n 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 a