s opinions
to order, that he does not give them out to the world according as they
may best benefit and satisfy his employers. His masters may be hated,
but he is both hated and despised. If it could be proved that Murray was
solely actuated by ambition and the hope of getting the throne for
himself, he would still be a belligerent with the honours of war due to
him; but the scribe, the hireling who is employed to state the whole
matter, has no position but that of a venal dependant ready to set forth
whatever is for his master's interests. Thus the historian of a party,
who makes money by his work, the literary advocate whose office it is to
make the strongest statement possible of his employer's case, is
subject--or at least was subject in more primitive times--to the worst
reproaches. His testimony was seldom taken as conscientious or true.

Buchanan's _Detection_ was peculiarly subject to this reproach. It was
written for the purpose of proving the case of the lords by demolishing
entirely that of the Queen--before England and the commissioners of
England first, seated in session to investigate the subject, and after
them before the world in general. The inquiry which was opened at York
in October 1568, six months after Mary's escape to England, was the most
like a trial of anything in which her history was discussed. She was
represented by commissioners, while Murray and several of his colleagues
were present in person, along with Buchanan and other secretaries or
minor commissioners. It was at this inquiry that the Casket Letters were
first produced under, we are bound to say, if we judge by the rules of a
period of settled law and order like our own, very suspicious
circumstances. Even the question of the language in which they were
written is a very difficult one. All through, indeed, this question is
difficult, though it is never formally discussed until that tragical
occasion. In what language did Mary and Knox hold their discussions?
Could it be always in French that this accomplished Queen wrote and
spoke? When she is reported to have said, as recorded in a previous
chapter, "That man gart me greet sore, and grat never tear," is this
expression, so distinctively and strongly Scots, a translation from some
more elegant murmur in another language? She who had so many tongues,
had she left out that in which she had been born, the language of her
childhood and of her country? This problem is only considered by th