tration and judgment, it has tended very much to expose clerical usurpations and intrigues, and may serve us as a specimen of more ancient councils. No one expects to see another general council, till the decay of learning and the progress of ignorance shall again fit mankind for these great impostures. Note 3 Q, p. 462. in general, that the chief objections against them are, that they are supposed to have passed through the earl of Morton's hands, the least scrupulous of all Mary's enemies; and that they are to the last degree indecent, and even somewhat inelegant, such as it is not likely she would write. But to these presumptions we may oppose the following considerations. (1.) Though it be not difficult to counterfeit a subIt appears, however, from Randolf's Letters (see scription, it is very difficult, and almost impossible, to counterfeit several pages, so as to resemble exactly Keith, p. 290,) that some offers had been made to that minister, of seizing Lenox and Darnley, and deliver-examined and compared with Mary's handwriting, by the handwriting of any person. These letters were ing them into queen Elizabeth's hands. Melvil confirms the same story, and says, that the design was acknowledged by the conspirators, p. 56. This serves to justify the account given by the queen's party of the Raid of Baith, as it is called. See further, Goodall, vol. ii. p. 358. The other conspiracy, of which Murray complained, is much more uncertain, and is founded on very doubtful evidence. Nole 3 R, p. 463. Buchanan confesses that Rizzio was ugly; but it may be inferred, from the narration of that author, that he was young. He says, that on the return of the duke of Savoy to Turin, Rizzio was in adolescentia vigore, in the vigour of youth. Now that event happened only a few years before, lib. xvii. cap. 44. That Bothwel was young appears, among many other invincible proofs, from Mary's instructions to the bishop of Dumblain, her ambassador at Paris; where she says, that in 1559, only eight years before, he was very young. He might therefore have been about thirty when he married her. See Keith's History, p. 388. From the appendix to the Epistolæ Regum Scotorum, it appears by authentic documents, that Patrick, earl of Bothwel, father to James, who espoused queen Mary, was alive til near the year 1560. Buchanan, by a mistake, which has been long ago corrected, calls him James. Note 3 S, p. 466. Mary herself confessed, in her instructions to the ambassadors whom she sent to France, that Bothwel persuaded all the noblemen that their application in favour of his marriage was agreeable to her. Keith, p. 389. Anderson, vol. i. p. 94. Murray afterwards produced to queen Elizabeth's commissioners, a paper signed by Mary, by which she permitted them to make this application to her. This permission was a sufficient declaration of her intentions, and was esteemed equivalent to a command. Anderson, vol. iv. p. 59. They even asserted, that the house in which they met was surrounded with armed men. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 141. Note 3 T, p. 473. Mary's complaint of the queen's partiality in admitting Murray to a conference, was a mere pretext in order to break off the conference. She indeed employs that reason in her order for that purpose; (see Goodall, vol. ii. p. 184;) but in her private letter, her commissioners are directed to make use of that order to pre vent her honour from being attacked. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 183. It was therefore the accusation only she was afraid of. Murray was the least obnoxious of all her enemies. He was abroad when her subjects rebelled, and reduced her to captivity: he had only accepted of the regency when voluntarily proffered him by the nation. His being admitted to queen Elizabeth's presence was therefore a very bad foundation for a quarrel, or for breaking off the conference; and was plainly a mere pretence. Note 3 U, p. 474. We shall not enter into a long discussion concerning the authenticity of these letters: we shall only remark the English privy-council, and by a great many of the should run The letters tally so well with all the other parts of her conduct during that transaction, that these proofs throw the strongest light on each other. (13.) The duke of Norfolk, who had examined these papers, and who favoured so much the queen of Scots that he intended to marry her, and in the end lost his life in her cause, yet believed them authentic, and was fully convinced of her guilt. This appears not only from his letters above mentioned to queen Elizabeth and her ministers, but by his secret acknowledg ment to Bannister, his most trusty confidant. See State Trials, vol. i. p. 81. In the conferences between the duke, secretary Lidington, and the bishop of Ross, all of them zealous partisans of that princess, the same thing is always taken for granted. Ibid. p. 74, 75. See further MS. in