Life of Mary Queen of Scots, Volume 1 (of 2)

Elizabeth seldom did things by halves. She assembled her Privy Council, and, at the instigation of Cecil, they gave it as their unanimous opinion, that “this marriage with my Lord Darnley appeared to be unmeet, unprofitable, and directly prejudicial to the sincere amity between both the Queens.”[89 - Keith, p. 275.] Upon what reasons this sage determination was founded, the Privy Council did not condescend to state. It is not difficult, however, to do so for them, the more especially as an official paper is still preserved, drawn up by Cecil himself, in which the explanations he attempts serve to disclose more fully his own and his Queen’s policy. He did not think this marriage “meet or profitable;” because, in the first place, it would have given great content to those who were anxious that Mary’s succession to the English crown should not be set aside; and in the second place, because, by representing it as dangerous, a plausible pretence would be furnished to all Mary’s enemies to join with Elizabeth in opposing it, and harassing the Queen of Scots. Cecil proceeds to point out explicitly how the harassing system was to be carried on. First, It was to be represented, that in France the houses of Guise and Lorraine, and all the other leading Catholics; and in Scotland, all who hated the Duke of Chatelherault and the Hamiltons, and Murray and the Reformers, and were devoted to the authority of Rome, approved of the marriage. Second, It was to be spread abroad that the Devil would stir up some of the friends of Mary and Darnley, to alienate the minds of Elizabeth’s subjects, and even to attempt the life of that Sovereign; and, under the pretext of preventing such evils, the most rigorous measures might be taken against all suspected persons; and, Third, Tumults and rebellions in Scotland were to be fomented in all prudent and secret ways.[90 - Keith, Appendix, p. 97.]

To report to Mary the decision of her Privy Council, Elizabeth sent Sir Nicolas Throckmorton into Scotland. He arrived at Stirling on the 15th of May 1565, and, in an audience which Mary gave him, he set forth Elizabeth’s disliking and disallowance of what she was pleased to term “the hasty proceeding with my Lord Darnley.” Mary, with becoming dignity and unanswerable argument, replied, that she was sorry Elizabeth disliked the match, but that, as to her “disallowance,” she had never asked the English Queen’s permission, – she had only communicated to her, as soon as she had made up her own mind, the person whom she had chosen. She was not a little surprised, she added, at Elizabeth’s opposition, since it had been expressly intimated to her, through the English resident, Randolph, that if she avoided a foreign alliance, “she might take her choice of any person within the realms of England or Scotland, without any exception.” Her choice had fallen upon Lord Darnley, both from the good qualities she found in him, and because being Elizabeth’s kinsman and her’s, and participating of the English and Scottish blood royal, she had imagined that none would be more agreeable to her Majesty and the realm of England. Convinced, by so decided an answer to his remonstrance, that Mary’s resolution was fixed, Throckmorton wrote to Elizabeth, that she could not hope to stop the marriage, unless she had recourse to violence. But Elizabeth had too much prudence to take up arms herself; all she wished was, to instigate others to this measure. Accordingly, Throckmorton, one of the wiliest of her diplomatic agents, received orders to deal with the Scottish malcontents, and especially the Earl of Murray, whom he was to assure of Elizabeth’s support, should they proceed to extremities. Murray was likewise invited to enter into a correspondence with Cecil, an invitation with which he willingly complied;[91 - Keith, p. 280.] and to give the whole affair as serious an air as possible, a fresh supply of troops was sent to the Earl of Bedford, Elizabeth’s Lieutenant of the Borders; and her Wardens of the Marches were commanded to show no more favour to Mary’s subjects than the bare abstaining from any breach of peace. The Earl of Northumberland, who was attached to the Lennox family, was detained in London; and Lady Lennox herself, was committed to the Tower. Lady Somerset, who pretended a sort of title to the English succession in opposition to Mary, was received very graciously at the Court of Westminster. Means were used to induce Secretary Maitland to associate himself with Murray, and the other discontents; and, all this time, that no suspicion of such insiduous enmity towards the Scottish Queen might be entertained on the Continent, the good opinion of France and Spain was carefully courted.

Elizabeth next wrote letters to Lennox and Darnley, commanding them both, as her subjects, to return to England without delay. Randolph was desired to wait upon them, to know what answer they were disposed to give. He got little satisfaction from either; – Lennox firmly, and Darnley contemptuously, refused to obey the mandate of recall. Randolph then waited upon the Queen to ascertain her mind on the subject. Mary felt keenly the contemptible jealousy and envy with which she was treated by Elizabeth; and received the English resident with greater reserve than she had ever done before, “as a man new and first come into her presence that she had never seen.” Randolph asked, if she would give Lennox and Darnley permission to depart for England. Mary smiled at the question, which was an artful one, and said, – “If I would give them leave, I doubt what they would do themselves; I see no will in them to return.” Randolph answered with insolence, that they must either return, or do worse; for that, if they refused, and were supported by Mary in that refusal, the Queen his mistress had the power and the will to be revenged upon both them and her. The Queen of Scots merely replied, that she hoped Elizabeth would change her mind, and so dismissed Randolph.

Satisfied of the integrity of her purpose, Mary was not to be easily driven from it. She sent Mr John Hay to the English court, to state once more her anxious wish to avoid giving any just cause of offence to Elizabeth, but at the same time to repeat, that she could not but consider as strange and vexatious, any opposition to a marriage, to which there did not seem to be one plausible objection. He was desired also to complain of the “sharp handling” which had been given to Mary’s aunt, the Lady Margaret Douglas, Countess of Lennox. But her chief anxieties arose from the state of matters nearer home. The Duke of Chatelherault, and the Earls of Murray, Argyle, and Glencairn, had now openly declared themselves adverse to the marriage; and Lethington and Morton were suspected of giving it only a very doubtful support. There was, in consequence, a great change at Mary’s court. They who had formerly most influence kept away from it altogether; and a new set of men, little accustomed to state duties, such as Montrose, Fleming, Cassils, Montgomery, and others, came into favour. It was now that Mary found Rizzio, who was active, and well acquainted with all the details of public business, and was, besides, liked by Darnley, of the greatest use to her; and being deserted by her more efficient, but too ambitious counsellors, she gladly availed herself of his services.

CHAPTER XIII.

MARY’S MARRIAGE WITH DARNLEY

Murray, meanwhile, was busily organizing his scheme of rebellion. “Their chief trust,” says Randolph, alluding to the Earl and his associates, “next unto God, is the Queen’s Majesty, (Elizabeth,) whom they will repose themselves upon; not leaving in the meantime to provide for themselves the best they can.” Elizabeth was not backward to give them every encouragement. She wrote letters to the heads of the party; means were taken to win over to their views the General Assembly, which met in June 1565, the members of which, as Randolph says, were “never more constant or more earnest;” and the nobles summoned by Mary to a convention at Perth, were all tampered with. But the great majority at this convention, gave their consent and approbation to the proposed marriage; and Murray, in despair, begged Randolph to inform his mistress, in the name of himself and those who had joined his faction, that they were “grieved to see such extreme folly in their sovereign; that they lamented the state of their country, which tended to utter ruin; and that they feared the nobility would be forced to assemble themselves together, so to provide for the state, that it should not utterly perish.” In other words, they had made up their mind to rebellion; at all events, to prevent Darnley from obtaining the crown, and an ascendancy over them, – and probably, if an opportunity should offer, to put Mary in confinement, and rule the country themselves. This was exactly the state of feeling which Elizabeth had long laboured to produce in Scotland. “Some that have already heard,” says Randolph, “of my Lady’s Grace imprisonment,” (meaning the Countess of Lennox), “like very well thereof, and wish both father and son to keep her company. The question hath been asked me, whether, if they were delivered us into Berwick, we would receive them? I answered, that we could not nor would not refuse our own, in what sort soever they came unto us.”[92 - Keith, p. 290.] But as it was felt that a plausible apology would be required for proceeding to these extremities, the Earl of Murray gave out that a conspiracy had been formed to assassinate him at the Convention at Perth. His story was, that there had been a quarrel between one of his own servants and another man, who was supported by retainers of Athol and Lennox, and that it had been arranged that they should renew their dispute at Perth, and that he himself should be slain in the affray, which was expected to ensue. But the evidence of a plot against him rests only upon Murray’s own statement and when Mary asked him to transmit in writing a more particular account of it, seeing that he made it his excuse for refusing to come to Court, “it appeared to her Highness and to her Council, that his purgation in that behalf, was not so sufficient as the matter required;” and his excuse was not sustained.[93 - Of Chatelherault, Argyle, Murray, Morton, and Glencairn, all of whom were summoned to the Convention, only Morton came. Keith, p. 287.]

