, even when divested of all extrinsic attractions, than to be moved by rhetorical elegance or by holiday declamation. Laing has evinced, in his writings, an intimate acquaintance with almost all the departments of Scotch law; in treating historical subjects, he skilfully availed himself of this knowledge, as well as of the experience which he had acquired in his profession; and hence, taking all the circumstances into view, it may safely be concluded that the limited extent of his practice is to be attributed rather to his own choice than to any deficiency of talent or want of aptitude for conducting forensic business. Nor will this conclusion be weakened by the perusal of the admirable address which he delivered in defence of Gerrald, one of the foredoomed victims of the persecution that then raged against the advocates of a reform in the representation of the people; an address so clear and cogent in its reasoning, so irresistible in its deductions, that it must have carried conviction to all minds except those of a time-serving jury and of political judges.

In 1790 or 1791, Mr Laing, and his friend Mr Adam Gillies, now Lord Gillies, took a house, which they furnished, and in which they continued to live together until the year 1801, when Mr Gillies married. During the whole of this period, Mr Laing was much engaged in researches relative to the history of Scotland; and in the course of it also, he formed an acquaintance and commenced a correspondence with Mr Fox, which appears to have continued with but little interruption until the death of that illustrious statesman.

The first fruits of his laborious investigations were employed in preparing for the press the last volume of Henry’s History of Great Britain, which the author, at the time of his death, had left incomplete. The matter collected by Henry did not extend to a period at which the work could with propriety be terminated; and Mr Laing was requested by the author’s executors to write two additional chapters, to which, when completed, he annexed a dissertation on the crimes attributed to Richard III. The labours of two such authors, so very different in their views, character, and style, could not be very aptly united in the same volume, much less amalgamate or coalesce into a whole; besides, many persons considered Mr Laing as an uncompromising liberal, whose historical deductions seemed harsh and prejudiced, when compared with the calm and subdued narrative of Henry. But, however dissimilar these writers may have been in their style and manner, as well as in their respective modes of treating historical subjects, there are few persons, at least in the present day, who will be disposed to give the preference to the latter. Henry was a man of good sense and considerable industry, but, of all our historians, perhaps he is the least philosophical; and if he appears calm and moderate, he does so because he is an entire stranger to strong opinions and strong sympathies. Laing, on the other hand, was a man of vigorous judgment and profound speculation; he had no taste whatever for the romance of history; and if he argued keenly in support of the opinions which he had adopted, he did so, not like a man who is determined to maintain a point merely because he had asserted it,.and felt personally interested in showing it to be true, but as one who, having considered the matter maturely, had submitted it to the arbitration of bis own judgment, and was resolved to annihilate all those prejudices which prevented others from seeing it in the same light in which it appeared to himself. It is absurd to blame an historian for his opinions, because that is equivalent to censuring him for his honesty; it is only when, as has sometimes happened, he distorts facts in order to support preconceived opinions, instead of regulating his opinions according to the ascertained facts, and taking care that the one shall be a legitimate deduction from the other, that he merits reproach and condemnation. The sole object of Mr Laing was to discover truth; and there can be no doubt whatever that he sought the truth in the love of it. It is not impossible that his prepossession in favour of the class of principles which he had adopted may, in some instances, have led him to deduce hasty or improper conclusions from the facts he had ascertained; but although the stern severity of his character was calculated to provoke opposition, and even to envenom criticism, no political adversary has ever accused him of perverting facts. His historical probity, indeed, has been tacitly recognised even by those who were most bitterly opposed to the opinions and doctrines which he laboured so strenuously to inculcate. To Mr Laing has sometimes been ascribed the Memoir of Henry, which accompanied the last volume of his History; but, if we arc not greatly misinformed, it was drawn up by Sir Henry Moncrieff, the leading executor, by whom Mr Laing had been induced to write the continuation.

