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] 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] 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] 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." Conaeus, in
his Life of Mary, leaves entirely the same impression, and rather
strengthens it.[114] 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]
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]
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] 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] 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]
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] 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]
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] 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]