etray her to every body; and fortune threw into her enemies'
hands papers by which they could convict her. The same infatuation and
imprudence, which happily is the usual attendant of great crimes,
will account for both. It is proper to observe, that there is not one
circumstance of the foregoing narrative, contained in the history,
that is taken from Knox, Buchanan, or even Thuanus, or indeed from any
suspected authority.]

[Footnote 13: NOTE M, p. 111. Unless we take this angry accusation,
advanced by Queen Mary, to be an argument of Murray's guilt, there
remains not the least presumption which should lead us to suspect him to
have been anywise an accomplice in the king's murder. That queen
never pretended to give any proof of the charge; and her commissioners
affirmed at the time, that they themselves knew of none, though they
were ready to maintain its truth by their mistress's orders, and would
produce such proof as she should send them. It is remarkable that,
at that time, it was impossible for either her or them to produce any
proof; because the conferences before the English commissioners were
previously broken off.

It is true, the bishop of Ross, in an angry pamphlet, written by him
under a borrowed name, (where it is easy to say any thing,) affirms that
Lord Herreis, a few days after the king's death, charged Murray with the
guilt, openly to his face, at his own table. This latter nobleman, as
Lesley relates the matter, affirmed, that Murray, riding in Fife with
one of his servants, the evening before the commission of that crime,
said to him among other talk, "This night, ere morning, the Lord Darnley
shall lose his life." See Anderson, vol. i. p. 75. But this is only a
hearsay of Lesley's concerning a hearsay of Herreis's, and contains
a very improbable fact. Would Murray, without any use or necessity,
communicate to a servant such a dangerous and important secret, merely
by way of conversation;[**?] We may also observe, that Lord Herreis
himself was one of Queen Mary's commissioners, who accused Murray. Had
he ever heard this story, or given credit to it, was not that the time
to have produced it? and not have affirmed, as he did, that he, for his
part, knew nothing of Murray's guilt. See Goodall, vol. ii. p. 307.

The earls of Huntley and Argyle accuse Murray of this crime; but the
reason which they assign is ridiculous. He had given his consent to
Mary's divorce from the king; therefore he was the ki