The publication of this work was partly the occasion of procuring Mr Laing the notice and acquaintance of Dr Parr. In an original letter, dated Hatton, near Warwick, 22d of March 1794∣, and addressed to Malcolm Laing, Esq. the latter says: “Often have I told our illustrious friend, Mr (afterwards Sir James) Mackintosh, of the pleasure and the instruction which I have received from your continuation of Dr Henry’s History. I saw with delight the comprehensive and elevated views which your mind takes of general politics. I thought your statement of the controversy about Warbeck so correct, your proofs so apposite, and your reasoning upon them so acute and impartial, that not one lurking weed of a doubt will ever shoot up again in my own mind.” And, in another part of the same letter, the writer adds, “The energy of your style, the extent of your inquiries, and the solidity of your observations, have increased the interest which I ĥad long ago taken in the reputation of this history; and I am speaking from motives, selfish if you please, but such as no man of letters would deign to dissemble, when I express my earnest wishes that your professional engagements would permit you to finish a performance, in which you have already engaged so far as to impress every intelligent reader with the most favourable opinions of your taste, judgment, and comprehensive researches.”

But the more immediate occasion of this letter was one which does infinite credit to the heart and the feelings of the distinguished writer, whilst it forms a sort of epoch in the career of Mr Laing. On the 3d of March 1794<, Joseph Gerrald had, after a mock trial, been convicted of a crime which had no existence before, on a law created for the occasion, by a verdict pronounced without legal evidence. Mr Laing had been counsel for Gerrald, in behalf of whom he delivered one of the most able and convincing addresses that ever proceeded from the bar; and Gerrald, again, had been a favourite pupil of Parr, who, notwithstanding all his errors and follies, still retained for him the affection of a parent. “Gerrald,” says he, in the letter already quoted, “Gerrald, whom you have protected as a client, I taught as a boy. Dissipated as he has been by the pleasures, [7:13:22]and worn out by the cares, of a most unhappy life, he presents, and can only present, to your view the broken and deformed ruins of a mind originally great. But my recollection is often carried back to his better days; to the powers of his genius, when they were unfolding themselves in a genial and fruitful spring; to the beneficial and rapid effects of the culture I bestowed on them during their evolution; and to the rich harvest of knowledge which I once had in prospect for him, when time should have matured those talents which nature had conferred, and education cherished. In this season of sorrow, or, I should rather say, this crisis of danger, his follies and irregularities make me cling, with more eager efforts of remembrance, to the contemplation of endowments so blasted, and of virtues doomed so soon to decay. But forgive me, if, by associations so natural to a lettered mind, I find relief in turning aside from the horrors of his situation, to express my gratitude for the benevolence, and my veneration for the abilities, of that man, who has endeavoured to shield him from the merciless arm of oppression. You, sir, sympathise, as I do, with his sufferings. You are struck, like myself, with admiration, even at the diminished glories of his genius. You have defended him as I could not do, in the course of his trial. You visit him, as I wish to do, and you console him, amidst the gloom of his confinement. For all these masterly exertions, and all these humane offices, in favour of poor Joseph, I entreat you to accept the tribute of my praise and my thanks.” This truly eloquent letter concludes with a most affecting prayer, that “when he (Gerrald) is removed to that dreary shore, from which he never will return, his spirit may not be broken down by the severities of banishment; that his misfortunes may lead him into a train of wise and virtuous reflection; that his old age may be calm; and that his death may be an hour of serenity and resignation.” Mr Laing, in replying to this “inestimable letter,” which has hitherto remained unpublished, observes, in reference to his ill-fated client :— “In the cause of liberty others may have experienced a punishment, severer if possible, not more iniquitous. Voluntarily to await a sentence which he foresaw was inevitable, and knew to be illegal, exalts him to the rank of the most illustrious martyrs of freedom, and will render his trial memorable, whether the constitution which he sought to regenerate shall perish or survive. In a remote exile, inaccessible unless to the prayers of his friends, he will enjoy the dignified consolation of having discharged his duty to society, and the conscious possession of a mind superior to vicissitudes, not to be broken by misfortune or woe.”