the Advocate's library, A. 3, 28, p. 314, from Cott. lib. Calig. c. 9. Indeed the duke's full persuasion of Mary's guilt, without the least doubt or hesitation, could not have had place, if he had found Lidington or the bishop of Ross of a different opinion, or if they had ever told him that these letters were forged. It is to be remarked, that Lidington, being one of the accomplices, knew the whole bottom of the conspiracy against king Henry, and was besides a man of such penetration that nothing could escape him in such interesting events. (14.) I need not repeat the presumption drawn from Mary's refusal to answer. The only excuse for her silence is, that she suspected Elizabeth to be a partial judge: it was not indeed the interest of that princess to acquit and justify her rival and competitor; and we accordingly find that Lidington, from the secret information of the duke of Norfolk, informed Mary, by the bishop of Ross, that the queen of England never meant to come to a decision; but only to get into her hands the proofs of Mary's guilt, in order to blast her character. See State Trials, vol. i. p. 77. But this was a better reason for declining the conference altogether, than for breaking it off on frivolous pretences, the very moment the chief accusation was unexpectedly opened against her. Though she could not expect Elizabeth's final decision in her favour, it was of importance to give a satisfactory answer, if she had any, to the accusation of the Scotch commissioners. That answer could have been dispersed for the satisfaction of the public, of foreign nations, and of posterity. And surely, after the accusation and proofs were in queen Elizabeth's hands, it could do no harm to give in the answers. Mary's information, that the queen never intended to come to a decision, could be no obstacle to her justification. (15.) The v ry disappearance of these letters is a presumption of their authenticity. That event can be accounted for no way but from the care of king James's friends, who were desirous to destroy every proof of his mother's crimes. The disappearance of Morton's narrative, and of Crawford's evidence, from the Cotton library, Calig. c. i. must have proceeded from a like cause. Sec MS. in the Advocates' library, A. 3, 29, p. 88. | to confirm this, he produces charters and other deeds signed by the queen, where the date and place do not agree with the letters. But it is well known that the date of charters, and such-like grants, is no proof of the real day on which they were signed by the sovereign. Papers of that kind commonly pass through different offices: the date is affixed by the first office, and may precede very long the day of the signature. The account given by Morton of the manner in which the papers came into his hands, is very natural. When he gave it to the English commissioners, he had reason to think it would be canvassed with all the severity of able adversaries, interested in the highest degree to refute it. It is probable that he could have confirmed it by many circumstances and testimonies, since they declined the contest. The sonnets are inelegant; insomuch that both Brantome and Ronsard, who knew queen Mary's style, were assured, when they saw them, that they could not be of her composition. Jebb, vol. ii. p. 478. But no person is equal in his productions, especially one whose style is so little formed as Mary's must be supposed to be. Not to mention that such dangerous and criminal enterprises leave little tranquillity of mind for elegant poetical compositions. In a word, queen Mary might easily have conducted the whole conspiracy against her husband, without opening her mind to any one person except Bothwel, and without writing a scrap of paper about it; but it was very difficult to have conducted it so that her conduct should not betray her to men of discernment. In the present case her conduct was so gross, as to betray her to everybody; and fortune threw into her enemies' hands papers by which they could convict her. The same infatuation and imprudence, which happily is the usual attendant of great crimes, will account for both. It is proper to observe, that there is not one circumstance of the foregoing narrative, contained in the history, that is taken from Knox, Buchanan, or even Thuanus, or indeed from any suspected authority. Note 3 W, p. 474. Unless we take this angry accusation, advanced by queen Mary, to be an argument of Murray's guilt, there remains not the least presumption which should lead us to suspect him to have been anywise an accomplice in the king's murder. That queen never pretended to give any proof to the charge; and her commissioners affirmed at the time, that they themselves knew of none, though they were ready to maintain its truth by their mistress's orders, and would produce such proof as she should send them. It is remark. able that, at that time, it was impossible for either her