“His treatment of the queen, to whose bounty he was so much indebted, was unbrotherly and ungrateful.” To the charge of ingratitude, I can only reply, by repeating what I have said in the text, that all the honours which she conferred on him were not too great a reward for the important services which he had rendered her. How often have persons been celebrated for sacrificing parental as well as brotherly affection to the public good! The probable reasons for Murray’s interview with the queen in Lochleven have been stated by Mr Laing. History, i. 119‒121. Were I to speak of what was incumbent on him as a _christian_ brother with the view of bringing her to a just sense of the iniquity of her conduct, I would use language which, I am afraid, would not be understood by many readers, and which many professed christians seem to forget, when they talk on this subject. Any exertions which were necessary to save his sister’s life were not wanting on the part of Murray. To restore her to the government, or even, as matters then stood, to restore her to liberty, he was not bound by any ties either of a public or private kind. Had he amused her with the hopes of this, he might have escaped the charge of harshness, but his conduct would have been more unbrotherly. “But he deceived and betrayed Norfolk with a baseness unworthy of a man of honour.” To this harsh censure I oppose the opinion of Mr Hume, who will not be suspected of partiality to the regent. “Particularly,” says he, in a letter to Dr Robertson, written after the publication of his History of Scotland, “I could {338} almost undertake to convince you that the earl of Murray’s conduct with the duke of Norfolk was _no way_ dishonourable.” Stewart’s Life of Robertson: History, i. 158. See also, in confirmation of this, “Part of a letter from the earl of Murray to L. B.,” inserted in vol. ii. Append. No. xxxiii.