But, to return from this digression, whatever defects some may have discerned in the continuation of Henry’s History, the public generally appreciated the merit of the work, and honoured the author with its approbation. Thus encouraged, Mr Laing continued his historical labours, and, having directed his attention to his native country, published, in the year 1800, his History of Scotland, from the union of the crowns, on the accession of James VI. to the throne of England, to the union of the kingdoms, in the reign of Queen Anne: And this was accompanied with two dissertations, historical and critical; one on the Gowry conspiracy, and the other on the supposed authenticity of Ossian’s Poems. As in the previous case of Dr Henry’s History, this work proved very dissimilar in its character to that of which it was in fact intended as a continuation; we mean, the History of Dr Robertson. Of the elaborate elegance, the studied rhythm, the balanced cadences, and the academical polish, which distinguish the style of the latter, it is almost entirely destitute. It cannot be pronounced either harsh or inelegant, but it is certainly complicated; and, from the constant effort made to compress a great deal of meaning into few words, it becomes occasionally obscure. It is terse and vigorous, but hard and abrupt; without volume, fluency, or elasticity. The continuity is in the thoughts rather than in the expressions; the sequence of the ideas is complete, but their full development is often left to be supplied by the mind of the reader. In the art of narration, he is as much inferior to Robertson, as he surpasses him in all the higher attributes of a philosophical historian; in tracing events and actions to their true causes and motives, disentangling intricate and perplexed questions, sifting evidence, and steadily exploring his way through the mazes of contradictory testimony. In his remarks and reflections, he also displays a depth and originality of thought which Robertson could never have reached, as well as an adventurous boldness of speculation from which the latter would have shrunk with dismay. But his chief merits consist in the great critical power he displays in discussing complicated questions of evidence; in seizing and steadily keeping in view the strong points of each case, as it comes before him; in the mastery which he exercises over all the resources of analysis; in the inflexible perseverance with which he pursues his investigations; and in combining the acuteness of the practised lawyer with the discrimination of the close observer of human nature. Hence, the separate dissertations, though to some they may appear to contain nothing but special pleadings, are perhaps the most instructive as well as admirable portions of the work. Upon all subjects, indeed, the ruling spirit of the author prompted him to search for debated questions, few of which he has left without some sort of settlement of the point in dispute. In this manner he has treated many points in English history, and amongst these the celebrated question as to the authorship of Eikon Basiliké ; a subject afterwards treated with consummate ability by his illustrious friend and countryman Sir James Mackintosh, and concerning which he proved that, whatever share Charles may have had in the original suggestion or even partial composition of the work, Gauden was the person who had prepared it for the press, and whose claims on this account were afterwards fully and liberally acknowledged.

Mr Laing appears also to have taken a peculiar pleasure in setting at nought local and national prejudices. Exulting in the free exercise of his strong reasoning powers, he scrupled not to attack prevailing opinions, however deeply rooted in the minds and affections of his countrymen, when he conceived that they were founded in error. This characteristic peculiarity is strikingly exemplified in his Dissertation on the authenticity of the Poems ascribed to Ossian. These productions required no depth of argument, no minute investigation of facts, to support their credit amongst an enthusiastic people, much more accessible to the impulses of feeling than the deductions of reason; whilst, on the other hand, those who questioned their genuineness shrunk from directly encountering what they naturally considered as unconquerable prejudices. But Mr Laing was not a man who would either acquiesce in a received opinion as such, or hesitate for an instant to bring it before the tribunal of reason; and, accordingly, he proceeded, without scruple or remorse, to examine the pretensions of Macpherson, on the broad and intelligible principle of an investigation into the facts upon which they were professedly grounded.