or them to produce any proof; because the conferences before the English commissioners were previously broken off. I find an objection made to the authenticity of the It is true, the bishop of Ross, in an angry pamphlet, letters, drawn from the vote of the Scotch privy-written by him under a borrowed name, (where it is council, which affirms the letters to be written and easy to say anything,) affirms, that Lord Herreis, a few subscribed by queen Mary's own hand; whereas the days after the king's death, charged Murray with the copies given in to the parliament a few days after, guilt, openly to his face at his own table. This latter were only written, not subscribed. See Goodall, vol. ii. nobleman, as Lesly relates the matter, affirmed, that p. 64, 67. But it is not considered that this circum- Murray, riding in Fife with one of his servants, the stance is of no manner of force: there were certainly evening before commission of that crime, said to him letters, true or false, laid before the council: and among other taik, "This night ere morning the lord whether the letters were true or false, this mistake Darnley shall lose his life." See Anderson, vol. i, p. proceeds equally from the inaccuracy or blunder of the 75. But this is only a hearsay of Lesly's concerning a clerk. The mistake may be accounted for; the letters hearsay of Herreis's, and contains a very improbable were only written by her the second contract with fact. Would Murray, without any use or necessity, Bothwel was only subscribed. A proper accurate dis- communicate to a servant such a dangerous and im tinction was not made; and they are all said to be portant secret, merely by way of conversation! W6 written and subscribed. A late writer, Mr. Goodall, may also observe, that lord Herreis himself was one of has endeavoured to prove that these letters clash with queen Mary's commissioners who accused Murray. chronology, and that the queen was not in the places Ilad he ever heard this story, or given credit to it, mentioned in the letters on the days there assigned: was not that the time to have produced it ! and not : been made between Elizabeth and the regent for the delivering up of Mary to him. The queen afterwards sent down Killigrew to the earl of Marre when regent, offering to put Mary into his hands. Killigrew was instructed to take good security from the regent, that the queen should be tried for her crimes and that the sentence should be executed upon her. It appears that Marre rejected the offer, because we hear no more of it. have affirmed, as he did, that he for his part knewing of this history, it appears, that an agreement had nothing of Murray's guilt? See Goodall, vol. ii. p. 307. The earls of Huntley and Argyle accuse Murray of this crime; but the reason which they assign is ridiculous. He had given his consent to Mary's divorce from the king; therefore he was the king's murderer. See Anderson, vol. iv. part 2, p. 192. It is a sure argument that these earls knew no better proof against Murray, otherwise they would have produced it, and not have insisted on so absurd a presumption. Was not this also the time for Huntley to deny his writing Mary's contract with Bothwel, if that paper had been a forgery? Murray could have no motive to commit that crime. The king, indeed, bore him some ill will; but the king himself was become so despicable, both from his own ill conduct and the queen's aversion to him, that he could neither do good nor harm to anybody. To judge by the event in any case is always absurd, especially in the present. The king's murder, indeed, procured Murray the regency; but much more Mary's ill conduct and imprudence, which he could not possibly foresee, and which never would have happened had she been entirely innocent. Note 3 X, p. 474. I believe there is no reader of common sense who does not see from the narrative in the text, that the author means to say, that queen Mary refuses constantly to answer before the English commissioners, but offers only to answer in person before queen Elizabeth in person, contrary to her practice during the whole course of the conference, till the moment the evidence of her being an accomplice in her husband's murder is unexpectedly produced. It is true, the author having repeated four or five times an account of this demand of being admitted to Elizabeth's presence, and having expressed his opinion that, as it had been refused from the beginning, even before the commencement of the conferences, she did not expect it would now be complied with, thought it impossible his meaning could be misunderstood; (as indeed it was impossible ;) and not being willing to tire his reader with continual repetitions, he mentions in a passage or two, simply, that she had refused to make any answer. I believe also, there is no reader of common sense who peruses Anderson or Goodall's collections, and does not see that, agreeably to his narrative, queen