Page 153 of 162

25 (return)
[ NOTE Y, p. 227. The volume of state papers collected by Murden, prove, beyond controversy, that Mary was long in close correspondence with Babington, (p. 513, 516, 532, 533.) She entertained a like correspondence with Ballard, Morgan, and Charles Paget, and laid a scheme with them for an insurrection, and for the invasion of England by Spain (p. 528,531.) The same papers show, that there had been a discontinuance of Babington’s correspondence, agreeably to Camden’s narration. See Slate Papers, (p. 513,) where Morgan recommends it to Queen Mary to renew her correspondence with Babington. These circumstances prove, that no weight can be laid on Mary’s denial of guilt, and that her correspondence with Babington contained particulars which could not be avowed.]

26 (return)
[ NOTE Z, p. 227. 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 cipher, 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 her or her partisans. Camden informs us, that Curle afterwards claimed a reward from Walsingham, on pretence of some promise; but Walsingham told him that he owed him no reward, and that he had made no discoveries on his examination which were not known with certainty from other quarters. The third supposition is, that neither the queen nor the two secretaries, Nau and Curle, ever saw Babington’s letter, or made any answer; but that Walsingham, having deciphered the former, forged a reply. But this supposition implies the falsehood of the whole story, told by Camden, of Gifford’s access to the queen of Scots’ family, and Paulet’s refusal to concur in allowing his servants to be bribed. Not to mention, that as Nau’s and Curle’s 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 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 prejudices of the times, Mary’s consent to Babington’s conspiracy appears much more natural and probable. She believed Elizabeth to be a 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 court of Rome and the zealous Catholics. Her own liberty and sovereignty were connected with the success of this enterprise; and it cannot appear strange, that where men of so much merit as Babington could be engaged by bigotry alone in so criminal an enterprise, Mary, who was actuated by the same motive, joined to so many others, should have given her consent to a scheme projected by her friends. We may be previously certain, that if such a scheme was ever communicated to her, with any probability of success, she would assent to it; and it served the purpose of Walsingham and the English ministry to facilitate the communication of these schemes, as soon as they had gotten an expedient for intercepting her answer, and detecting the conspiracy. Now, Walsingham’s knowledge of the matter is a supposition necessary to account for the letter delivered to Babington.

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 answer 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!

In this light might the question have appeared even during Mary’s trial. But what now puts her guilt beyond all controversy is the following passage of her letter to Thomas Morgan, dated the 27th of July, 1586: “As to Babington, he hath both kindly and honestly offered himself and all his means to be employed any way I would; whereupon I hope to have satisfied him by two of my several letters since I had his; and the rather for that I opened him the way, thereby I received his with your aforesaid.” Murden, p. 533. Babington confessed that he had offered her to assassinate the queen. It appears by this that she had accepted the offer; so that all the suppositions of Walsingham’s forgery, or the temerity or treachery of her secretaries, fall to the ground.]