The arguments in this Dissertation may be resolved into three great classes or divisions. The first class consists of a logical examination of the arguments and proofs produced, or supposed to have been produced, in favour of the authenticity of the poems ascribed to Ossian, with a vigorous exposition of their errors and fallacies; but, as the author is necessarily obliged to confine himself to mere sceptical arguments, this is perhaps the least interesting and satisfactory part of the investigation. The second class of arguments, embracing those derived from contemporary documents and chronological facts, not only forms [7:13:23]that portion of the subject in the treatment’ of which the extensive reading and discriminating sagacity of the author were most conspicuously displayed, but constitutes a body of evidence which finally demolished every pretence for considering the poems of Ossian as authentic translations of the productions of a Highland bard of the fourth century. The third division of the subject, containing an examination of the internal evidence furnished by the poems themselves, if not the most conclusive part of the inquiry, is certainly that which gives us the highest conception of the author’s critical ingenuity, indefatigable industry, and searching spirit of investigation. He produces terms expressive of ideas which could scarcely be supposed or even imagined to have entered into the minds of the early and rude population of the Highlands; he points out similes, and trains of thought, derived or plagiarised from the writings of other authors, particularly from Virgil, Milton, Thomson, and the Book of Psalms; and, finally, he institutes a curious comparison between the method of arranging terms and expressing ideas in the poems of Ossian, and that which is exhibited in a forgotten poem, called The Highlander, published in early life by Macpherson,—pointing out many striking coincidences, and clearly establishing, to a certain extent, a complete identity of authorship. In short, the Dissertation, taken as a whole, though strained in some points, and overlaboured in others, presents a body of evidence and argument, which has completely satisfied all impartial persons as to the spuriousness of the pretended translations of Macpherson, and almost reduced the defenders of their authenticity to despair. The onset made by Johnson had proved entirely abortive, because it was a mere sudden ebullition, the offspring of passion and prejudice, rather than of inquiry or examination; but the attack of Laing was of a very different character; and being conducted in a scientific manner, by regular approaches from various points, it ultimately succeeded in demolishing every defence, and in forcing the defenders of Ossian to capitulate at discretion. “I was delighted and instructed by your History,” says Dr Parr, in an original letter now before us, “and I sincerely think your remarks on Ossian one of the most able and satisfactory pieces of criticism I ever read; it amounts to demonstration, and does the highest credit to your sagacity and your knowledge.”

But the author of this fierce attack upon one of the strongholds of Scottish national pride did not achieve his victory without suitable reprobation. The Highlanders were loud in their wailings, and the public prints teemed with ebullitions of their wrath. All their national feelings were excited into furious activity against the man who had dared to dispute the authenticity of Macpherson’s pretended translations, which every Highlander was prepared to receive, with undoubting faith, as the genuine inspirations of Ossian. Mr Laing was regarded as a sort of monster, who, having no bowels of compassion, had set all feelings of patriotism at defiance. To many it seemed an anomaly in human nature, that a Scotchman should thus voluntarily undermine a fabric of national glory; and, unable otherwise to account for such sacrilege, they sought to discover in the author motives of petty rancour, local prejudice, and inconceivable animosity. Mr Laing’s Dissertation, however, had the merit of eliciting a report by a committee of the Highland Society of Scotland, “appointed to inquire into the nature and authenticity of the poems of Ossian but although the inquiry was conducted under the superintendence of Mr Henry Mackenzie, and brought to light some curious facts previously unknown, it left the question as to the authenticity of Macpherson’s pretended translations very much in the same situation in which it originally stood. Meanwhile, Mr Laing brought the controversy to a final issue by publishing a work, entitled the Poems of Ossian, containing the Poetical Works of James Macpherson, in prose and rhyme, with Notes and Illustrations, the nature of which may easily be conceived. This work is in fact a great literary curiosity. Like a victim decked out for immolation, it is conspicuously introduced to the world only to render its destruction the more signal and notorious. About the same time, an attempt was made to answer Mr Laing’s argument, by a gentleman of the name of Macdonald; and, two years afterwards, an elaborate work, complacently termed a Confutation, was published by Dr Graham of Aberfoyle, who, however, gave a somewhat unlucky specimen of his qualifications for the task, by quoting, as authority concerning the Celts, the treatise of Tacitus De Moribus Germanorum, which refers entirely to the nations of Teutonic origin. Mr Laing did not feel himself called upon to answer an argument based upon such infelicitous and inapplicable authority.