Mary insists unalterably and strenuously on not continuing to answer before the English commissioners, but insists to be heard in person by queen Elizabeth in person; though once or twice, by way of bravado, she says simply, that she will answer and refute her enemies, without inserting this condition, which still is understood. But there is a person that has writ an "Enquiry historical and critical into the Evidence against Mary Queen of Scots ;" and has attempted to refute the foregoing narrative. He quotes a single passage of the narrative, in which Mary is said simply to refuse answering; and then a single passage from Goodall, in which she boasts simply that she will answer; and he very civilly, and almost directly, calls the author a liar, on account of this pretended contradiction. That whole Enquiry, from beginning to end, is composed of such: scandalous artifices; and from this instance the reader may judge of the candour, fair dealing, veracity, and good manners of the Enquirer. There are, indeed, three events in our history, which may be regarded as touchstones of party-men. An English Whig, who asserts the reality of the popish plot, an Irish catholic, who denies the massacre in 1641, and a Scotch jacobite, who maintains the innocence of queen Mary, must be considered as men beyond the reach of argument or reason, and must be left to their prejudices. Note 3 Z, p. 480. Sir James Melvil, p. 108, 109, ascribes to Elizabeth a positive design of animating the Scotch factions against each other; but his evidence is too inconsiderable to counterbalance many other authorities, and is, indeed, contrary to her subsequent conduct, as well as her interest, and the necessity of her situation. It was plainly her interest that the king's party should prevail, and nothing could have engaged her to stop their progress, or even forbear openly assisting them, but her intention of still amusing the queen of Scots, by the hopes of being peaceably restored to her throne. See further, Strype, vol. ii. Append. p. 20. Note 4 A, p. 497. That the queen's negociations for marrying the duke of Anjou were not feigned nor political, appears clearly from many circumstances; particularly from a passage in Dr. Forbes's manuscript collections, at present in the possession of lord Royston. She there enjoins Walsingham before he opens the treaty, to exlately recovered from the small-pox, she desires her amine the person of the duke; and as that prince had ambassador to consider, whether he yet retained so much of his good looks, as that a woman could fix her affections on him. Had she not been in earnest, and had she only meant to amuse the public, or the court of France, this circumstance was of no moment. Note 4 B, p. 502. D'Ewes, p. 328. The puritanical sect had indeed gone so far, that a book of discipline was secretly subscribed by above five hundred clergymen ; and the presbyterian government thereby established in the midst of the church, notwithstanding the rigour of the prelates and of the high-commission. So impossible is it by penal statutes, however severe, to suppress all religious innovation. See Neal's Hist. of the Puritans, vol. i. p. 483. Strype's Life of Whitgift, p. 291. Note 4 C, p. 502. This year the earl of Northumberland, brother to the earl beheaded some years before, had been engaged in a conspiracy with lord Paget for the deliverance of the queen of Scots. He was thrown into the Tower; and being conscious that his guilt could be proved upon him, at least that sentence would infallibly be pronounced against him, he freed himself from further prosecution by a voluntary death. He shot himself in the breast with a pistol. About the same time the earl of Arundel, son of the unfortunate duke of Norfolk, having entered into some exceptionable measures and reflecting on the unhappy fate which had attended his family, endeavoured to depart secretly beyond sea, but was discovered and thrown into the Tower. In 1587, this nobleman was brought to his trial for high-treason; chiefly because he had dropped some expressions of affection to the Spaniards, and had affirmed that he would have masses said for the success of the Armada. His peers found him guilty of treason: this severe sentence was not executed; but Arundel never recovered his liberty. By Murden's state papers, published after the writ-He died a prisoner in 1595. He carried his religious Note 3 Y, p. 479. austerities so far, that they were believed the immedi- | amiable: but her absolute authority, at the same timo ate cause of his death. Note 4 D, p. 505. She Mary's extreme animosity against Elizabeth may easily be conceived, and it broke out about this time in an incident which may appear curious. While the former queen was kept in custody by the earl of Shrewsbury, she lived during a long time in great intimacy with the countess; but that lady entertaining a jealousy of an amour between her