. Whatever doubts may have existed in the mind of Charles Edward
as to the fidelity of his General, are silenced by the long and hopeless
exile of Lord George Murray, and by the continued friendship of the
Chevalier St. George. No overtures, as in the case of the Earl of Mar,
to the British Government, nor efforts on the part of his prosperous and
favoured brother, the Duke of Atholl, have transpired to show that in
saving Blair, there was a secret understanding that there should be a
future reward, nor that any surmise of treachery had opened a door to
reconciliation. Charles, be it remembered, was under that daily, hourly
influence, which weakens the judgment, and exasperates the passions. His
opinion of Lord George Murray must not be accepted as any evidence
against one who had redeemed the inconsistencies of his youth by the
great exertions of his manhood.

Some vital defects there were, nevertheless, in this General, of
powerful intellect, and of earnest and honourable intentions. His
character partook too largely of that quality which has raised his
country as a nation in all other countries, prudence. For his peculiar
situation he was far too cautious. Persevering and inflexible, he was
destitute of hope. If it be true, that he entered into the undertaking
with a conviction that the cause could never prosper, he was the last
man that should have been the general of an army whose ardour, when not
engaged in action, he invariably restrained. All contending opinions
seem to hesitate and to falter when they relate to the retreat from
Derby, the grand error of the enterprise; the fatal step, when the tide
served, and the wind was propitious, and an opportunity never to be
regained, was for ever lost.

In private society, Lord George Murray is reported to have been
overbearing and hasty; his fine person, and handsome countenance were
lessened in their agreeableness by a haughty deportment. He was simple,
temperate, and self-denying in his habits. In his relations of life, he
appears to have been respectable. His letters show him to have enjoyed,
at least, the usual means of education offered to a soldier, who entered
upon active service at sixteen, or to have improved his own
acquirements. They are clear and explicit, and bear the impress of
sincerity and good sense.

Distrusted as he was by Charles Edward, and misrepresented by others, we
may accord to Lord George Murray the indulgence which he claims from
posterit