plead would be considered as an acknowledgment of guilt; it was also urged that, if innocent, she ought to take the opportunity to repel the charge. On the 14th, she consented to plead, under a protest against the authority of the court. The charge was, that she had conspired to procure, 1. The invasion of the realm; 2. The death of Elizabeth. Of the first, there could be no doubt. Letters had been intercepted, and others were found in her cabinet, abundantly proving this. The second she denied; the evidence rested on the correspondence with Babington, his confessions, and the admissions of her secretaries. At first she wholly denied any correspondence with Babington; but that being indisputably proved, she denied that the passages in question were written by her, or with her knowledge. Having been confessedly guilty of falsehood, in her first denial respecting this correspondence, it is impossible to place confidence in her more limited negation; and she could not be ignorant that the murder of Elizabeth was a preliminary needful to secure the success of any invasion or insurrection. The court adjourned to Westminster, where, on the 29th, she was pronounced guilty. The sentence was communicated to the parliament, and sanctioned. On the 25th of November, both the Lords and the Commons urged that the sentence should be put into execution, while the people made public expressions of rejoicing. There never was a measure more earnestly pressed by the general desire of the nation than the death of Mary. It was a public national act, not one of private or individual revenge.

Elizabeth was irresolute with respect to Mary's fate. She was convinced that if the latter continued to live, her own life, and her proceedings for the good of the nation, would be in constant danger. Yet to direct the execution of an independent monarch, situated like Mary, was an alternative which her firmness was not sufficient to encounter, especially as the ambassadors from France and Scotland publicly remonstrated against the execution. Two months passed in a state

of irresolution; at length, the commission to the earl of Shrewsbury, as earl marshal, with other nobles, was directed to be prepared. Still Elizabeth wished that Mary's life could be ended by other and less public means, and even directed that a hint to that effect should be given to sir Amias Paulet and his fellow keeper, Drury; but, though they disliked Mary for her bigotry and enmity to their queen, they wisely and honestly refused to participate in causing the death of Mary, unless by a legal warrant. On February 1, Elizabeth signed the commission, and directed the great seal to be affixed, without waiting for Paulet's answer. The next day she told Davison, the secretary, to wait till he received further orders before the commission was

sealed; on being told this was already done, she blamed his haste, but did not give any further directions, and on the following morning told him with a smile, that she had dreamed of punishing him severely as the cause of the death of the queen of Scots. He then asked whether she intended the commission should be executed; to which she answered in the affirmative, but that she did not like the responsibility being thrown wholly upon herself. This was on February 3. The council assembled on that and the preceding day, and were informed of what had passed; they perceived the state of Elizabeth's mind, and resolved to proceed, considering Mary's death to be necessary for the public safety. They sent Beal, the clerk of the council, to Fotheringay with the commission, and a letter to Paulet and Drury, signed by the whole council. On the 4th, Elizabeth inquired what answer Paulet had sent respecting a private execution. On being informed, she expressed dissatisfaction with them. The histories of that period show that princes often viewed assassina tion as a method of executing justice, even when no legal conviction of guilt had taken place.

On February 7, the earls of Shrewsbury and Kent, with their attendants, arrived at Fotheringay in the evening. Mary was immediately informed that she

must prepare to suffer death the next morning. She was not surprised at such an announcement, but received it with fortitude, enumerated her sufferings, and protested her innocence as to any plot against the life of Elizabeth. She refused to see the dean of Peterborough, and the commissioners refused to allow her to see her own confessor-an uncharitable act. Mary passed most of the night in writing and in prayer, administering the sacrament of the altar to herself, by taking a wafer consecrated by the pope, which she had reserved to be taken in the hour of extremity, viewing it as having been actually turned into the body of Christ, and the means to secure her eternal happiness. It is painful to reflect that nominal Protestants frequently consider the sacrament as a passport to heaven.