His next work was one which, if possible, occasioned a still greater outpouring of wrath than his Dissertation on the Poems of Ossian. In 1804 he published a new edition of his History, to which he prefixed, in two volumes, a Preliminary Dissertation on the participation of Mary Queen of Scots in the Murder of Darnley. The object of this disquisition is declared in the title; and, throughout the whole detail, the author never for an instant deviates from the conclusion of guilt, which it is the professed purpose of his elaborate induction to establish. This, in fact, is the peculiar manner in which he has almost invariably treated controverted questions. Having first formed his own opinion from analytical investigation, he proceeds at once to establish it by synthetical probation; he arranges his documents and produces his arguments with the precision and conciseness of a practised logician; and, in the treatise in question, he no more hints at the possibility of the queen’s innocence, than the crown-lawyer at that of the prisoner against whom he seeks for a verdict of guilty. He goes directly forward to his object, accumulating proofs or presumptions of criminality as he advances, till at length he carries our reason as it were by storm, and compels us, whether we will· or not, to acquiesce in the judgment which from the first we had been prepared to hear pronounced. Few who have read this extraordinary production can ever forget the startling exactness with which the arguments are suited to the facts, or the strict accordance of the reasoning with all the details of the murder as given in the narrative of that event submitted to the reader. The reciprocal adaptation is in every respect complete; and hence the whole fabric must be overthrown together, or the joint force and full result of all must be unconditionally admitted. There is no other alternative, no intermediate term; Mr Laing grapples with his subject in such a manner as to render it impossible to withstand the force of his attack except by utterly destroying the assailant.

Hence it has been generally acknowledged that the effect of his reasoning is irresistible. “His inquiry into the controverted question of Mary’s participation in the death of Darnley,” says Dr Parr, “is minute without tediousness, and acute without sophistry. Whether I consider,” adds he, “his sagacity in explaining causes, his clearness in relating facts, his vigour in pourtraying characters, or his ingenuity in unfolding and enforcing principles, I shall ever find reason to lament that the continuation of Hume’s History was not undertaken by a writer βο eminently qualified as Mr Laing for a work so arduous and important.” In referring to the production in question, as one peculiarly characteristic of his genius, a very able writer in the Edinburgh Review employs still stronger language. “Mr Laing’s merit as a critical inquirer into history, an enlightened collector of materials, and a sagacious judge of evidence,” says he, “has never been surpassed. If any man,” adds he, “believes the inr∙
[7:13:24]

nocence of Queen Mary, after an impartial and dispassionate perusal of Mr Laing’s examination of her case, the state of such a man’s mind would be a subject worthy of much consideration by a philosophical observer of human nature.” Sir James Mackintosh expresses an opinion equally decided, but much more specific and detailed, “I have just finished a careful perusal of your Dissertation on Mary,” says he, in a letter to Mr Laing, dated Bombay, 28th of July 1807; “and I think myself bound to profess my shame for having ever doubted the atrocious guilt of that princess. Hume and Robertson are undoubtedly too mild. The original documents themselves cannot be read without conviction. Whoever doubts the genuineness of the long letter from Glasgow, or of Haubert’s confession, must either be incorrigibly prejudiced, or altogether unaccustomed to the examination of evidence. If she were tried before me, I should certainly direct a jury to find her guilty. Her adversaries (with the exception of Murray) seem a detestable gang. Only think of the conferences at York and Westminster, in which there were at least two accusers, Lethington and Morton, who were more or less concerned in the murder; for, after all Morton’s dying piety, by his own account, while his hands were reeking with Rizzio’s blood, he haggles for a written warrant from Mary; he suffers at least the murderous plot to proceed for months, undisturbed by him, to its completion, and he at last acts a principal part in the collusive acquittal of the man whom he knew to be the murderer. Indeed the Scottish court and nation were then little less barbarous, bloody, and perfidious, than Abyssinia in the time of Bruce, though the literature of Buchanan, and the beauty of the unfortunate Mary, throw a little fallacious brilliancy around them.” 1

Besides the works already enumerated, Mr Laing edited The Historie and Life of King James the Sext, which was published at Edinburgh in the year 1804, from a copy of the original manuscript which David Crawfurd of Drum-soy, historiographer to Queen Anne, had employed in comoiling his Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland. The occasion of this publication arose out of the exposure made by Mr Laing, in his Historical Dissertation on the Murder of Darnley, of the real character of Crawfurd’s work, and his “complete detection of the first of those literary forgeries for which the Scots are still so peculiarly distinguished.” This he had announced without reserve in the Dissertation. “It is necessary to observe,” says he, “that Crawfurd’s Memoirs are a downright forgery, which has ntroduced much error into the present controversy. Hav-ng found a manuscript history of the times, he expunged every passage unfavourable to Mary, inserted every fact or assertion which he found in Camden, Spottiswood, or Melvil, whom he quotes on the margin as collateral authorities; and, after compiling Memoirs of his own, protests, that without wresting the words, he has adhered to the sense and meaning of the original. From Goodall’s advertisement to the second edition, it appears that the manuscript was transferred to Mr Hamilton of Wishaw. On making proper inquiry, ĭ had the good fortune to find it among the papers of his descendant, the present Lord Belhaven. From the same advertisement it appears, that Goodall collated Crawfurd’s Memoirs, not only with Keith’s copy, but with another of the same manuscript in the Advocates’ Library;—nor had Goodall the honesty to explain the forgery which he must have perceived, or to state, in a single instance, the discrepancy between the manuscript and the printed Memoirs.” 2 These severe strictures naturally provoked criticism, and Mr Laing was soon afterwards induced to publish The Historic of the Life of King James the Sext, as contained in the Belhaven manuscript, the avowed prototype of Crawfurd’s Memoirs; a publication which he justly regarded not merely as a vindication of himself, but also as an instructive exposure of one of the grossest literary forgeries that have ever been employed to pervert the genuine history of Scotland. 3