and the earl, their friendship was converted into enmity; and Mary took a method of revenge, which at once gratified her spite against the countess and that against Elizabeth. She wrote to the queen, informing her of all the malicious, scandalous stories which, she said, the countess of Shrewsbury had reported of her: that Elizabeth had given a promise of marriage to a certain person, whom she afterwards often admitted to her bed: that she had been equally indulgent to Simier, the French agent, and to the duke of Anjou: that Hatton was also one of her paramours, who was even disgusted with her excessive love and fondness: that though she was, on other occasions, avaricious to the last degree, as well as ungrateful, and kind to very few, she spared no expense in gratifying her amorous passions: that notwithstanding her licentious amours, she was not made like other women; and all those who courted her marriage would in the end be disappointed: that she was so conceited of her beauty, as to swallow the most extravagant flattery from her courtiers, who could not on these occasions, forbear even sneering at her for her folly: that it was usual for them to tell her, that the lustre of her beauty dazzled them like that of the sun, and they could not behold it with a fixed eye: she added, that the countess had said, that Mary's best policy would be to engage her son to make love to the queen; nor was there any danger that such a proposal would be taken for mockery; so ridiculous was the opinion which she had entertained of her own charms. pretended that the countess had represented her as no less odious in her temper than profligate in her manners, and absurd in her vanity: that she had so beaten a young woman of the name of Scudamore, as to break that lady's finger; and in order to cover over the matter, it was pretended that the accident had proceeded from the fall of a candlestick: that she had cut another across the hand with a knife, who had been so unfortunate as to offend her. Mary added, that the countess had informed her, that Elizabeth had suborned Rolstone to pretend friendship to her, in order to debauch her, and thereby throw infamy on her rival. See Murden's State Papers, p. 558. This imprudent and malicious letter was written a very little before the detection of Mary's conspiracy; and contributed, no doubt, to render the proceedings against her the more rigorous. How far all these imputations against Elizabeth can be credited may perhaps appear doubtful but her extreme fondness for Leicester, Hatton, and Essex, not to mention Mountjoy and others, with the curious passages between her and admiral Seymour, contained in Haynes, render her chastity very much to be suspected. Her self-conceit with regard to beauty, we know from other undoubted authority to have been extravagant. Even when she was a very old woman, she allowed her courtiers to flatter her with regard to her excellent beauties. Birch, vol. ii. p 442, 443. Her passionate temper may also be proved from many lively instances, and it was not unusual with her to beat her maids of honour. See the Sidney papers, vol. ii. p. 38. The blow she gave to Essex before the privy-council is another instance. There remains in the Museum a letter of the earl of Huntingdon's, in which he complains grievously of the queen's pinching his wife very sorely, on account of some quarrel between them. Had this princess been born in a private station, she would not have been very that it gave an uncontrolling swing to her violent passions, enabled her to compensate her infirmities by many great and signal virtues. Note 4 E, p. 508. Camden, p. 525. This evidence was that of Curle, her secretary, whom she allowed to be a very honest man; and who, as well as Nau, had given proofs of his integrity, by keeping so long such important secrets, from whose discovery he could have reaped the greatest profit. Mary, after all, thought that she had so little reason to complain of Curle's evidence, that she took care to have him paid a considerable sum by her will, which she wrote the day before her death. Goodall, vol. i. p. 413. Neither did she forget Nau, though less satisfied in other respects with his conduct. Ibid. Note 4 F, P. 508. The detail of this conspiracy is to be found in a letter of the queen of Scots to Charles Paget, her great, confidant. This letter is dated the 20th of May, 1586, and is contained in Dr. Forbes's manuscript collections, at present in the possession of lerd Royston. It is a copy attested by Curle, Mary's secretary, and indorsed by lord Burleigh. What proves its authenticity beyond question is, that we find in Murden's collection, p. 516, that Mary actually wrote that very day a letter to Charles Paget: and further she mentions in the manuscript letter, a letter of Charles Paget's of the 10th of April: now we find by Murden, p. 506, that Charles Paget did actually write her a letter of that