At daybreak Mary took leave of her servants. Soon after eight o'clock she was conducted to the great hall of the castle, where a low scaffold had been prepared, covered with a black cloth. About two hundred persons were present. On her repeated request, the commissioners unwillingly consented that she should be attended by two of her women, and four of her men servants. She conducted herself with dignity and firmness, declaring that she was brought to suffer by violence and injustice, that she never had contrived the death of Elizabeth, and that she died in the Romish faith, expressing also her forgiveness of her enemies. The dean of Peterborough endeavoured to preach and offer prayer, but though there was nothing offensive or controversial in his services, Mary refused to listen, repeating passages from the Psalms aloud in Latin. She then prayed in French and English, and holding up a crucifix, exclaimed, "As thy arms, O God, were stretched out upon the cross, so receive me into the arms of thy mercy, and forgive me my sins." She laid her head upon the block, and at the third blow it was separated from her body. The dean officially and uncharitably declared, in the form usual on such

occasions, "So perish all the queen's enemies:" the earl of Kent alone uttered "Amen."

Thus perished Mary Stuart, queen of Scots. Her last hours exhibited her character in a more favourable light than the former portions of her life. The unjustifiable termination of the proceedings against her, has done much to throw into the shade that censure which justly attaches to her actions. Nor can the course pursued by Elizabeth and her councillors be defended upon other grounds than the narrow and unjustifiable pleas of expediency and retaliation: the situation of Mary, as a prisoner, led to the proceedings for which she suffered; and it would have been a more equitable course not to have put her to death. But those who censure Elizabeth most strongly do it on untenable grounds. Neither the times, nor the circumstances of public affairs, allowed her to leave Mary at liberty; and it is too much for men, themselves actuated by worldly motives, to require that the English queen should deliberately expose herself to certain destruction, by giv ing undue advantages to her rival. Indisputable facts also prove, that Mary could not demand better treatment on the plea of innocence and right conduct. If her reign and life are fairly reviewed, few sovereigns will be found whose conduct has been more deserving of censure. The blame deservedly cast upon Elizabeth's conduct, is not aggravated by innocence on the part of Mary. The latter had been the offender, though this did not justify, on Christian principles, the extremity of suffering inflicted upon her: and there is no excuse for doing wrong to prevent wrong. But, as stated already, the causes of those sufferings must be traced very far back, even up to the course pursued when she was an infant, her removal to France, her education, and the bad principles instilled there. We may pity, but we cannot excuse her.

Elizabeth, in some instances, showed much female weakness. It has been said, "At times she was more than man, and on some occasions less than woman."

She was so relative to Mary's execution. Instead of resting her defence for what had passed on the crimes of Mary, and her duty as queen of England, she sought a pretext to throw the blame upon others. Her councillors were severely censured, and excluded from favour for some time; but the chief displeasure was shown towards her secretary Davison. Elizabeth asserted, that the commission was not only sent off without her knowledge, but against her will, and that she only intended to have it ready for execution, in case of Mary's foreign or domestic partisans actually appearing in arms. The blame was cast upon Davison. He was dismissed from his office, fined ten thousand marks, and imprisoned, for having parted with the commission without express order from Elizabeth. Lord Burghley was in disgrace for some weeks; but, upon making a humble acknowledgment of error, he was restored to his office.

The conduct of her councillors was the plea offered by Elizabeth to the kings of France and Scotland: it was a mere excuse, but neither monarch cared to interfere; and the plea was far more plausible than that offered by the king of France for the massacre of St. Bartholomew. The political state of France rendered its sovereign far from displeased at an event which destroyed the hopes of the Guises; while James felt little affection for a mother whom he had never known, who continually censured his conduct, and who, in fact, desired to exclude him from the throne of England. James's favourite, Gray, writing to Douglas, the ambassador at the English court, attributed James's interference to proceed out of his own good nature, and ventured to add, "I care not, though she were out of the way." Such an interference would cause Elizabeth to proceed, rather than to hesitate. The people of Scotland were at first indignant at the national insult, but their minds were soon calmed; while in England, a large number who did not wish to act against Elizabeth, but who deemed Mary their rightful queen, and