The treasonable views entertained by Murray and his friends, are involved in no such doubt. In these times, the common mode of effecting a change in the government, was to seize the person of the sovereign; and all historians of credit agree in affirming, that Murray was determined on making the experiment. On Sunday, the first of July, 1565, the Queen was to ride with Darnley and a small train of friends from Perth to the seat of Lord Livingston at Callander, the baptism of one of whose children she had promised to attend. Murray knew that it would be necessary for her to pass, in the course of this journey, through several steep and wild passes, where she and her attendants might easily be overpowered. At what precise spot the attack was to be made, or whether that was not left to the chapter of accidents, does not appear. Knox, who was, of course, too staunch a Presbyterian directly to accuse the great lay-head of his church of so treasonable a design, says that the path of Dron (a rugged pass about three miles south of Perth), had been mentioned, whilst Sir James Melville and others, point out the Kirk of Beith, which stood on a solitary piece of ground, between Dumfermline and the Queensferry. But late upon the previous Saturday night, a rumour reached Mary of the contemplated plot. To prevent its execution, she ordered the Earl of Athol and Lord Ruthven, to collect immediately as strong a body of men as possible; and through their exertions, she left Perth next morning at five, accompanied by three hundred horsemen well mounted. Murray was waiting at Loch Leven, Argyle at Castle Campbell, Chatelherault at his house of Kinneil, in the neighbourhood of the Queensferry, and Lord Rothes, who had joined in the conspiracy, at a place called the Parrot Well, not far distant. The Queen, however, to their great disappointment, having passed over the ground on which they intended to intercept her, both much earlier in the day, and much more strongly guarded than they had anticipated, they were obliged to remain quiet; indeed the Earl of Argyle did not come to join Murray, till two hours after Mary had ridden through Kinross.[94 - Keith, p. 291, et seq. – Chalmers, vol. i. p. 139, et seq.; vol. ii. p. 141. – Tytler, vol. i. p. 374, et seq. Melville’s account of this conspiracy is, that Murray and the other Lords “had made a mynt to tak the Lord Darnley, in the Queen’s company, at the Raid of Baith, and to have sent him in England as they allegit. I wot not what was in their minds, but it was ane evil-favoured enterprise whereintil the Queen was in danger, either of kepping (imprisonment) or heart-breaking; and as they had failed in their foolish enterprise, they took on plainly their arms of rebellion.” Melville, p. 135. There is some reason to believe, that Knox was implicated in this conspiracy; for, in the continuation of his History, written by his amanuensis, Richard Bannatyne, under the authority of the General Assembly, it appears that a Mr Hamilton, minister of St Andrews, had openly accused him of a share in it; and though Knox noticed the accusation, it does not appear that he ever satisfactorily refuted it. – Goodall, vol. i. p. 207.]

On Mary’s return to Edinburgh she found that an attempt had been made, through the conjoined influence of Knox and Murray, to stir up to sedition some of the more bigoted Presbyterians – on the plea that Darnley favoured Popery. Two or three hundred of the malcontents, or brethren, as Knox calls them, assembled at St Leonard’s Hill, and their mutinous proceedings might have led to disagreeable consequences, had not Mary arrived just in time to disperse and overawe them.[95 - Keith, p. 293 – Spottiswoode, p. 190.] Murray and his associates, keeping at a greater distance, held some secret meetings at Loch-Leven, and then assembling at Stirling on the 17th of July, openly raised the standard of rebellion. But, amidst all these troubles, Mary, conscious that she had right upon her side, remained undaunted, and, at no period of her life, did her strength of mind appear more conspicuous. To retain that confidence, which she knew the great majority of her subjects still placed in her, she issued proclamations announcing her determination to abstain, as she had hitherto done, from any interference in the matter of religion; she wrote, with her own hand, letters to many of her nobles, assuring them of the integrity of her intentions; and, she sent requisitions to all upon whom she could depend, calling on them to collect their followers, and come armed to her assistance.

The Earl of Murray, on the other hand, having thrown off his allegiance to his own Sovereign, became entirely subservient to the wishes and commands of Elizabeth. He and his friends wrote to request that she would send them, as a proof of her sincerity in the cause, the sum of three thousand pounds to meet the expenses of the current year; and they would thus be able, they imagined, to carry every thing before them, unless Mary received foreign assistance. They likewise suggested that Lord Hume, whose estates lay on the Borders, and who was one of the Scottish Queen’s most faithful servants, should be harassed by some ostensibly accidental incursions; – that the Bishop of Dumblane, who was to be sent on an embassy to the Continent, should be delayed in London till “his budgets were rifled by some good slight or other;” – and that Bothwell, whom Mary was about to recall, to obtain his assistance in her present difficulties, should be “kept in good surety” for a time.[96 - Keith, p. 294, et seq.] To all this Elizabeth replied, that if the Lords suffered any inconvenience, “they should not find lack in her to succour them.” She hinted, however, that the less money they asked the better, advising them “neither to make greater expense than their security makes necessary, nor less which may bring danger.” “This letter,” says Keith, “is an evident demonstration of the English Queen’s fomenting and supporting a rebellion in Scotland; and the rebellious Lords knew too well what they had to trust to.”

One can hardly attempt to unravel, as has been done in the preceding pages, the secret causes which led to the iniquitous rebellion now organized, without feeling it almost a duty to express indignation both at the malicious interference of the English Queen, and the overweening ambition and ingratitude of the Earl of Murray. Mary’s conduct, since her return from France, had been almost unexceptionable. The only fault she had committed, and the necessity of the times forced it on her, was yielding too implicitly to the counsels of her brother. These had been in some instances judicious, and in others, the natural severity of his temper had been rebuked by the mildness of Mary; so that, take it for all in all, no government had ever been more popular in Scotland than hers. Her choice of Lord Darnley for a husband, so far from diminishing the estimation in which she was held by the great body of her subjects, only contributed to raise her in their opinion. For the sake of the political advantages which would result to her country from this alliance, she was willing to forego much more splendid offers; and, though the imperfections of Darnley’s character might ultimately be the means of destroying her own happiness, his birth and expectations were exactly such as gave him the best right to be the father of James VI. Nor could his religious opinions be objected to, for, whatever they were, they did not influence the Queen; – indeed, ever since she had known him, she had treated the Protestants with even more than her usual liberality. At the baptism of Lord Livingston’s child, she remained and heard a Protestant sermon; and about the same time she intimated to some of the leaders of the Reformers, that though she was not persuaded of the truth of any religion except of that in which she had been brought up, she would nevertheless allow a conference and disputation on the Scriptures in her presence, and also a public preaching from the mouth of Mr Erskine of Dun, whom she regarded as “a mild and sweet-natured man, with true honesty and uprightness.”[97 - Keith, p. 297.] All these things considered, one is at a loss to conceive how, even in these restless times, any set of men dared to enter into rebellion against Mary. But the selfish and insidious policy of Elizabeth – the jealousy of the Duke of Chatelherault, in whose family rested the succession to the Scottish crown, and who had hoped that his son Arran might have obtained Mary’s hand – the envy and rage of the Earl of Argyle, who had been obliged to surrender to Lennox some of his forfeited estates – and, above all, the artful and grasping spirit of Murray, solve the enigma. Whatever opinion may be entertained of Mary’s subsequent proceedings it appears but too evident, that the first serious troubles of her reign were forced upon her in spite of her utmost prudence, by the intrigues of enemies who were only the more dangerous, because they had for a time assumed the disguise of friends.

Whatever the hopes or wishes of the conspirators might be, Mary resolved that they should not long have it in their power to make their desire to prevent her nuptials a pretext for continuing in arms. On Sunday, the 29th of July 1565, she celebrated her marriage with Darnley, upon whom she had previously conferred various titles, and among others that of Duke of Albany.[98 - Buchanan says, foolishly enough, that the predictions of “wizardly women” contributed much to hasten this marriage. They prophesied, it seems, that if it was consummated before the end of July, it would be happy for both; if not, it would be the source of much misery. It is a pity that these predictions were not true.] The banns of matrimony were proclaimed in the Canongate church, the palace of Holyrood being in that parish; and, as Mary and Darnley were first cousins, a Catholic dispensation had been obtained from the Pope. The ceremony was performed, according to the Catholic ritual, in the chapel of Holyrood, between five and six in the morning – an hour which appears somewhat strange to modern habits. John Sinclair, Dean of Restalrig, and Bishop of Brechin, had the honour of presiding on the occasion. It was generally remarked, that a handsomer couple had never been seen in Scotland. Mary was now twenty-three, and at the very height of her beauty, and Darnley, though only nineteen, was of a more manly person and appearance than his age would have indicated. The festivities were certainly not such as had attended the Queen’s first marriage, for the elegancies of life were not understood in Scotland as in France; and, besides, it was a time of trouble when armed men were obliged to stand round the altar. Nevertheless, all due observances and rejoicings lent a dignity to the occasion. Mary, in a flowing robe of black, with a wide mourning hood, was led into the chapel by the Earls of Lennox and Athol, who, having conducted her to the altar, retired to bring in the bridegroom. The Bishop having united them in the presence of a great attendance of Lords and Ladies, three rings were put upon the Queen’s finger – the middle one a rich diamond. They then knelt together, and many prayers were said over them. At their conclusion, Darnley kissed his bride, and as he did not himself profess the Catholic faith, left her till she should hear mass. She was afterwards followed by most of the company to her own apartments, where she laid aside her sable garments, to intimate, that henceforth, as the wife of another, she would forget the grief occasioned by the loss of her first husband. In observance of an old custom, as many of the Lords as could approach near enough were permitted to assist in unrobing her, by taking out a pin. She was then committed to her ladies, who, having attired her with becoming splendour, brought her to the ball-room, where there was great cheer and dancing till dinner time. At dinner, Darnley appeared in his royal robes; and after a great flourish of trumpets, largess was proclaimed among the multitude who surrounded the palace. The Earls of Athol, Morton, and Crawfurd, attended the Queen as sewer, carver, and cup-bearer; and the Earls of Eglinton, Cassilis, and Glencairn, performed the like offices for Darnley. When dinner was over, the dancing was renewed till supper-time, soon after which the company retired for the night.[99 - Randolph in Robertson, Appendix, No. XI. – Keith, p. 307. Miss Benger, vol. ii. p. 214.]

The rejoicings that attended the commencement of Darnley’s career as King of Scotland, were but of short duration. Randolph, expressing the sentiments of Elizabeth and the rebels, hesitated not to say, that “God must either send the King a short end, or them a miserable life; that either he must be taken away, or they find some support, that what he intendeth to others may light upon himself.”

CHAPTER XIV.

MURRAY’S REBELLION

Murray had now gone too far to recede, though, had he been so inclined, Mary’s leniency would willingly have given him the opportunity. Mr John Hay, who had formerly acted as her ambassador in England, and who was one of her brother’s personal friends, was sent to him to declare the good will which both the Earl of Lennox and Darnley bore towards him. Mary even avowed her readiness to bring to trial any one he would accuse of having conspired against his life; but he had no evidence to prove that such a conspiracy had ever existed, much less to fix the guilt upon any individual. He had made the accusation originally, only the better to conceal his own nefarious purposes; for Murray well understood the practical application of Machiavel’s maxim, – “Calumniare audacter aliquid adhærebit.”