In the year 1805 Mr Laing married Miss Margaret Carnegie, daughter of Mr Thomas Carnegie of Craigo, a most respectable gentleman in Forfarshire, and sister-in-law to his friend Lord Gillies. He continued to reside chiefly in Edinburgh, until 1807, in which year he was chosen member of parliament for Orkney. He was then in a very indifferent state of health; but, during that one session, he occasionally attended his duty in parliament, where, notwithstanding the disadvantages of his manner, he was listened to with much attention and respect. These brief and irregular appearances may be said to comprise his whole career as a legislator; for, although he still continued a member, a serious illness, with which he was now seized, prevented his further attendance in parliament, and thus deprived the country of the services of one who thoroughly understood, and was eminently qualified to advance, its true interests. Whether from excessive study and exertion, or from original debility of constitution, he suffered severely from a nervous disorder, which committed frightful inroads on his already enfeebled frame, and ultimately reduced him to such a state of weakness, that he required to be supported by artificial means to prevent him from fainting. In 1810, his illness still continuing, he went to reside in Orkney, hoping no doubt to derive benefit from breathing his native air. Nor were these hopes altogether disappointed. By the cessation of laborious and exhausting intellectual exertion, and still more perhaps by the absence of excitement, his health was to a certain extent re-established; and as his ever active mind required, as a condition of health, employment of some description, he sought and found it in attention to the primitive occupation of mankind. From this period he devoted himself entirely to agricultural pursuits, in which he displayed his usual zeal, and in which, also, his labours were crowned with success. He farmed with advantage to himself, but 1 Memoirs, &c. vol. ii. p. 346, 347∙ “One reflection struck me,” adds Sir James, in continuation. “In so small a town as Edinburgh then was, and at so little a court as that of Mary, I think it impossible that all the circumstances of a murder so long conspired, communicated to so many noblemen, and executed by so many of Bothwell’s dependents, should not have very soon transpired, and been really known in the whole society, before any formal evidence of them was in existence. The contrivance of a false tale, the forgery of the letters, &c. were, in such circumstances, impossible. Haubert, the queen’s valet, was a person of some consequence. The gentlemen who were Bothwell’s retainers were still more so. Their confession, if forged, would have been contradicted by witnesses enough. I speak now with some little experience in such matters. I have been three years a criminal judge, and I know what becomes of secrets in small societies.”

2 Laing’s History of Scotland, vol. i. p. 15, note.

3 f* re f ace thθ edition of The Historie printed for the Bannatyne Club, pp. xvi. and xvii. “One of the immediate results of this publication (by Mr Laing),” says the learned and ingenious editor, “was the discovery of the Newbattle manuscript, by the late noble Marquess of Lothian, who, with that liberality of spirit which in him was native and indelible, did not lose a moment in communicating his discovery to Mr Laing; and, in 1806, Mr Laing, with his characteristic promptitude and zeal, had made prepa-rations foi printing the continuation of the work which this manuscript put into his possession, together with the corrections on his previous publication which it had enabled him to make. From this object, however, he was afterwards diverted by other more important pursuits; and it is now (1825) only, for the first time, that the entire History and Life of King James the Sixth has been given to the public.” (Preface, ùbi supra.) a [7:13:25] certainly with far greater advantage to Orkney, into which he introduced many beneficial improvements, the general adoption of which is chiefly ascribable to his example. But his health, which had so long been infirm, continued to decline till November 1818, when he expired suddenly, without any suspicion having been entertained of the immediate approach of death.