27 (return)
[ NOTE AA, p 231 This parliament granted the queen a supply of a subsidy and two fifteenths. They adjourned, and met again after the execution of the queen of Scots; when there passed some remarkable incidents, which it may be proper not to omit. We shall give them in the words of Sir Simon D’Ewes, (p. 410, 411,) which are almost wholly transcribed from Townshend’s Journal. On Monday, the 27th of February, Mr. Cope, first using some speeches touching the necessity of a learned ministry, and the amendment of things amiss in the ecclesiastical estate, offered to the house a bill and a book written; the bill containing a petition, that it might be enacted, that all laws now in force touching ecclesiastical government should be void; and that it might be enacted, that the Book of Common Prayer now offered, and none other, might be received into the church to be used. The book contained the form of prayer and administration of the sacraments, with divers rites and ceremonies to be used in the church; and he desired that the book might be read. Whereupon Mr. Speaker in effect used this speech: For that her majesty before this time had commanded the house not to meddle with this matter, and that her majesty had promised to take order in those causes, he doubted not but to the good satisfaction of all her people, he desired that it would please them to spare the reading of it. Notwithstanding the house desired the reading of it. Whereupon Mr. Speaker desired the clerk to read. And the court being ready to read it, Mr. Dalton made a motion against the reading of it, saying, that it was not meet to be read, and it did appoint a new form of administration of the sacraments and ceremonies of the church, to the discredit of the Book of Common Prayer and of the whole state; and thought that this dealing would bring her majesty’s indignation against the house, thus to enterprise this dealing with those things which her majesty especially had taken into her own charge and direction. Whereupon Mr. Lewkenor spake, showing the necessity of preaching and of a learned ministry, and thought it very fit that the petition and book should be read. To this purpose spake Mr. Hurleston and Mr. Bainbrigg; and so, the time being passed, the house broke up, and neither the petition nor book read. This done, her majesty sent to Mr. Speaker, as well for this petition and book, as for that other petition and book for the like effect, that was delivered the last session of parliament, which Mr. Speaker sent to her majesty. On Tuesday, the 28th of February, her majesty sent for Mr. Speaker, by occasion whereof the house did not sit. On Wednesday, the first of March, Mr. Wentworth delivered to Mr. Speaker certain articles, which contained questions touching the liberties of the house, and to some of which he was to answer, and desired they might be read. Mr. Speaker desired him to spare his motion until her majesty’s pleasure was further known touching the petition and book lately delivered into the house; but Mr. Wentworth would not be so satisfied, but required his articles might be read. Mr. Wentworth introduced his queries by lamenting that he, as well as many others, were deterred from speaking by their want of knowledge and experience in the liberties of the house; and the queries were as follows: Whether this council were not a place for any member of the same here assembled, freely and without controlment of any person or danger of laws, by bill or speech to utter any of the griefs of this commonwealth whatsoever, touching the service of God, the safety of the prince, and this noble realm? Whether that great honor may be done unto God, and benefit and service unto the prince and state, without free speech in this council that may be done with it? Whether there be any council which can make, add, or diminish from the laws of the realm, but only this council of parliament? Whether it be not against the orders of this council to make any secret or matter of weight, which is here in hand, known to the prince or any other, concerning the high service of God, prince, or state without the consent of the house? Whether the speaker or any other may interrupt any member of this council in his speech used in this house tending to any of the forenamed services? Whether the speaker may rise when he will, any matter being propounded, without consent of the house or not? Whether the speaker may overrule the house in any matter or cause there in question, or whether he is to be ruled or overruled in any matter or not? Whether the prince and state can continue, and stand, and be maintained, without this council of parliament, not altering the government of the state? At the end of these questions, says Sir Simon D’Ewes, I found set down this short memorial ensuing; by which it may be perceived both what Serjeant Puckering, the speaker, did with the said questions after he had received them, and what became also of this business, viz.: “These questions Mr. Puckering pocketed up, and showed Sir Thomas Henage, who so handled the matter, that Mr. Wentworth went to the Tower, and the questions not at all moved. Mr. Buckler of Essex herein brake his faith in forsaking the matter, etc., and no more was done.” After setting down, continues Sir Simon D’Ewes, the said business of Mr. Wentworth in the original journal book, there follows only this short conclusion of the day itself, viz.: “This day, Mr. Speaker being sent for to the queen’s majesty, the house departed.” On Thursday, the 2d of March, Mr. Cope, Mr. Lewkenor, Mr. Hurleston, and Mr. Bainbrigg were sent for to my lord chancellor and by divers of the privy council, and from thence were sent to the Tower. On Saturday the 4th day of March, Sir John Higham made a motion to this house, for that divers good and necessary members thereof were taken from them, that it would please them to be humble petitioners to her majesty for the restitution of them again to this house. To which speeches Mr. Vice-chamberlain answered, that if the gentlemen were committed for matter within the compass of the privilege of the house, then there might be a petition; but if not, then we should give occasion to her majesty’s further displeasure; and therefore advised to stay until they heard more, which could not be long. And further, he said, touching the book and the petition, her majesty had, for divers good causes best known to herself, thought fit to suppress the same, without any further examination thereof; and yet thought it very unfit for her majesty to give any account of her doings. But whatsoever Mr. Vice-chamberlain pretended, it is most probable these members were committed for intermeddling with matters touching the church, which her majesty had often inhibited, and which had caused so much disputation and so many meetings between the two houses the last parliament.

This is all we find of the matter in Sir Simon D’Ewes and Townshend; and it appears that those members who had been committed, were detained in custody till the queen thought proper to release them. These questions of Mr. Wentworth are curious; because they contain some faint dawn of the present English constitution, though suddenly eclipsed by the arbitrary government of Elizabeth. Wentworth was indeed by his Puritanism, as well as his love of liberty, (for these two characters, of such unequal merit, arose and advanced together,) the true forerunner of the Hambdens, the Pyms, and the Hollises, who in the next age, with less courage, because with less danger, rendered their principles so triumphant. I shall only ask, whether it be not sufficiently clear from all these transactions, that in the two succeeding reigns it was the people who encroached upon the sovereign, not the sovereign who attempted, as is pretended, to usurp upon the people?]