Acting in concert with this nobleman, Elizabeth now sent more imperative orders than before for the return of Lennox and Darnley. But the former answered, that, considering his wife had been committed to the Tower for no fault on her part, he thought it unlikely that the climate of England would suit his constitution; and the latter said boldly and gallantly, that he now acknowledged duty and obedience to none but the Queen of Scots, whom he served and honoured; and though Elizabeth chose to be envious of his good fortune, he could not discover why he should leave a country where he found himself so comfortable. Randolph coolly replied, that he hoped to see the wreck and overthrow of as many as were of the same mind; “and so turning my back to him, without reverence or farewell, I went away.”[100 - Keith, p. 303 and 304. This was a day or two before Darnley’s marriage.] The disaffected Lords, on their part, as soon as they heard of Mary’s marriage, and the proclamations in which she conferred upon her husband the rank and title of King, renewed their complaints with increased bitterness. The majority of their countrymen, however, saw through their real motives; and even Knox allows it was generally alleged, that these complaints were “not for religion, but rather for hatred, envy of sudden promotion or dignity, or such worldly causes.” The recalling of the Earls Bothwell and Sutherland, and the restoring Lord Gordon to the forfeited estates and honours of his father, the Earl of Huntly, was another source of exasperation. From the tried fidelity of these noblemen, Mary knew she could depend upon their services; though Bothwell, personally, as we have already seen, was far from being agreeable to her.

To put in the clearest point of view the utter worthlessness of all the grounds of offence which Elizabeth and the Scottish rebels pretended at this time to have against Mary, a short and impartial account of a message sent by the English Queen, early in August 1565, and of the answer it received, will be read here with interest. The person who brought this message was one of Elizabeth’s inferior officials, of the name of Tamworth, “a forward, insolent man,” says Camden, and, with marked disrespect, chosen for this very reason. He was ordered not to acknowledge Darnley as King, and to give him no title but that which he had borne in England; but Mary, “having smelt,” as Camden adds “the nature both of the message, and of the animal who brought it,” would not admit him into her presence. His objections were therefore committed to writing, and the answer given in similar form. On the part of Elizabeth it was stated, that her Majesty had found Mary’s late proceedings, both towards herself and towards her subjects, very strange, upon diverse grounds. These, as they were brought forward, so were they replied to methodically and seriatim. First, Elizabeth took God to witness, that her offer to Mary, of any of her own subjects in marriage, was made sincerely and lovingly; and that she was grieved to hear that Mary, listening to false council, had been made to think otherwise. – To this it was answered, that the Queen of Scots did not doubt Elizabeth’s sincerity and uprightness in her offer of a husband from England, and that no counsel had been given to induce her to change her opinion. Second, Elizabeth was much surprised, that notwithstanding the offer made by Mary to Sir Nicolas Throckmorton, to delay her marriage till the middle of August, that she might have longer time to prevail upon Elizabeth to consent to it, she had consummated that marriage without giving her Majesty any intimation, on the 29th of July, and had thereby disappointed both Elizabeth and some foreign princes, who thought as strangely of the alliance as she did. – To this it was answered, that it was true, that though Mary’s resolution was fixed before Sir Nicolas Throckmorton came into Scotland, she had, nevertheless, promised to delay her marriage in the hope that the doubts entertained by Elizabeth, as to the propriety of the said marriage, might in the meantime, be removed; but that this promise was made expressly on the condition, that Commissioners should be appointed on both sides to discuss the matter, and that, as Elizabeth refused to nominate any such commissioners, Mary was relieved from her promise; that further, she had good reasons, known to herself and her own people, with which no other prince needed to interfere, for consummating her marriage at the time she did; and that, with regard to foreign princes thinking the alliance strange, she had a perfect knowledge of the opinions, and had obtained the express consent of the principal and greatest princes in Christendom. Third, Elizabeth was astonished how Mary, in direct opposition to the conditions of the treaty of peace, existing between England and Scotland, could detain her Majesty’s subjects, Lennox and Darnley in Scotland, having allured them thither under a pretence of suits for lands, but in reality to form an alliance without her Majesty’s consent and license, – an offence so unnatural, that the world spoke of it, and her Majesty could not forget it. – To this it was answered, that Mary marvelled not a little at the Queen, her good sister, insisting any further upon this head, for she did not understand how it could be found strange that she detained within her realm the person with whom she had joined herself in marriage, or a Scottish Earl, whom Elizabeth herself named by his Scottish title, the more especially as they both came to her with Elizabeth’s consent and letters of recommendation; and that she had no doubt that the world spoke as sound sense would dictate, judging that her detaining of them was in no ways prejudicial to any treaty of peace, existing between the two realms, since no annoyance was intended towards Elizabeth, her kingdom, or estate. Fourth, Elizabeth wondered that Mary’s ambassador, Mr John Hay, came to ask to be informed of her Majesty’s objections to the marriage, and of what she wished to be done, but had no authority either to agree to, or refuse her requests; and she therefore supposed that he had been sent more as a piece of empty form, than for any useful purpose. – To this it was answered, that Mary, though willing to hear Elizabeth’s objections, if any such existed, and to endeavour to remove them, had yet expressly declared, that she would make such endeavour only through the medium of commissioners mutually agreed on; and that she was still so convinced of the expediency of the match, that though now married, she was still willing, if Elizabeth wished it, to have its propriety discussed by such commissioners. Fifth, Elizabeth begged that an explanation might be given of a sentence in one of Mary’s French letters, which she found somewhat obscured, and which ran thus, – “Je n’estimerois jamais que cela vienne de vous, et sans en chercher autre vengeance, j’aurois recours à tous les princes mes allies pour avec moi vous remonstrer ce que je vous suis par parentage. Vous savez assez ce que vous avez resolu sur cela.” – To this it was answered, that Mary, by the whole of her letter, as well as the passage in question, meant no other thing but to express her desire to remain in perfect friendship and good intelligence with the Queen her sister, from whom she expected such treatment as reason and nature required from one princess to another, who was her cousin; and that if, as God forbid, other treatment were received, which Mary would not anticipate, she could do no less than lay her case before other princes, her friends and allies. Sixth, Elizabeth was grieved to see that Mary encouraged fugitives and offenders from England, and practised other devices within her Majesty’s realm; and that, in her own kingdom, seduced by false counsellors and malicious information, she raised up factions among the nobility. – To this it was answered, that if the Scottish Queen really wished to offend Elizabeth, she would not be contented with such paltry practices as those she was accused of towards English subjects; – and that, with regard to her proceedings in her own realm, as she had never interfered with Elizabeth’s order of government, not thinking it right that one state should have a finger in the internal policy of another, so she requested that Elizabeth would not meddle with her’s, but trust to her discretion, as the person most interested, to preserve peace and quietness. Seventh, Elizabeth warned Mary to take good heed that she did not proceed in her intention to suppress and extirpate the religion already established in Scotland, or to effect the suppression of the Reformed faith in England, for that all such designs, consultations, intelligences, and devices, should be converted to the peril and damage of those that advised and engaged in them. – To this it was answered, that Mary could not but marvel at Elizabeth’s fears for a religion upon which no innovation had ever been attempted, but for the establishment of which every arrangement had been made most agreeable to her Scottish subjects; that as to an intention to interfere with the spiritual faith of England, she never heard of it before; but that, if any practices to such effect could be condescended on, they should instantly be explained and altered; and that, with regard to her designs, consultations, intelligences and devices, such as she really engaged in, would be found no vainer or more deceitful than those of her neighbours. Eighth and lastly, Elizabeth wished that Mary would not show herself so given to change, as to conceive evil of the Earl of Murray, whose just deserts she had so long acknowledged, for that by indifference and severity, there were plenty examples to prove, that many noble men had been constrained to take such measures for their own security, as they would otherwise never have resorted to; and that these were part of the reasons why Elizabeth was offended with Mary. – To this it was answered, that Mary wished her good sister would not meddle with the affairs of her Scottish subjects any more than Mary meddled with the affairs of Elizabeth’s English subjects; but that, if Elizabeth desired any explanation of her conduct towards Murray, it would be willingly given, as soon as Elizabeth explained her motives for committing to the Tower Lady Margaret, Countess of Lennox, mother-in-law and aunt of Mary; and that, as soon as Elizabeth stated any other grounds of offence, they should be answered as satisfactorily as the above had been.[101 - Keith, Appendix No. VII. p. 99, et seq.]

Having thus triumphantly replied to the English Queen’s irritating message, Mary, in the true spirit of conciliation, had the magnanimity to propose that the following articles should be mutually agreed upon. On the part of the King and Queen of Scotland, —First, That their Majesties being satisfied of the Queen their sister’s friendship, are content to assure the Queen, that during the term of her life, or that of her lawful issue, they will not, directly or indirectly, attempt any thing prejudicial to their sister’s title to the Crown of England, or in any way disturb the quietness of that kingdom. Second, They will enter into no communication with any subject or subjects of the realm of England, in prejudice of their said sister and her lawful issue, or receive into their protection any subjects of the realm of England, with whom their sister may have occasion to be offended. Third, They will not enter into any league or confederation with any foreign prince, to the hurt, damage, and displeasure of the Queen and realm of England. Fourth, They will enter into any such league and confederation with the Queen and realm of England, as shall be for the weal of the princes and subjects on both sides. And, Fifth, They will not go about to procure in any way, alteration, innovation, or change in the religion, laws, or liberties of the realm of England, though it should please God at any time hereafter to call them to the succession of that kingdom. In consideration of these offers, the three following equally reasonable articles were to be agreed to, on the part of England; —First, That by Act of Parliament, the succession to the Crown, failing Elizabeth and her lawful issue, shall be established first, in the person of Mary and her lawful issue, and failing them, in the person of the Countess of Lennox and her lawful issue, as by the law of God and nature, entitled to the inheritance of the said Crown. Second, That the second offer made by the King and Queen of Scotland be also made on the part of England; and, Third, That the third offer shall be likewise mutual. To have agreed to these liberal articles would not have suited Elizabeth’s policy, and we consequently hear nothing farther concerning them.