Mr Laing was personally much esteemed, and, as an historian, greatly admired by Mr Fox, whose acquaintance he appears to have made some time in the year 1804·. In a note prefixed to an interleaved copy of the first edition of the History of Scotland, containing Dr Parr’s corrections, and dated on Good Friday 1803, the doctor says, “Mr Fox is a great admirer of your work, and he is also puri sermonis amator. 1 wish you were acquainted. As a critic, he is quite as captious and fastidious in protecting English idiom from Scottish invasion as I am.” It would appear that not long afterwards the wish here expressed was realized. Mr Fox not only admired Mr Laing’s work, but emphatically pronounced it a “treasure ;” opening, as he said, new sources of interesting information; presenting new views of important transactions; and constituting a valuable acquisition to all who desire to obtain a true knowledge of the history of the nation of which it treats. The correspondence which passed between these distinguished individuals still remains unpublished, though it would no doubt form a very interesting addition to our stock of epistolary information respecting the history of the period to which it relates. During the time that Mr Laing represented his native county in parliament, and was permitted by the state of his health to attend to his parliamentary duties, he gave an active and zealous support to the short administration of his illustrious friend, of whose character and principles he was an ardent and devoted admirer.

The severity of Mr Laing’s manner, the uncompromising nature of his opinions, the inflexible sternness of his principles, and the keen controversial character of his writings, all united to raise up against him a numerous host of adversaries, who but too often endeavoured to conceal their deficiency in knowledge and in argument by the bitterness of their scurrility, or the virulence of their abuse; but, in his private capacity, he appears to have had no enemies. On the contrary, he was much esteemed and beloved by his personal friends, all of whom that still survive agree in describing him as a single-hearted, upright, and truly honest man, who, to the courage necessary for asserting any truth however dangerous, or combating any prejudice however inveterate, added a higher and rarer endowment, namely, the magnanimity of acknowledging and correcting an error when it was distinctly shown to be such. He loved truth for its own sake; and though he delighted to discuss controverted questions both in history and in letters, he never contended for victory like a vulgar disputant, but only sought, by the honest means of research and reasoning, to disencumber such questions of the errors and fallacies with which he conceived them to have been overgrown, and to set before the world the uncorrupted truth in its native simplicity and purity. That his judgments were sometimes harsh, and his censure often unsparing, when the occasion seemed scarcely to require any great display of severity, is what his admirers have never denied nor attempted to conceal; but, on the other hand, it is proper to keep in view, that strong convictions naturally give birth to strong expressions, and that a mind at once actuated by the love of truth, rectitude, and liberty, and by an innate abhorrence of falsehood, iniquity, and oppression, could scarcely be expected, in surveying some of the darkest and blackest portions of our annals, to refrain from giving utterance to that moral indignation which every lover of freedom and of virtue must feel in contemplating the abuse of law, justice, religion, humanity, and government, for the purpose of enslaving and oppressing a whole people. Finally, to Mr Laing, more perhaps than to any other historian or critic of his country, belongs the undoubted merit of having cleared away much rubbish, removed much prejudice, refuted numerous and grave errors, detected not a few impostures, and, generally, placed both the characters and events of that portion of our national history of which he treats, in a clearer and more satisfactory light than he found them.

(See Parr’s Works, edited by Dr Johnstone, vol. viii.; Field’s Memoirs of the Life, Writings, and Opinions of Dr Parr, in two vols.; Pinkerton’s Literary Correspondence, in two vols.; Original Letters of Dr Parr 1 to Mr Laing; Edinburgh Review, vol. xliv. p. 37; The Historie and Life of King James the Sext, edited by Mr Laing, Edinburgh, 1804, in 8vo; The Historie and Life of James the Sext, with a short continuation to the year 1617, from the Newbattle Manuscript, printed for the Bannatyne Club, with a preface by the Vice-President, Mr Thomas Thomson, Edinburgh, 1825, in 4to; Laing’s History and other Works, passim?) , (a.)