1307.]  Belsham’s Comparison between Robertson and Hume. 
had received Babington’s letter, and had, 
without any treacherous intentions, ven= 
tured of themselves toanswer it, and had 
never communicated the -matter co her. 
But it is utterly improbable, ifnot impos- 
sible, that a princess of so much sense 
and spirit should, in an affair of that im- 
portance, be so treated by her servants 
who lved in the house with her, and who 
had every moment an opportunity of com- 
municating the secret to her. Thesecond 
‘supposition is, that these two secretaries 
were traitors gained by Walsingham. 
But these two men had lived long with 
the queen of Scots, had been entirely 
trusted by her, and had never fallen un- 
der suspicion. Camden informs us, that 
Curle afterwards claimed a reward from 
Walsingham. But Walsingham told him, 
that he owed him no reward, and that he 
had made no discoveries on his examina- 
tion which were not known with certain- 
ty from other quarters. The’third sup- 
position is, that neither the queen, nor 
the two secretaries, Nau and Curle, ever 
saw Babington’s letter, or made any an- 
swer; but that Walsingham having de- 
cyphered 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’ fa- 
mily, and Paulet’s refusal to concur inal- 
lowing his servants to be bribed. The 
two last suppositions, moreover, imply 
such a monstrous criminal conduct in 
Walsingham, and consequently in Eliza- 
beth, as exceeds all credibility. If we 
consider the situation of things, and the 
prejudices of the tumes, Mary’s consent to 
Babington’s conspiracy appears much more 
Natural and probable. She believed Eli- 
zabeth to be an usurper and a heretic. 
She regarded her as a personal and vio- 
Jent 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 Ca- 
tholics. Her own liberty aud sovereignty 
were connected with the success of this 
enterprize; and it cannot appear strange 
that where men of so much merit as Bab- 
ington could be engaged by bigotry alone, 
in so criminal an enterprize, Mary, who 
was actuated by the same motives, joined 
to so many others, should have given her 
consent to a scheme projected by her 
friends.” Moreover “ these three suppo- 
sitions must be considered as bare pos- 
sibilities. Not the slightest evidence 
€ver appeared to support any one of them. 
he positive proof of two very credible 
Witnesses supported by the other very 
¥ 
e 
429 
strong circumstances still remains unim- 
peached. In this light might the question 
haye 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 July 
27, 1586. “ As to Babington, he hath 
both kindly and honestly offered’ himself 
and all hismeans to be empioyed any way 
IT would. Whereupon I hope to have sa- 
tisfied him by two of my several letters, 
since I had his, and the rather for that I 
opened him the way whereby I received 
his with your aforesaid.” (Murden p.533). 
Babiugton 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 Walsing- 
ham’s forgery, or the temerity, or trea- 
chery of her secretaries, fall to the 
ground,” 
Certainly, it seems very extraordinary 
that when Mr. Hume, previous to the 
publication"of Dr. Robertson’s History, 
stated to him clearly and distinctly the 
nature of the evidence against the queen 
of Scots, the historian of Mary should 
have suffered. bis narrative to remain un- 
altered. It seems still more extraordi- 
nary that, in all the numerous subsequen¢ 
editions of his work, he should have nade 
no effort to defend, as he felt no disposi- 
tion to correct, his own hypothesis, al- 
though Mr. Hume very properly suggest- 
ed to him that it was of suflicient import- 
ance to demand a dissertation. There is 
a remarkable expression in the narrative 
of the latter of these great rival historians, 
viz. “ that the charge against Mary of 
concurrence in the design of assassinating 
Elizabeth, was the only one which could 
fully justify the queen in proceeding to 
extremities against her.’—This charge is 
clearly proved by Mr. Tiume; therefore 
it must be inferred, that in his opinion, 
queen Elizabeth was fully justified in pro- 
ceeding to extremities against Mary, 
whose rights of royalty, upon which Dr, 
Robertson lays so mach stress, ceased 
when the act of deposition took place, 
Tf this be allowed, the gnemory of Eliza- 
beth is relieved from the chief part of that 
load of obloguy which has been so indus- 
triously and injuriously thrown upon it. 
In respect to the anfortunate Mary, 
should it be deemed harsh at this dis- 
tance of time to revive or enforce accu- 
sations against her, the reply is obvious; 
the twomost celebrated historians of these 
transactions are chargeable with no other 
faultin regard to this princess, than that 
of treating her cruninal violations of tie 
mos 