date. This violence of spirit is very consistent with Mary's character. Her maternal affection was too weak to oppose the gratification of her passions, particularly her pride, her ambition, and her bigotry. Her son, having made some fruitless attempts to associate her with him in the title, and having found the scheme impracticable, on account of the prejudices of his protestant subjects, at last desisted from that design, and entered into an alliance with England, without comprehending his mother. She was in such a rage at this undutiful behaviour, as she imagined it, that she wrote to queen Elizabeth, that she no longer cared what became of him or herself in the world; the greatest satisfaction she could have before her death was, to see him and all his adherents become a signal example of tyranny, ingratitude, and impiety, and undergo the vengeance of God for their wickedness. She, would find in Christendom other heirs, and doubted not to put her inheritance in such hands as would retain the firmest hold of it. She cared not, after taking this revenge, what became of her body; the quickest death would then be the most agreeable to her. And she assured her that, if he persevered, she would disown him for her son, and would give him her malediction, would disinherit him, as well of his present possessions as of all he could expect by her; abandoning him not only to her subjects to treat him as they had done her, but to all strangers to subdue and conquer him. It was in vain to employ menaces against her: the fear of death or other misfortune would never induce her to make one step, or pronounce one syllable beyond what she had determined: she would rather perish with honour, in maintaining the dignity to which God had raised her, than degrade herself by the least pusillanimity, or act what was unworthy of her station and of her race. Murden, p. 566, 567. James said to Courcelles, the French ambassador, that he had seen a letter under her own hand, in which she threatened to disinherit him, and said that he might betake him to the lordship of Darnley; for that was all he had by his father. Courcelles' Letter, a MS. of Dr. Campbell's. There is in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 573, £ letter of her's, where she throws out the same menace against him. We find this scheme of seizing the king of Scots, and delivering him into the hands of the pope or the king of Spain, proposed by Morgan to Mary. See Murden, p. 525. A mother must be very violent to whom one would dare to make such a proposal: but it seems she assented to it. Was not such a woman very capable of murdering her husband, who had so grievously offended her. Note 4 G, p. 509. James. But Camden informs us, that Nau, even after that event, persisted still in his testimony. We must also consider, that the two last suppositions imply such a monstrous criminal'conduct in Walsingham, and consequently in Elizabeth, (for the matter could be no secret to her,) as exceeds all credibility. If we consider the situation of things, and the preju dices of the times, Mary's consent to Babington's conspiracy appears much more natural and probable. She believed Elizabeth to be an usurper and a heretic: she regarded her as a personal and a violent enemy: she knew that schemes for assassinating heretics were very familiar in that age, and generally approved of by the The volume of State Papers collected by Murden, court of Rome and the zealous catholics: her own prove beyond controversy, that Mary was long in close liberty and sovereignty were connected with the suc correspondence with Babington, p.513, 516, 532, 533. cess of this enterprise: and it cannot appear strange, She entertained a like correspondence with Ballard, that where men, of so much merit as Babington, could Morgan, and Charles Paget, and laid a scheme with be engaged by bigotry alone, in so criminal an enterthem for an insurrection, and for the invasion of Eng-prise, Mary, who was actuated by the same motive, land, by Spain, p. 528, 531. The same papers show, joined to so many others, should have given her conthat there had been a discontinuance of Babington's sent to a scheme projected by her friends. We may correspondence, agreeably to Camden's narration. be previously certain, that if such a scheme was ever See State Papers, p. 513, where Morgan recommends communicated to her, with any probability of success, it to queen Mary to renew her correspondence with she would assent to it: and it served the purpose of Babington. These circumstances prove, that no weight Walsingham and the English ministry to facilitate can be laid on Mary's denial of guilt, and that her the communication of these schemes, as soon as they correspondence with Babington contained particulars had gotten an expedient for intercepting her answer, which could not be avowed. and detecting the conspiracy. Now Walsingham's knowledge of the matter is a