On the 15th of August 1565, Murray summoned the rebellious nobles to a public meeting at Ayr, where it was resolved that they should assemble together in arms on the 24th. Mary in consequence issued proclamations, calling upon her loyal subjects to come to Edinburgh, with their kin, friends, and household, and provided for fifteen days, on the 25th of August. On that day she left Edinburgh with a numerous force, and marched to Linlithgow. Before leaving the capital, measures were taken to prevent the discontented there from turning to advantage the absence of their sovereign. The Provost, who was entirely under the management of Knox, and strongly suspected to favour the rebels, was displaced, and a more trust-worthy civic officer appointed in his stead. Knox himself, a few days before, had, been suspended from the discharge of his clerical duties, in consequence of a seditious and insulting sermon he delivered before the young King, who paid him the compliment of attending divine service in St Giles’s church, a Sunday or two after his marriage. In this sermon the preacher, among other things, said, that God had raised to the throne, for the sins of the people, boys and women; adding, in the words of Scripture, – “I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them: children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.” In the same style of allusions grossly personal, he remarked, that “God justly punished Ahab, because he did not correct his idolatrous wife, the harlot Jezabel.” It is singular, that Knox never thought of objecting to Mary’s marriage with Darnley, till he found that his patron, the Earl of Murray, to whom he was now reconciled, did not approve of it. He had said only a few months before that – “The Queen being at Stirling, order was given to Secretary Lethington to pass to the Queen of England, to declare to that Queen, Mary was minded to marry her cousin, the Lord Darnley; and the rather, because he was so near of blood to both Queens; for, by his mother, he was cousin-german to the Queen of Scotland, also of near kindred and the same name by his father; – his mother was cousin-german to the Queen of England. Here, mark God’s providence: King James V., having lost his two sons, did declare his resolution to make the Earl of Lennox his heir of the crown; but he, prevented by sudden death, that design ceased. Then came the Earl of Lennox from France, with intention to marry King James’s widow; but that failed also: he marries Mary Douglas; and his son, Lord Darnley, marrieth Queen Mary, King James V.’s daughter: and so the King’s desire is fulfilled, viz. – the crown continueth in the name and in the family.” Knox had changed his opinion (as even Knox could sometimes do), both when he preached the above-mentioned sermon, and when, towards the end of August 1565, he said, that the Castle of Edinburgh was “shooting against the exiled for Christ Jesus’ sake.”[102 - M’Crie’s Life of Knox, vol. ii. p. 106; and Tytler’s Enquiry, vol. i. p. 362 and 367.]

From Linlithgow, Mary advanced with an increasing force, first to Stirling, and then to Glasgow. Here she was within a short distance of the rebel army, which, mustering about 1200 strong, had taken its position at Paisley; “a fine pleasant village,” says Keith, “five miles W.S.W. from Glasgow.” But Murray, not venturing to attack the Royalists, made a circuit at some distance and, by a forced march, arrived unexpectedly at Edinburgh, where he hoped to increase his force. In this hope he was grievously disappointed. Finding that the Provost, who was taken by surprise, had not sufficient strength to keep him without the walls, he entered the city by the West Port, and immediately despatched messengers for assistance in every direction, and, by beat of drum, called upon all men who wished to receive wages “for the defence of the glory of God,” to join his standard. But Knox confesses, that few or none resorted to him, and that he got little or no support in Edinburgh; although the preacher himself did all he could for his patron by prayers and exhortations, in which he denominated the rebels “the best part of the nobility, and chief members of the Congregation.”[103 - Knox, p. 389.] The truth is, that the current of popular opinion ran directly in favour of Mary; for the godly Earl’s real motives were well understood.

As soon as the Queen was made aware that she had missed her enemies, she marched back in pursuit of them, at the head of 5000 men, as far as Callender. Murray could only fly from a power which he knew he was not able to withstand. Alarmed by Mary’s speedy return, he left Edinburgh, and again passing her on the road, led his followers to Lanark, and from thence to Hamilton. With indomitable perseverance, the Queen retraced her steps to Glasgow, expecting Murray would make an attempt upon that city. But finding there was no safety for him in this part of Scotland, he suddenly turned off towards the south, and with as little delay as possible, retired into Dumfries-shire. Here, being near the Borders, he expected that Elizabeth would send him succour from England, and at all events, he could at any time make good his retreat into that country. The principal noblemen with him were the Duke of Chatelherault, the Earls of Argyle, Glencairn, and Rothes, and the Lords Boyd and Ochiltree. Morton and Maitland remained with the Queen; but the fidelity of both is much to be suspected, though the command of the main body of the Royal army was intrusted to the former. The Earl of Lennox led the van, and the Queen herself rode with her officers in a suit of light armour, carrying pistols at her saddle-bow; “her courage,” says Knox, “manlike, and always increasing.” She did not think it worth while to follow Murray into Dumfries-shire, but preferred leading her army through Fife, to St Andrews, taking possession, on the way, of Castle Campbell, the seat of the rebel Lord, Argyle.

Elizabeth in the mean time was far from being inattentive to the interests of her servants in Scotland. Randolph wrote to Cecil, that if she would assist them with men and more money, he doubted not but one country would receive both the Queens; by which he meant, that the rebels would thus be able to fulfil their design, of sending Mary prisoner into England.[104 - Keith, Appendix, p. 264.] The Earl of Bedford informed his mistress of the arrival of her friends on the Borders, and hinted to her that their cause was evidently not very popular in Scotland, and that their force was much inferior to that of Mary. Elizabeth’s letter, in answer, is as artful a piece of writing as has ever proceeded even from a female pen. Afraid that she might go too far in assisting the losing party, she resolved to make it be believed that she acted against them, whilst in truth she secretly encouraged and supported them. With this view, she wrote to Bedford, that in consequence of his representations, as well as those of Randolph and others, she sent him three thousand pounds; one thousand of which was to be paid immediately to Murray, in the most private way possible, and as if it came from Bedford himself. The remainder was to be kept till occasion required its expenditure. “And where, we perceive,” she continued, “by your sundry letters, the earnest request of the said Earl of Murray and his associates, that they might have at least 300 of our soldiers to aid them, and that you also write, that though we would not command you to give them aid, yet if we would but wink at your doing herein, and seem to blame you for attempting such things, as you, with the help of others, should bring about, you doubt not but things would do well, – we are content, and do authorize you, if you shall see it necessary for their defence, to let them (as of your own adventure, and without notification that you have any direction therein from us), to have the number of 300 soldiers, wherein you shall so precisely deal with them, that they may perceive your care to be such as, if it should otherwise appear, your danger should be so great, as all the friends you have could not be able to save you towards us. And so we assure you, our conscience moveth us to charge you so to proceed with them; and yet we would not that either of these were known to be our act, but rather to be covered with your own desire and attempt.” Having further mentioned, that she had written lately to Mary, to assure that princess of her esteem and good will, Elizabeth boldly affixed her signature to this memorable record of unblushing duplicity.[105 - Robertson, Appendix to Vol. i. Nos. XII. and XIII.]

But Mary was not to be lulled into dangerous security. All her operations during this campaign were, as Robertson has remarked, “concerted with wisdom, executed with vigour, and attended with success.” At St Andrews, she issued a proclamation, exposing the hollowness of the grounds upon which arms had been taken up against her, and showing that religion was only made a cloak to cover other more ungodly designs. Alluding, in particular, to the Earl of Murray, upon whom she had bestowed so many benefits, this proclamation stated, that his insatiable ambition was not to be satisfied with heaping riches upon riches, and honour upon honour, unless he should also continue to have, as he had too long had, the Queen and the whole realm in his own hands, to be used and governed at his pleasure. “By letters sent from themselves to us,” Mary says, “they make plain profession that the establishment of religion will not content them, but we must per force be governed by such council as it shall please them to appoint unto us.” “The like,” she adds, “was never demanded of any our most noble progenitors heretofore, yea, not even of governors or regents; but the prince, or such as occupied his place, ever chose his council of such as he thought most fit for the purpose. When we ourselves were of less age, and at our first arrival in our realm, we had free choice of our council at our pleasure; and now, when we are at our full majority, shall we be brought back to the state of pupils and minors, or be put under tutelage? So long as some of them bore the whole swing with us themselves, this matter was never called in question; but now, when they cannot be longer permitted to do and undo all things of their appetite, they will put a bridle in our mouths, and give us a council chosen after their phantasy! To speak it in plain language, they would be king themselves; or at the least, leaving to us the bare name and title, take to themselves the whole use and administration of the kingdom.”[106 - Keith, Appendix, p. 114.]

After levying a small fine of two hundred marks from the town of Dundee, which had given some countenance to the malcontents, Mary and Darnley returned to Edinburgh. They there received such accounts of the increasing strength of the rebels, as induced them to determine on marching southwards. Biggar was named as the place of rendezvous for the lieges, and they flocked in such crowds to join the standard of their sovereign, that the Queen was enabled to advance towards the Borders at the head of an army of 18,000 men. Before this greatly superior force, Murray and his partisans, including his 300 English soldiers, retired to Carlisle. He was closely followed thither, upon which his troops dispersed, and he himself and his friends sought refuge by flying further into England. Mary, after visiting the castle of Lochmaben, left Bothwell, with some troops, to watch the Borders; and, on the 18th of October, returned to Edinburgh with the rest of her army.[107 - Keith, p. 316, and Chalmers, vol. i. p. 155.]

