produced the greatest smoothness and even polish. The historian, in the fifth volume of his History of England, speaks of him as "a person that has writ an Enquiry historical and critical into the evidence against Mary Queen of Scots." He goes on to accuse him with having "almost directly called him a liar," and charges him in his turn with being guilty of "scandalous artifices." He concludes with that well-known passage, in which he maintains that "there are indeed three events in our history which may be regarded as touchstones of party-men. An English Whig, who asserts the reality of the Popish Plot, an Irish Catholic, who denies the massacre in 1641, and a Scotch Jacobite, who maintains the innocence of Queen Mary, must be considered as men beyond the reach of argument or reason, and must be left to their prejudices."[1] In a letter to Robertson, written some years earlier than this note, Hume says: "I desire my compliments to Lord Elibank. I hope his lordship has forgot his vow of answering us, and of washing Queen Mary white. I am afraid that is impossible; but his lordship is very well qualified to gild her."[2] Hume, with all his good nature, was not a little touchy, and perhaps took offence where no offence was meant. Lord Elibank had been "the early patron of Robertson and Home, the tragick poet, who when they were ministers of country parishes, lived near his seat. He told me," continues Boswell, "'I saw these lads had talents, and they were much with me.' I hope they will pay a grateful tribute to his memory." According to Dr. Carlyle, they found a far better way of showing their gratitude, for "they cured him of his contempt for the Presbyterian clergy, made him change or soften down many of his original opinions, and prepared him for becoming a most agreeable member of the Literary Society of Edinburgh, among whom he lived during the remainder of his life, admiring and admired."[3] Besides his Enquiry, he published several other "small pieces of distinguished merit," according to Boswell. National Debts and the Currency were among the subjects of which he treated.[4] Dr. Carlyle describes him as "rather a humourist than a man of humour; one who defended paradoxes and uncommon opinions with a copiousness and ingenuity that was surprising." This part of his character would have endeared him to Johnson, who liked a tavern because, as he said, "wine there prompts me
