_Remarks on Dr Robertson’s character of the Regent Murray._――I am not moved with the unfavourable representations which the partisans of Mary have given of Murray, nor am I surprised at the cold manner in which Mr Hume has spoken of him; but I confess that it pains me to think of the way in which Dr Robertson has drawn his character. The faint praise which he has bestowed on him, the doubt which he has thrown over his moral qualities, and the unqualified censures which he has pronounced upon some parts of his conduct, have, I am afraid, done more injury to the regent’s memory, than the exaggerated accounts of his adversaries. History of Scotland, vol. ii. 315, 316. Lond. 1809. Having said this much, it will be expected that I shall be more particular. In addition to those qualities which “even his enemies allow him to have possessed in an eminent degree,” Dr R. mentions his humanity, his distinguished patronage of learning, and impartial administration of justice. “Zealous for religion,” he adds, “to a degree which distinguished him even at a time when professions of that kind were not uncommon.” This is what every person must allow, but it certainly is far from doing justice to this part of the regent’s character. His professions of religion were uniformly supported in all the different situations in which he was placed; his strict regard to divine institutions was accompanied with the most correct and exemplary morals; his religious principle triumphed over a temptation which proved too powerful for almost all the protestant nobility. (See above, p. 290.) When there exist such proofs of sincerity, to withhold the tribute due to it is injurious not only to the individual, but to the general interests of religion. After bearing {336} a decided testimony to the “disinterested passion for the liberty of his country,” which prompted Murray to oppose the pernicious system of the princes of Lorrain, and the “zeal and affection” with which he served Mary on her return to Scotland, the historian adds:――“But, on the other hand, his ambition was immoderate; and events happened that opened to him vast projects, which allured his enterprising genius, and led him to actions inconsistent with the duty of a subject.” That his ambition was “immoderate” does not, I think, appear from any evidence which has been produced. Dr R. has defended him from the charge as brought against him at an earlier period of his life, and we have met with facts that serve to corroborate the defence. (See vol. i. p. 443.) The “vast projects” that opened to him must be limited to the attainment of the regency; for I do not think that Dr R. ever for a moment gave credit to the ridiculous tale, that he designed to set aside the young king, and seat himself upon the throne. His acceptance of the regency cannot be pronounced “inconsistent with the duty of a subject,” without determining the question, Whether the nation was