Of the rebellious nobles thus forced into exile, the Duke of Chatelherault alone was able or willing to make his peace immediately. He and his sons were pardoned, on condition of their living abroad – a degree of leniency extended to them by Mary, in opposition to the wishes of the house of Lennox, which was anxious for the entire ruin of the Hamiltons.[108 - Chalmers, vol. i. p. 156.] Murray and the rest, being kindly received by Bedford, fixed their residence at Newcastle, whence the Earl himself, and the Abbot of Kilwinning, were deputed to proceed to the English court, and lay the state of their affairs before Elizabeth, upon whose patronage they conceived they had peculiar claims. It was, however, no part of Elizabeth’s policy to befriend in their adversity those with whom she had associated herself in more prosperous days. As soon as she heard that Murray was on his way to her court, she wrote to stop him, and to inform him that it was not meet for him to have any “open dealing” with her. But at Bedford’s earnest entreaty he was allowed to continue his journey, the object of which, he said, was to make some proposals for the “common cause.”[109 - Chalmers, vol. i. p. 157, and Keith, p. 319.] It was nevertheless a long while before he could obtain an audience of the Queen; and when that honour was at length conceded to him, she had the confidence to ask him, with an unruffled countenance, how he, being a rebel to her sister of Scotland, durst have the boldness to come within her realm? Murray, in reply, ventured to speak of the support he had all along received from her; but as this was betraying her policy to her continental neighbours, it exasperated her to such a degree, that she declared he and his friends should never obtain any thing from her but scorn and neglect, unless he made a public recantation of such an assertion. With this demand both the Earl and the Abbot had the meanness to comply; and though Sir Nicolas Throckmorton interfered in their behalf, and openly avowed that he had been sent into Scotland expressly to make offers of assistance to the rebel lords, he could not save them from the degradation which Elizabeth inflicted. They appeared before her when she was surrounded by the French and Spanish ambassadors, and impiously affirmed, upon their knees, that her Majesty had never moved them to any opposition or resistance against their own Queen. As soon as they had uttered this falsehood, Elizabeth said to them, – “Now ye have told the truth; for neither did I, nor any in my name, stir you up against your Queen. Your abominable treason may serve for example to my own subjects to rebel against me. Therefore, get ye out of my presence; ye are but unworthy traitors.”[110 - Keith, p. 319. – Melville, p. 135.]

Sir James Melville, speaking of this affair, says, with his usual quaintness, that “Mary chasit the rebel lords here and there, till at length they were compellit to flee into England for refuge, to her that had promised, by her ambassadors, to wair (expend) her Croun in their defence, in case they were driven to any strait for their opposition to the said marriage.” – “But Elizabeth,” he adds, “handlit the matter sae subtilly, and the other twa sae blaitly, that she triumphed both over them and the ambassadors.” The deputation returned quite chop-fallen, to their friends at Newcastle, where they lived for some time in great poverty, and very wretchedly. Such were the more immediate results of this piece of juggling on the part of Elizabeth, and justly unsuccessful rebellion on that of Murray.

CHAPTER XV.

THE EARL OF MORTON’S PLOT

Hitherto, Mary’s government had been prosperous and popular. Various difficulties had, no doubt, surrounded her; but, by a prudence and perseverance, beyond her sex and age, she had so successfully encountered them, that she fixed herself more firmly than ever on the throne of her ancestors. The misfortunes, however, in which all the intrigues of her enemies vainly attempted to involve her, it was Mary’s fate to bring upon herself, by an act, innocent in so far as regarded her own private feelings, and praiseworthy in its intention to increase and secure the power and happiness of her country. This act was her marriage with Darnley. From this fatal connexion, all Mary’s miseries took their origin; and as the sunshine which has as yet lighted her on her course, begins to gleam upon it with a sicklier ray, they who have esteemed her in the blaze of her prosperity, will peruse the remainder of her melancholy story with a deeper and a tenderer interest. Let it at the same time be remembered, that the present Memoirs come not from the pen of a partisan, but are dictated by a sacred desire to discover and preserve the truth. Mary’s weaknesses shall not be concealed; but surely, whilst the common frailties of humanity thus become the subjects of history, justice imposes the nobler and the more delightful duty of asserting the talents and vindicating the virtues of Scotland’s fairest Queen.

It was evident, that public affairs could not long continue in the position in which they now stood. With the Earl of Murray and the Hamiltons, the greater number of Mary’s most experienced counsellors were in a state of banishment. At the head of those who remained was the crafty Earl of Morton, who, though he affected outward allegiance, secretly longed for the return of his old allies and friends of the Protestant party. It was not indeed without some show of reason that the professors of the Reformed faith considered their religion to be exposed at the present crisis to hazard. The King now openly supported Popery; the most powerful of the Lords of the Congregation were in disgrace; several of the Catholic nobility had lately been restored to their honours; some of the Popish ecclesiastics had, by Mary’s influence, been allowed to resume their place in Parliament; and above all, ambassadors arrived from the French King and her Continental friends, for the express purpose of advising the Queen to grant no terms to the expatriated nobles, and of making her acquainted, with the objects of the Holy League which had been recently formed. This was the league between Charles IX. and his sister the Queen of Spain, with the consent of her husband Philip, and Pope Pius IV., and at the instigation of Catherine de Medicis and the Duke of Alva, to secure, at whatever cost, the suppression of the Reformation throughout Europe. So great a variety of circumstances, all seeming to favour the old superstition, alarmed the Protestants not a little; but this alarm was unnecessarily exaggerated, and Mary’s intentions which were not known at the time, have been misrepresented since.

Robertson has asserted, that Mary “instantly joined” the Continental Confederacy, and was willing to go any length for the restoration of Popery. He would thus have us believe that she was a direct party to the horrible massacre of the Hugonots in France; and that she would have spared no bloodshed to re-establish in Scotland that form of worship which she herself, in conjunction with her Parliament, had expressly abrogated. Robertson goes further, and maintains, with a degree of absurdity so glaring that we are at a loss to understand why it should never before have been exposed, that “to this fatal resolution (that of joining the Anti-Protestant Confederacy) may be imputed all the subsequent calamities of Mary’s life.” Why a secret contract which Mary might have made with an ambassador from France, the terms or effects of which were never known or felt in any corner of Scotland, should have produced “all her subsequent calamities,” must remain an enigma to those who do not possess the same remarkable facility of tracing effects to their causes which seems to have been enjoyed by Dr Robertson. But it is extremely doubtful that Mary ever gave either her consent or approbation to this League. Robertson’s authorities upon the subject by no means bear him out in his assertions. He affirms, that “she allowed mass to be celebrated in different parts of the kingdom; and declared that she would have mass free for all men who would hear it.” But the first part of this information is supplied by the Englishman Bedford, who was not then in Scotland, and the second rests upon the authority of the insidious Randolph. Robertson likewise mentions, that Blackwood, in his “Martyre de Marie,” says, “that the Queen intended to have procured in the approaching Parliament, if not the re-establishment of the Catholic religion, at least something for the ease of Catholics.” But this announcement of what was intended is so very unimportant, that even, if true, it requires no refutation; the more especially, as Blackwood goes on to say, though Robertson stops short, that this “something for the ease of Catholics” was only to be a request that the Protestants would be more tolerant.[111 - Blackwood in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 204.] Robertson however adds, that “Mary herself, in a letter to the Archbishop of Glasgow, her ambassador in France, acknowledges ‘that in that Parliament she intended to have done some good with respect to restoring the old religion.’” For this quotation from Mary’s letter, Robertson refers to Keith; but upon making the reference, it will be found that he has somewhat unaccountably garbled the original. All that Mary wrote to her ambassador concerning the Parliament was, that “the spiritual estate is placed therein in the ancient manner, tending to have done some good anent restoring the old religion, and to have proceeded against our rebels according to their demerits.”[112 - Keith, p. 331.] The different shade of meaning which Robertson has given to this passage, is rather singular.

Having thus seen the weakness of these preliminary arguments against Mary’s willingness to countenance the Reformed faith, it only remains to be inquired, whether she was a party to the confederacy formed at Bayonne. It will be recollected, that the measures concocted by this confederacy were of the most sanguinary and savage description. It was resolved, “by treachery and circumvention, by fire and the sword, utterly to exterminate the Protestants over Christendom.” It might very fairly be asked, and the question would carry with it its own answer, whether such a scheme, uncertain as its results were, and sure to produce in the mean time civil war and confusion wherever its execution was attempted, was at all consistent either with Mary’s established policy, or her so earnestly cherished hopes of succession to the English crown? Robertson, however, says, “she instantly joined the confederacy;” and Dr Gilbert Stuart, an historian of greater research and more impartiality, allows himself to believe the same thing. These writers ground their belief on what they have found in Sir James Melville and in Keith. But the former gives us not the slightest reason to suppose that Mary had any thing to do with the League, although he allows that the representations of the French ambassador tended to harden her heart towards the Earl of Murray and the other rebels.[113 - Melville’s Memoirs, p. 147.] It would even appear, by his Memoirs, that Mary was never asked to become a party to the confederacy; for Sir James simply states, that the ambassadors came “with a commission to stay the Queen in nowise to agree with the Lords Protestants that were banished.” Conæus, in his Life of Mary, leaves entirely the same impression, and rather strengthens it.[114 - Conæus in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 25.] As to Keith, he nowhere goes the length of Robertson or Stuart, – merely remarking that the letters from France tended much to hinder the cause of the banished Lords. He gives, it is true, in his Appendix, an extract of a letter from Randolph to Cecil, in which we find it stated, on the very dubious authority of the English Resident, that the “band to introduce Popery through all Christendom, was signed by Queen Mary.” But if Mary had actually done so, it would have been with the utmost secrecy, and surely, above all, she would have concealed such a step from the spy of Elizabeth. This letter is given at full length by Robertson; and on perusing the whole, it expressly appears, that Randolph spoke only from hearsay; for he adds, “If the copy of his band may be gotten, it shall be sent as I conveniently may.” In the same letter he mentions that most of the nobles had been asked to attend mass, in compliment to the foreign ambassadors, and that they had all refused; enumerating, among others, Fleming, Livingston, Lindsay, Huntly, and Bothwell; “and of them all, Bothwell is the stoutest, but worst thought of.” These Lords must have had little dread of the consequences, else they would not have ventured to refuse. The truth is, Randolph’s common practice was, to convert into a fact every report which he knew would be agreeable to Cecil and his mistress; and so little reliance did they place upon the accuracy of his information, that it does not appear Elizabeth ever took any notice of his statement regarding the band, which she would eagerly have done had it been true. So much, therefore, for Robertson’s declaration, that “to this fatal resolution may be imputed all the subsequent calamities of Mary’s life.” They would have been few, indeed, had they taken their origin in any countenance she gave to the ferocious wickedness of continental bigotry.[115 - Dr Stuart, in support of his statements on this subject, quotes, in addition to the authorities already mentioned, Mezeray “Histoire de France,” tome 3, and Thuanus, “Historia sui Temporis,” lib. xxxvii. But we suspect he has done so at random; for, on referring to these works, we have been unable to discover any thing which bears upon the matter. Chalmers, who is in general acute and explicit enough, says, that these ambassadors came “to advise the Queen not to pardon the expatriated nobles;” vol. ii. p. 158. Laing, who writes with so much apparent candour and real ability against Mary that he almost makes “the worse appear the better reason,” has avoided falling into the gross error of Robertson. “It would be unjust,” he says, “to suppose, that, upon acceding to the Holy League, for the preservation of the Catholic faith, she was apprised of the full extent of the design to exterminate the Protestants by a general massacre throughout Christendom; but the instructions from her uncle rendered her inexorable towards the banished Lords.” – Laing’s Preliminary Dissertation to the History of Scotland, vol. i. p. 9.]