supposition necessary to account for the letter delivered to Babington. Note 4 H, p. 509. As to the not punishing of Nau and Curle by Elizabeth, it never is the practice to punish lesser criminals, who had given evidence against the principal. But what ought to induce us to reject these three suppositions is, that they must all of them be considered as bare possibilities: the partisans of Mary can give no reason for preferring one to the other not the slightest evidence ever appeared to support any one of them: neither at that time, nor at any time afterwards, was any reason discovered, by the numerous zealots at home and abroad, who had embraced Mary's defence, to lead us to the belief of any of these three suppositions; and even her apologists at present seem not to have fixed on any choice among these supposed possibilities. The positive proof of two very credible witnesses, supported by the other very strong circumstances, still remains unimpeached. Babington, who had an extreme interest to have communication with the queen of Scots, believed he had found a means of correspondence with her, and had received an auswer from her: he, as well as the other conspirators, died in that belief: there has not occurred, since that time, the least argument to prove that they were mistaken : can there be any reason at present to doubt the truth of their opinion? Camden, though a professed apologist for Mary, is constrained to tell the story in such a manner as evidently supposes her guilt. Such was the impossibility of finding any other consistent account, even by a man of parts, who was a contemporary! There are three suppositions by which the letter to Babington may be accounted for without allowing Mary's concurrence in the conspiracy for assassinating Elizabeth. The first is, that which she seems herself to have embraced, that her secretaries had received Babington's letter, and had, without any treacherous intention, ventured of themselves to answer it, and had never communicated the matter to her: but it is utterly improbable, if not impossible, that a princess of so much sense and spirit should, in an affair of that importance, be so treated by her servants who lived in the house with her, and who had every moment an opportunity of communicating the secret to her. If the conspiracy failed, they must expect to suffer the severest punishment from the court of England; if it succeeded, the lightest punishment which they could hope for from their own mistress, must be disgrace on account of their temerity. Not to mention, that Mary's concurrence was in some degree requisite for effecting the design of her escape; it was proposed to attack her guards while she was employed in hunting; she must therefore concert the time and place with the conspirators. The second supposition is, that these two secretaries were previously traitors; and being gained by Walsingham, had made such a reply in their mistress's cypher as might involve her in the guilt of the conspiracy. But these two men had lived long with the queen of Scots, had been entirely trusted by her, and had never fallen under suspicion either with In this light might the question have appeared even her or her partisans. Camden informs us, that Curle af. during Mary's trial. But what now puts her guilt beterwards claimed a reward from Walsingham on pre-yond all controversy is the following passage of her tence of some promise; but Walsingham told him that letter to Thomas Morgan, dated the 27th of July, he owed him no reward, and that he had made no disco- 1586. "As to Babington, he hath both kindly and veries on his examination, which were not known with honestly offered himself and all his means to be emcertainty from other quarters. The third supposition is, ployed any way I would: whereupon I hope to have that neither the queen nor the two secretaries, Nau and satisfied him by two of my several letters since I had Curle, ever saw Babington's letter, or made any an- his; and the rather, for that I opened him the way, swer; but that Walsingham having deciphered the whereby I received his with your aforesaid." Murformer, forged a reply. But this supposition implies den, p. 533.-Babington confessed, that he had offered the falsehood of the whole story, told by Camden, of her to assassinate the queen. It appears by this that Gifford's access to the queen of Scots' family, and she had accepted the offer; so that all the supposiPaulet's refusal to concur in allowing her servants to tions of Walsingham's forgery, or the temerity or be bribed. Not to mention, that as Nau's and Curle's treachery of her secretaries, fall to the ground. evidence must, on this supposition, have been extorted by violence and terror, they would necessarily have been engaged, for their own justification, to have told the truth afterwards; especially upon the accession of Note 4 I, p. 510. This parliament granted the queen a supply of a |