4307.] Belsham’s Comparison between Robertson and Hume. 423 
high dignity on this mean and upstart fol 
reigner.” Morton was instigated, théere- 
fore, by the strongest motives of indigna- 
tion and revenge, to employ “ all his art 
to inflame the Hida aaa and jealousy of 
the king,” p.97. The artful schemes of 
vengeance subsequently adopted on the 
part of the queen, and: the unlawful pas- 
sion ne almost immediately contracted 
tor the Earl of Bothwell, are well describ- 
ed by ner historians, But a much 
stronger case may be made out against 
Mary than either of them has chosen to 
state. There is first the positive evi- 
dence of Buchanan, which, unhappily in 
this, as well as in many other instances, 
1s far more perry corroborated than 
divers writers, who treat on these times, 
are willing to acknowledge. If this au- 
thor deserves the smallest credit, Rizzio 
was in great confidence with the queen 
long before his appointment to the 
French secre taryship, which merely fur- 
nished a plausible pretext for his more 
frequent access to the qucen’s person. 
Tt is admitted that the marriage of Darn- 
ley was chiefly the work of Rizzio ; and 
before this marriage took place, there was 
much ‘talk of the great “familiarity be- 
tween her and Rizzio. Subsequent to 
the marriage, the power and authority of 
Rizzio with the queen daily increased, 
while the king daily lost favour with her : 
and after a short time Rizzio was entrust- 
ed with a seal with which to impress the 
king’s name on proclamations. At length 
none but David and one or two more, 
were allowed to sit at table with the 
queen, who would sometimes visit Rizzio 
i his own lodgings.” Nay this historian 
scruples not to assert, “ that the king ob- 
tained such evidence as was decisive of 
the queen’s dishonour, and from that time 
he consulted how to take away the life of 
Rizzio.” History of Scotland, vol. ii. 
A. D. 1565-6, 
Both Hume, and Robertson, speak of 
the queen’s sitting at table with the 
Countess of Argyle, Rizzio, and others. 
But the more authentic account of Bu- 
chanan is, “ that the queen was at sup- 
per, the Earl of Argyle’s wife and David, 
sitting with ber as they were wont, and but 
few attendants.” And we are further 
told, “ that the queen caused David's 
body to be deposited in the sepulcnre of 
_ the late Kiug James V. father of Mary.” 
Buchanan, A. D. 1565-6. 
The next evidence in point of import- 
ance 1s Melville, who is not accused of 
any undue bias against the queen. Dr. 
Robertson himself notices, that in a con- 
versation with Mary, this cautious cour- 
tier intimated his fears, ** lest her familia- 
rity with Rizzio might be liable to any 
misconstruction.” Book iv. p. 150. 
This liberty he surely would not have 
ventured to take, had not her indiscretion 
been very gross. His remoustrances, 
however, ou this and other occasions, 
appear to: have been very ill received; 
the queen telling him, ‘ that she would 
dispense her favours to such as she 
pleased.” Melville, p. 56. Rizzio wa 
himself, notwithstanding, disposed to pay 
some regard to Melville’s prudent advice; 
but within a few days, he informed Mel 
ville, thathe had the queen’s orders to be- 
have as he was wont, without minding any 
thing.” 
“* Melville, who (says the impartial Ra- 
pin) may be considered as an uususpect- 
ed evidence, plainly supposes the kine’s 
jealousy, and it may be aimosé Baca 
“that if he had thought the queen entire ly 
innocent, he would not have failed to 
clearher.” Rapin, vu. 260. 
In the relation of the death of David 
Rizzaio, by Lord Ruthven, one of the prin- 
cipal actors in that bloody tragedy, he 
tells us, that when they reached tie cabi- 
net, or onell apartment, where the queen 
was, they fouud the queen’s majesty sitt- 
ing at her supper in the midst of a little 
table, the Lady Argyle sitting at one end, 
and David Rizzio at the head “of the table, 
with his cap on his head. The Lord 
Ruthven, “at his coming in, said to the 
queen’s majesty, “ It wouid please your 
majesty to let yonder man Davie come 
forth of your presence, for he hath been 
over-long here.” Her majesty answered, 
“ What offence hath he mader” 1 he said 
Lord replied again, * that be lad made 
great offence to her majesty’s honour, the 
King her husband, the nobility, and com- 
mon-weal of the realm.” “And bow?” 
saith she. “ It will please your majesty, 
(said the said lord), he hath offended your 
majesty’s honour, which I dare not be so 
bold as to speak of. Asto the king, your 
husband’s honour, he hath bindered him 
of the crown matrimonial, which your 
grace promised him, besides many other 
things which ave not necessary to be ex- 
pressed. And as to the nobility he hath 
caused your majesty to banish a great 
part, and most chief thereof, in so far as. 
he suffered not your Majesty to grant or 
give any thing but that which passed 
through his hands,” &c. p. 27.—And in 
the same telution’ we ud the king thus 
expostulati: if with the queen. Since 
yon fellow Davie fell in credit and fami- 
larity 