There does not, then, exist a shadow of proof that Mary contemplated the subversion of the Reformed religion in Scotland, though it may safely be admitted that she was greatly perplexed what course to pursue towards the expatriated rebels. On the one hand, Elizabeth petitioned in their behalf, well knowing she could depend on their co-operation, as soon as they were again in power; and her petition was warmly supported by Murray’s friends in Scotland, – some for the sake of religion, – many for their own private interests, – and a few because they believed his return would be for the good of the country. On the other hand, the Catholic party was delighted to be rid of such formidable adversaries, and their wishes were enforced by those of Mary’s uncle, the Cardinal of Lorraine. Besides, though disposed to be lenient almost to a fault, she cannot but have felt just indignation against men who had so grossly abused her kindness, and insulted her authority. It was in the midst of these contending opinions and interests, that a Parliament was summoned, first for the 4th of February 1566, and afterwards prorogued till the 7th of March, at which it was determined that, in one way or other, the subject should be set at rest. The matter would then most probably have terminated unfavourably for Murray, had not the whole affair assumed a new feature, and been hurried on to an unexpected and violent conclusion, under influences on which it would have been difficult to have calculated.

Mary had been Darnley’s wife only a few months, when a painful conviction was forced upon her of the error she had committed in so far as regarded her own happiness, in uniting her fortunes with a youth so weak, headstrong, and inexperienced. The homage, whether real or affected, which before his marriage Darnley paid to Mary, – his personal graces and accomplishments, – and the care he took to keep as much as possible in the background, the numerous defects of his character, had succeeded in securing for him a place in Mary’s heart, and, what he considered of greater importance, a share of her throne. But as soon as the object of his ambition was obtained, the mask was thrown aside. He broke out into a thousand excesses, – offended almost all the nobility, – and forgetting, or misunderstanding the kind of men he had to deal with, cherished a wild and boyish desire to make his own will law. He changed from the Protestant to the Catholic religion; but the Catholics had no confidence in him, whilst John Knox and the Reformers lifted up their voices loudly against his apostasy. He was addicted to great intemperance in his pleasures; was passionately fond of his hounds and hawks, grossly licentious, and much given to drinking. Upon one occasion, his indulgence in this latter vice made him so far forget himself, that at a civic banquet where the Queen and he were present, he dared to speak to her so brutally, that she left the place in tears.[116 - Keith, p. 328 and 329.]

But there were other causes, besides the imperfections of Darnley’s character, which served to sow dissension between him and his young wife. It would be wrong to say that they were mutually jealous of each other’s love of power, for this would be to put Mary on an equality with her husband, who was Queen in her own right, while Darnley had no title to any authority beyond what she chose to confer on him. In the first ardor of her affection, however, she permitted him, with the confiding generosity of sincere attachment, to carry every thing his own way; and he was too conceited and selfish to appreciate as it deserved, the value of the trust she thus reposed in him. “All honour,” says Randolph, “that may be attributed unto any man by a wife, he hath it wholly and fully, – all praise that may be spoken of him, he lacketh not from herself, – all dignities that she can endow him with, are already given and granted. No man pleaseth her that contenteth not him. And what may I say more? She hath given over unto him her whole will, to be ruled and guided as himself best liketh.”[117 - Goodall, vol. i. p. 222.] This was nothing more than the conduct naturally to be expected from a woman who warmly loved her husband, and who, in the ingenuous integrity of her heart, believed him worthy of her love. Had this indeed been the case, no evil consequences could have resulted from the excess of kindness she lavished on him; but with all his fair exterior, Darnley was incapable of understanding or estimating aright the mind and dispositions of Mary Stuart. Had he even in part answered the expectations she had formed of him, – had he listened to the prudent councils of Sir James Melville, and others whom Mary requested he would associate near his person, – and had he continued those affectionate attentions which she had a right to expect, but had far too proud a spirit to ask, he might have obtained from her every honour he desired. But what she felt that slighted love did not call upon her to yield, it was in vain to expect to win from her by force or fear; and the consequence was, that about this time, what was technically termed the Crown matrimonial, became a great source of dissension between herself and her husband.

On the day that Mary gave her hand to Darnley, she conferred upon him the title of King of Scotland; and his name, in all public writs, was signed, in some before, and in others after her own. The public coin of the realm, issued subsequent to the marriage, also contained his name.[118 - Several of these pennies, as they were called, both of gold and silver, remain to this day; and some of them have been already noticed. In December 1565, there was stamped a silver penny, called the Mary Rial, bearing on one side a tree, with the motto, Dat gloria vires; and the circumscription, Exsurgat Deus, et dissipentur inimici ejus; and, on the other, Maria et Henricus, Dei Gratia, Regina et Rex Scotorum. Speaking of this coin, Keith says, that “the famous ewe-tree of Crookston, the inheritance of the family of Darnley, in the parish of Paisley, is made the reverse of this new coin; and the inscription about the tree, Dat gloria vires, is no doubt with a view to reflect honour on the Lennox family. This tree, he adds, which stands to this day, is of so large a trunk, and so well spread in its branches, that it is seen at several miles distance.” – Keith, p. 327, and Appendix, p. 118. – It stands no longer.] But though Darnley had the title, and to a certain extent the authority of a King, it was never Mary’s intention to surrender to him an influence in the administration greater then her own. This was the object, however, at which his discontented and restless spirit aimed, and it was to achieve it that he demanded the crown-matrimonial, – a term used only by Scottish historians, by many of whom its exact import does not appear to have been understood. In its more limited acceptation, it seems to have conferred upon the husband, who married a wife of superior rank, the whole of her power and dignity, so long as their union continued. Thus, if a Countess married an Esquire, he might become, by the marriage-contract, a matrimonial Earl; and, during the life of the Countess, her authority was vested in her husband, as entirely as if he had been an Earl by birth. But it was in a more extended sense that Darnley was anxious for this matrimonial dignity. Knowing it to be consistent with the laws of Scotland, that a person who married an heiress, should keep possession of her estate, not only during his wife’s life, but till his own death, he was desirous of having a sovereign sway secured in his own person, even though Mary died without issue. In the first warmth of her attachment to Darnley, the Queen might have been willing, with the consent of Parliament, to gratify his ambition; but as soon as his unstable and ill-regulated temper betrayed itself, she felt that she was called upon, both for her own sake, and that of the country, to refuse his request.

The more opposition Darnley experienced, the more anxious he became, as is frequently the case, to accomplish his wishes. It was now for the first time, that he found Rizzio’s friendship fail him. That Italian, whom the bigotry of the Reformers, and the ignorant prejudices of more recent historians, have buried under a weight of undeserved abuse, was one of the most faithful servants Mary ever had. He approved of her marriage with Darnley for state reasons, and had, in consequence, incurred the hatred of Murray and his party, whilst Darnley, on the contrary, had courted and supported him. But Rizzio loved his mistress too well to wish to see her husband become her master. His motives, it is true, may not have been altogether disinterested. He knew he was a favourite with Mary, and that he would retain his situation at court so long as her influence was paramount; but he had not the same confidence in the wayward and vacillating Darnley, who was too conceited to submit to be ruled, and too weak to be allowed to govern. The consequence naturally was, that a coldness took place between them, and that the consideration with which Mary continued to treat Rizzio, as her foreign secretary, only served to increase Darnley’s disaffection.

Such was the state of matters, when the Earl of Morton, secretly supported by Maitland, and more openly by the Lords Ruthven and Lindsay, determined on making use of Darnley’s discontent to forward his own private interests, and those of some of his political friends. His object was, in the first place, to strengthen his own party in the government, by securing the return of Murray, Argyle, Rothes, and the other banished Lords; and in the second, to prevent certain enactments from being passed in the approaching Parliament, by which Mary intended to restore to her ecclesiastics a considerable portion of church lands, which he himself, and other rapacious noblemen, had unjustly appropriated. These possessions were to be retained only by saving the rebels from the threatened forfeitures, and thus securing a majority in Parliament. But Mary, with a firmness which was the result of correct views of good government, was now finally resolved not to pardon Murray and his accomplices. For offences of a far less serious nature, Elizabeth was every month sending her subjects to the block; and it would have argued imbecility and fickleness in the Queen of Scots, so soon to have forgotten the treachery of her own, and her husband’s enemies. There was scarcely one of her ministers, except Rizzio, who had the courage and the good sense to confirm her in these sentiments; and he continued to retain his own opinion, both in this affair and that of the crown-matrimonial, notwithstanding the open threats of Darnley, the mysterious insinuations of Morton, and the attempt at bribery on the part of Murray. This last nobleman, who had played the hypocrite so abjectly before Elizabeth and her court, did not scruple, in his selfish humility, to offer his respects, and to send presents to one whom he had always been accustomed to call, in the language of his historian Buchanan, “an upstart fellow,” “a base miscreant,” “a contemptible mushroom,” and to whom he had never before given any thing but “a sour look.”[119 - Buchanan’s History. – Melville’s Memoirs. – Keith, p. 325.]

