424 Belsham’s Comparison between Roberison and. Hume. [Dec. 1; 
Hiarity with your majesty, yeregarded me 
not, neither treated me nor entertained 
me atter your wonted fashion: for every 
day before dinner and attér dinner ye 
would come to my chamber, and pass 
time with me; and this long time ye have 
not done so; and when I come to your 
majesty’s chamber, ye bear me little com- 
pany, except Davie had been the third 
“Inarrow: and after sapper your majesty 
hath a use to set at the cards with the 
said Davie till one or two of the clock af- 
ter midnight; and thisis the entertain- 
ment I have had of you this long time,” 
p- 50. All these particulars are omitted 
bath by Dr. Robertson and Mr. Hune. 
Dr. Robertson boidly asserts, that the 
silence of Randolph, the English resi- 
dent, on this subject, is itself a sufficient 
vindication of the innocence of Mary, p. 
4150. But upon this negative evidence, 
In Opposition to so many concurring 
roofs, it wouid be very unsafe io rely 
date was not **a man abundantly 
ready to aggravate Mary’s faults,” as Dr. 
Robertson describes him, * but a grave 
person, of mgid morais, woo felt that 
Strong, disgust, which was natural at the 
licentuous foliy of the queen’s. conduct.” 
“ Tam, my Jord, (as he expresses himself 
in a letter, of July $1, 1565, to the Ear! 
of Leicester, speaking of the courtiers and 
the court of Scviland) taken by ail that 
sort as a very evil person, which in my 
heart I do well allow, and iike of myself 
the better, for yet can I not find either 
honest or good that liketh their doings.” 
In a dispatch to secretary Cecil, dated 
February 7, 1565-6, he says “ David yet 
retaineth still his place, not without 
heart grief to mary that see their sove« 
reign guided chiefly by such a iellow.” 
it is undeniable that the queen’s par- 
tiality to Rizzio was very commonly be- 
lieved at this time, and for some months 
previous to this date, to be of a criminal 
nature. The prudence of Randolph, in- 
deed, appears in not making any specific 
mention in his public dispatches of those 
reports, which could not but have come 
to his knowledge; but his disbelief of 
them is by no means to be inferred with 
certainty, or even with probability, from 
his silence. A man of Randciph’s dis- 
cretion would naturally avoid touching 
upon so dangerous a topic. 
In the well known letter from the Earl 
of Bedford, and Randolph, to the Jords of 
the council from Berwick, March 27,1566, 
these ambassadors, whose integrity and 
ability are unimpeachable, thus express 
themselves: “ This we find for certain 
Judge the worse.” 
that the queen’s husband being entered 
into a vebement suspicion of David, that 
by him something was committed which 
was most against the queen’s honour, and 
not to be borne of his part, first commu- 
nicated his mind to George Douzlas, who 
finding his sorrows so great, sought all the 
means he could to put some remedy to 
his grief; and cominunicating the same 
unto my Lord Ruthven, by the king’s 
cominandment, no other way could be 
found than that David should be taken 
out of the way. Wherein he was so ear- 
nest, and daily pressed the same, that no: 
rest could be had till it was put in exe- 
cution. To this, that was found good, 
that the Lord Morton and Lord Lindsay 
should be made privy to the intent, &c. 
The king was so ‘impatient to see these 
things he saw, and were daily brought to 
his ears, that he daily pressed the said 
Lord Ruthven that there might be no 
longer delay; and to the intent that he 
might inanifestunto the world that he ap- 
proved the act, was content to be at the- 
domg of that himself.” After Rizzio was 
forced out ,of the queen’s apartment 
““ there eed (say the ambassadors} 
a long time with the queen, her husband 
and lord Ruthven, She made, as we 
hear, great iutercession that David should 
have no harm. She blamed greatly her 
husband, that was the actor of so foul 2 
deed. [tis said that he did answer, that 
David had more company of ber body 
than he for the space of two months: 
and therejore for her honour, and bis own 
contentment, he gave his consent that he 
should be taken away. ‘Phe Lord itath- 
ven said, thisman was mean, base, enemy, 
to the nobility, shame to her, and destrac- 
tion to herself and country. ‘ Vell, (saith 
she) that shall be dear blood to some of 
you, if his be spilt. ‘ God forbid (saith 
Lord Ruthven); for the more your grace 
show yourself offended, the world will 
‘ At the conclusion of 
the letter, the ambassadors speak of the 
great substance which David had Jeft.. 
Some say in gold to the value of 11,000/. 
We hear of a jewel which he had hanging 
about his neck, of some price, that cannot 
be heard of. He had upon his back, when 
he was slam, a night-gown of damask 
turred, with asattin doublet, and hose of 
russet-velyct,” 
Upon the whole, it may safely be re- 
ferred to the impartial reader, whether 
there is the least shadow of justice, m the 
modern accusation preferred against Dr. 
Robertson, so opposite to the opinion of 
former critics, Mr. Hume himself being 
of 
~ 