It may therefore be said, that there were, at this time, four powerful parties connected with Scotland; – Mary was at the head of one, – Morton of another, – Darnley of a third, – and Murray of the fourth. But so long as the Queen retained her ascendency, the other three factions could have little hope of arriving at their respective objects. Mutually to strengthen each other, a coalition very naturally suggested itself, founded upon the principle of a reciprocity of benefits. The idea was soon matured, and the plan of operations concocted with a secrecy and callous cruelty, worthy of Morton. The usual expedient was adopted, of drawing up and signing a formal bond, or set of articles, which were entered into between Henry, King of Scotland, and James, Earl of Murray, Archibald, Earl of Argyle, Andrew, Earl of Rothes, Robert, Lord Boyd, Andrew, Lord Ochiltree, and certain others “remaining in England;” in which it was stipulated, on the part of the Lords, that, at the first Parliament which should be held after their return, they should take such steps as would secure to Darnley a grant of the crown-matrimonial for all the days of his life; and that, whoever opposed this grant, they should “seek, pursue, and extirpate out of the realm of Scotland, or take and slay them,” – language, it will be observed, which had a more direct application to Mary than to any one else. On the part of Darnley, and in return for these favours, it was declared, that he should not allow, in as much as in him lay, any forfeiture to be led against them; and that, as soon as he obtained the crown-matrimonial, he should give them a free remission for all crimes, – taking every means to remove and punish any one who opposed such remission.[120 - Goodall, vol. i. p. 227.] In plain language, these articles implied neither more nor less than high treason, and place Darnley’s character, both as a husband and a man, in the very worst point of view, showing him as a husband to be wofully deficient in natural affection, and as a man to be destitute of honour, and incapable of gratitude.

Morton’s intrigues having proceeded thus far, there seemed to be only one other step necessary to secure for him the accomplishment of his purposes. Mary, strong in the integrity of her own intentions, and in the popularity of her administration, did not suspect the secret machinations which were carried on around her; and of this over-degree of confidence in the stability of her resources, Morton determined to take advantage. He saw that a change in the government must be effected at whatever risk, though he knew that nothing but a sudden and violent measure could bring it about. It was now February; – Parliament was to meet on the 7th of March, and on the 12th the trial of the absent Lords was to come on, and after they had been forfeited, the church-lands would be restored to their rightful owners. If Mary’s person, however, could be seized, – if her principal anti-protestant ministers could be removed from about her, – and if Darnley could be invested for a time with the supreme command, these disagreeable consequences might be averted, and the Parliament might be either prorogued, or intimidated into submission. But, without a shadow of justice, to have openly ventured upon putting the Queen in ward, would have been too daring and dangerous. A scheme therefore was formed, by which, under the pretence of caring for her personal safety, and protecting the best interests of the country, she was to be kept, as long as they should think necessary, from exercising her own independent authority. By this scheme it was resolved to make David Rizzio the victim and the scape-goat of the conspiracy. Morton and his accomplices well knew that Rizzio was generally hated throughout Scotland. The Reformers, in particular, exaggerating his influence with the Queen, delighted in representing him as the minion of the Pope, and the servant of Antichrist, and there were no terms of abuse too gross which they did not direct against the unfortunate Italian. It would, therefore, give a popular effect to the whole enterprise, were it to be believed that it was undertaken principally for the sake of ridding the country from so hateful an interloper. Many historians, confounding the effect with the cause, have been puzzled to explain why Rizzio’s murder should have led so immediately to the return of Murray and his friends; they forget that it was, on the contrary, a determination to secure their return, and to discover a plausible pretext for retaining Mary a prisoner in her own palace, that led to the murder.

In the meantime, Rizzio was not without some apprehensions for his personal safety. The Scots, though they seldom evince much reluctance to secure their own advancement in foreign countries, are of all nations the most averse to allow strangers to interfere with their affairs at home. Aware that they have little enough for themselves, they cannot bear to see any part of what they consider their birthright given away to aliens, however deserving. Rizzio’s abilities, and consequent favour with the Queen, were the means of placing in his hands so much power and wealth, that he incurred the hatred and envy of almost every one about court. In the homely but expressive language of Melville, “some of the nobility would gloom upon him, and some of them would shoulder him and shoot him by, when they entered in the chamber, and found him always speaking with her Majesty.” Buchanan, that able but most prejudiced and disingenuous historian, expressing the prevalent sentiments of the day, says that, “the low birth and indigent condition of this man, placed him in a station in which he ought naturally to have remained unknown to posterity; but that which fortune called him to act and to suffer in Scotland, obliges history to descend from its dignity to record his adventures.” As if “low birth and indigent condition” have ever been, or will ever be, barriers sufficient to shut out genius and talent from the road to greatness. But Rizzio was in truth far from being of that officious, conceited, and encroaching disposition, which Buchanan has ascribed to him. Sir James Melville, who knew him well, gives quite an opposite impression of his character. He mentions, that not without some fear, Rizzio lamented his state to him, and asked his council how to conduct himself. Sir James told him, that strangers ought to be cautious how they meddled too far in the affairs of foreign countries, for that, though he was her Majesty’s Continental secretary, it was suspected a great deal of Scottish business also passed through his hands. “I advised him,” says Melville, “when the nobility were present, to give them place, and pray the Queen’s Majesty to be content therewith; and shewed him for an example, how I had been in so great favour with the Elector Palatine, that he caused set me at his own table, and the board being drawn, used to confer with me in presence of his whole Court. Whereat divers of them took great indignation against me, which, so soon as I perceived, I requested him to let me sit from his own table with the rest of his gentlemen, and no more to confer with me in their presence, but to send a page for me, any time that he had leisure, to come to him in his chamber; which I obtained, and that way made my master not to be hated, nor myself to be envied; and willed him to do the like, which he did, and said unto me afterwards, that the Queen would not suffer him, but would needs have him to use himself in the old manner.” Melville then spoke to Mary herself upon the subject, and she expressly told him, that Signor David Rizzio “meddled no further but in her French writings and affairs, as her other French secretary had done before.”[121 - Melville’s Memoirs, p. 132 and 133.]

Rizzio’s religion was another reason why he was so very unpopular. It was confidently asserted that he was in the pay of the Pope; and that he was in close correspondence with the Cardinal of Lorraine. Be this as it may, the support he undoubtedly gave, so far as lay in his power, to the Scottish Catholics, was of itself enough, in these times of bigotry, to make his assassination be considered almost a virtue. Besides, there were some more personal and private grounds for Morton and his friends wishing to get rid of the Secretary. There is a remarkable passage in Blackwood’s Martyre de Marie, by which it would appear, that it was not the original intention of the conspirators to assassinate Rizzio, but merely to secure the person of Mary; and that it was in consequence of Rizzio’s fidelity to the Queen, and refusal to sanction such a proceeding, that they afterwards changed their plan. “The Earl of Morton,” says Blackwood, “had apartments in the royal palace.[122 - We translate from the original French of an edition, of the Martyre de la Royne d’Escosse, printed at Antwerp, in the year 1583, – which very nearly agrees with the Edition in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 202.] There lodged there also her Majesty’s Secretary, David Rizzio, a Piedmontese, and a man of great experience, and well versed in affairs of state. He was much respected by his mistress, not for any beauty or external grace that was in him, being rather old, ugly, austere, and disagreeable, but for his great fidelity, wisdom, and prudence, and on account of several other good qualities which adorned his mind. But, on the other hand, his master (the King) hated him greatly, both because he had laboured to effect the re-establishment of the house of Hamilton,” (the Duke of Chatelherault, it will be recollected, was the only one of the rebels who had been pardoned), “and because he had not only refused to become a party to, but had even revealed to the Queen a certain conspiracy that had been concluded on between his Highness and the rebels, by which it was resolved to shut up her Majesty in a castle, under good and sure guard, that Darnley might gain for himself all authority, and the entire government of the kingdom. My Lord Ruthven, the head of this conspiracy, entertained the greatest ill-will against the poor Secretary, because he had neither dared nor been able to conceal from her Majesty, that he had found Ruthven and all the conspirators assembled together in council in a small closet, and had heard her husband express himself with especial violence and chagrin. Besides, Morton, fearing greatly the foresight and penetration of this man, whom he knew to be entirely opposed to his designs, resolved to accomplish his death, and in so doing comply with the advice which had been given him by the English Court.” This is a passage of much interest, and puts in a clear and strong point of view the treasonable designs of this formidable conspiracy.[123 - Buchanan alone, of all the Scottish historians, has dared to insinuate the probability of an illicit intercourse having subsisted between Mary and Rizzio; and the calumny is too self-evidently false to merit a moment’s notice. Every respectable writer reprobates so disgusting a piece of scandal, however unfavourably inclined towards Mary in other respects. Camden, Castelnau, Robertson, Hume, Tytler, Laing, and Dr Stuart, all of whom think it worth while to advert to the subject in Notes, put the falsehood of Buchanan’s assertion beyond the most distant shadow of a doubt. Indeed, it is paying it too great a compliment to advert to it at all.]

CHAPTER XVI.

THE ASSASSINATION OF DAVID RIZZIO

It was on the evening of Saturday the 9th of March 1566,[124 - Miss Benger, oddly enough, says, it was on Saturday the 5th of April; a mistake into which no other historian with whom we are acquainted has fallen. – Miss Benger’s Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 233.] that the conspirators determined to strike the blow, which was either to make or mar them.[125 - The Parliament had met upon the 7th, and Mary had opened it in person, unattended by Darnley, who refused to give it his countenance; but no business of importance had as yet been transacted.] The retainers of Morton, and the other Lords his accomplices, assembled secretly in the neighbourhood of the Palace, to the number of nearly five hundred. They were all armed, and when it became dark, Morton, who took the command, led them into the interior court of Holyroodhouse, which, in his capacity of Lord High Chancellor of the kingdom, he was able to do, without much difficulty or suspicion. It had been arranged, that he should remain to guard the entry to the palace, whilst Ruthven, with a select party, was to proceed to the Queen’s chamber. Patrick Lord Ruthven was exactly the sort of person suited for a deed of cowardice and cruelty, being by nature cursed with dispositions which preferred bigotry to religion, and barbarism to refinement. He was now in the forty-sixth year of his age, and had been for some months confined to a sick-bed, by a dangerous disease.[126 - This disease was “an inflammation of the liver, and a consumption of the kidneys.” —Keith, Appendix, p. 119.] Though scarcely able to walk, he nevertheless undertook to head the assassins. He wore a helmet, and a complete suit of armour concealed under a loose robe.[127 - Blackwood in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 204. – Goodall, vol. i. p. 252.]

Mary, altogether unsuspicious of the tragedy about to be performed, sat down to supper, as usual, at seven o’clock. There were with her only her illegitimate sister, the Countess of Argyle, her brother the Lord Robert Stuart, and her Foreign Secretary, David Rizzio. Beaton, her Master of the Household, Erskine, an inferior attendant, and one or two other servants of the Privy Chamber, were in waiting at a side-table; or, in the words of Stranguage, “tasting the meat taken from the Queen’s table, at the cupboard, as the servants of the Privy Chamber use to do.”[128 - Stranguage, p. 33. – Crawford’s Memoirs, p. 9.] It is a curious and interesting fact, that notwithstanding all the changes which time has wrought on the Palace of Holyrood, the very cabinet in which Mary supped, on this eventful evening, as well as the adjoining rooms and passages through which the conspirators came, still exist, in nearly the same state in which they were in the year 1566. The principal staircase, in the north-west tower, leads up to the Queen’s chamber of presence; – passing through this apartment, a door opens into Mary’s bedroom, where her own bed yet stands, although its furniture is now almost in tatters. It was in the small closet or cabinet off her bed-room, containing one window, and only about twelve feet square, that Mary sat at supper on the 9th of March, two hundred and sixty-two years ago. Communicating with Darnley’s chamber, immediately beneath, there was, and is, a private passage into Mary’s bedroom, by which it could be entered, without previously passing through the presence-chamber. The approach to this passage from the Queen’s room is concealed by a piece of wainscot, little more than a yard square, which hangs upon hinges in the wall, and opens on a trap-stair. It had been originally proposed to seize Rizzio in his own apartment; but this plan was abandoned, for two reasons; first, because it was less certain, since it was often late before Rizzio retired for the night, since he sometimes did not sleep in his own room at all, but in that of another Italian belonging to the Queen’s household, named Signor Francis, and since there were back-doors and windows, through which he might have effected his escape; and, second, because it would not have so much intimidated Mary, and would have made it necessary to employ another party to secure her person – the chief object of the conspirators.[129 - Keith, Appendix, p. 122.]

To ascertain whether there was any thing to hinder the execution of their design, Darnley, about eight o’clock, went up the private stairs, and, entering the small room where his wife was supping, sat down familiarly beside her. He found, as he expected, his victim Rizzio in attendance, who, indeed, owing to bad health, and the little estimation in which he was held by the populace, seldom went beyond the precincts of the palace.[130 - Conæus in Jebb. Vol. ii. p. 25.] He was dressed, this evening, in a loose robe-de-chambre of furred damask, with a satin doublet, and a hose of russet velvet; and he wore a rich jewel about his neck, which was never heard of after his death.[131 - Robertson’s Appendix to vol. i. No. xv.] The conspirators having allowed sufficient time to elapse, to be satisfied that all was as they wished, followed the King up the private way, which they chose in order to avoid any of the domestics who might have been in the presence-chamber, and given an alarm. They were headed by the Lord Ruthven, and George Douglas, an illegitimate son of the late Earl of Angus, and the bastard brother of Darnley’s mother, the Lady Lennox; a person of the most profligate habits, and an apt instrument in the hands of the Earl of Morton. These men, followed by as many of their accomplices as could crowd into the small room where Mary sat, entered abruptly and without leave; whilst the remainder, to the number of nearly two score, collected in her bedroom. Ruthven, with his heavy armour rattling upon his lank and exhausted frame, and looking as grim and fearful as an animated corpse, stalked into the room first, and threw himself unceremoniously into a chair. The Queen, with indignant amazement, demanded the meaning of this insolent intrusion, adding, that he came with the countenance, and in the garb of one who had no good deed in his mind. Turning his hollow eyes upon Rizzio, Ruthven answered, that he intended evil only to the villain who stood near her. On hearing these words, Rizzio saw that his doom was fixed, and lost all presence of mind; but Mary, through whose veins flowed the heroic blood of James V., and his warlike ancestors, retained her self-possession. She turned to her husband, and called upon him for protection; but perceiving that he was disposed to remain a passive spectator of the scene, she ordered Ruthven to withdraw under pain of treason, promising, that if Rizzio was accused of any crime, it should be inquired into by the Parliament then assembled. Ruthven replied only by heaping upon the unfortunate Secretary a load of abuse; and, in conclusion, declared the determination of the conspirators to make themselves masters of Rizzio’s person. Rizzio, scarcely knowing what he did, pressed close into the recess at the window, with his dagger drawn in one hand, and clasping the folds of Mary’s gown with the other. In spite of every threat, he remained standing behind her, and continually exclaiming in his native language, and in great agitation, Giustizia! Giustizia! Mary’s own person was thus exposed to considerable danger, and the assassins desired Darnley to take his wife in his arms and remove her out of the way. The confusion and terror of the scene now increased a hundredfold; – the master of the household, and the three or four servants of the privy-chamber, attempted to turn Lord Ruthven out of the room; – his followers rushing to his support, overturned the supper-table, threw down the dishes and the candles, and, with hideous oaths, announced their resolution to murder Rizzio. Their own impetuosity might have frustrated their design; for, had not the Countess of Argyle caught one of the candles in her hand as it was falling, they would have been involved in darkness, and their victim might have escaped.

The first man who struck Rizzio was George Douglas. Swords and daggers had been drawn, and pistols had been presented at him and at the Queen; but no blow was given, till Douglas, seizing the dirk which Darnley wore at his side, stabbed Rizzio over Mary’s shoulder, though, at the moment, she was not aware of what he had done. The unhappy Italian was then forcibly dragged out into the bed-room, and through the presence-chamber, where the conspirators, gathering about him, speedily completed the bloody deed, leaving in his body no fewer than fifty-six wounds. He lay weltering in his gore at the door of the presence-chamber for some time; and a few large dusky spots, whether occasioned by his blood or not, are to this day pointed out, which stain that part of the floor. The body was afterwards thrown down the stairs, and carried from the palace to the porter’s lodge, with the King’s dagger still sticking in his side. He was obscurely buried next day; but, subsequently, more honourably near the Royal vault in Holyrood Chapel.[132 - Keith, p. 330. – Appendix, p. 119. – Melville’s Memoirs, p. 148. – Buchanan’s History of Scotland, Book xvii. – Martyre de Marie in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 204. – Knox, p. 392. – Holinshed’s Chronicles, p. 382. – Robertson, Appendix to Vol. i. No. xv. – Some historians have maintained, that Rizzio was actually despatched in Mary’s presence. But this is not the fact, for Mary remained ignorant of his fate till next day. In a letter which the Earl of Bedford and Randolph wrote to the Privy Council of England, giving an account of this murder, and which has been published in the first series of “Ellis’s Original Letters, illustrative of English History,” (vol. ii. p. 207), we find these words: – “He was not slain in the Queen’s presence, as was said.” Holinshed and others are equally explicit. It has been likewise said, that it was not intended to have killed him that evening; but to have tried him next day, and then to have hanged or beheaded him publicly. That there is no foundation for this assertion, is proved by the authorities quoted above; and to these may be added the letter from Morton and Ruthven to Throckmorton, and “the bond of assurance for the murder to be committed,” granted by Darnley to the conspirators, on the 1st of March, both preserved by Goodall, vol. i. p. 264 and 266. That the conspirators meant, as others have insisted, to take advantage of the situation in which Mary then was, and terrify her into a miscarriage, which might have ended in her death, is unsupported by any evidence; nor can we see what purposes such a design would have answered.]

Such was the unhappy end of one who, having come into Scotland poor and unbefriended, had been raised, through the Queen’s penetration and his own talents, to an honourable office, the duties of which he discharged with fidelity. If his rise was sudden, his fall was more so; for, up to the very day of his assassination, many of the Scottish nobility, says Buchanan, “sought his friendship, courted him, admired his judgment, walked before his lodgings, and observed his levee.” But death no sooner put an end to his influence, than the memory of the once envied Italian was calumniated upon all hands. Knox even speaks approvingly of his murder, (as he had formerly done of that of Cardinal Beaton), assuring us that he was slain by those whom “God raised up to do the same” – an error, indicating a distorted moral perception, from the reproach consequent on which, his biographer, M’Crie, has unsuccessfully endeavoured to defend him.[133 - Vide M’Crie’s Life of Knox, vol. i. p. 47.] The Reformer adds to his notice of Rizzio, a story which suits well the superstitious character of the times, and which Buchanan has repeated. He mentions, that there was a certain John Daniot, a French priest, and a reputed conjuror, who told Rizzio “to beware of a bastard.” Rizzio, supposing he alluded to the Earl of Murray, answered, that no bastard should have much power in Scotland, so long as he lived; but the prophecy was considered to be fulfilled, when it was known that the bastard, Douglas, was the first who stabbed him.[134 - Knox, p. 339. – Buchanan, Book XVII.]