Of crown lands, eighty thousand pounds a year; by customs and new

impositions, near one hundred and ninety thousand; by wards and other

various branches of revenue, besides purveyance, one hundred and eighty

thousand: the whole amounting to four hundred and fifty thousand. The

king’s ordinary disbursements, by the same account, are said to exceed

this sum thirty-six thousand pounds.[*] All the extraordinary sums which

James had raised by subsidies, loans, sale of lands, sale of the

title of baronet, money paid by the states and by the king of France,

benevolences, etc., were, in the whole, about two millions two hundred

thousand pounds; of which the sale of lands afforded seven hundred and

seventy-five thousand pounds. The extraordinary disbursements of the

king amounted to two millions; besides above four hundred thousand

pounds given in presents. Upon the whole, a sufficient reason appears,

partly from necessary expenses, partly for want of a rigid economy,

why the king, even early in his reign, was deeply involved in debt, and

found great difficulty to support the government.

Farmers, not commissioners, levied the customs. It seems, indeed,

requisite, that the former method should always be tried before the

latter, though a preferable one. When men’s own interest is concerned,

they fall upon a hundred expedients to prevent frauds in the merchants;

and these the public may afterwards imitate, in establishing proper

rules for its officers.

The customs were supposed to amount to five per cent. of the value, and

were levied upon exports, as well as imports. Nay, the imposition upon

exports, by James’s additions, is said to amount, in some few instances,

to twenty-five per cent This practice, so hurtful to industry, prevails

still in France, Spain, and most countries of Europe. The customs in

1604 yielded one hundred and twenty-seven thousand pounds a year: [**]

they rose to one hundred and ninety thousand towards the end of the

reign.

* The excess was formerly greater, as appears by Salisbury’s

account. See chap. 2.

** Journ. 21st May, 1604.

Interest, during this reign, was at ten per cent. till 1624, when it

was reduced to eight. This high interest is an indication of the great

profits and small progress of commerce.

The extraordinary supplies granted by parliament, during this whole

reign, amounted not to more than six hundred and thirty thousand pounds;

which, divided among twenty-one years, makes thirty thousand pounds

a year. I do not include those supplies, amounting to three hundred

thousand pounds, which were given to the king by his last parliament.

These were paid in to their own commissioners; and the expenses of

the Spanish war were much more than sufficient to exhaust them. The

distressed family of the palatine was a great burden on James, during

part of his reign. The king, it is pretended, possessed not frugality

proportioned to the extreme narrowness of his revenue. Splendid

equipages, however, he did not affect, nor costly furniture, nor a

luxurious table, nor prodigal mistresses. His buildings too were not

sumptuous; though the Banqueting House must not be forgotten, as a

monument which does honor to his reign. Hunting was his chief amusement,

the cheapest pleasure in which a king can indulge himself. His expenses

were the effects of liberality, rather than of luxury.

One day, it is said, while he was standing amidst some of his courtiers,

a porter passed by, loaded with money, which he was carrying to the

treasury. The king observed that Rich, afterwards earl of Holland,

one of his handsome, agreeable favorites, whispered something to one

standing near him. Upon inquiry, he found that Rich had said, “How happy

would that money make me!” Without hesitation, James bestowed it all

upon him, though it amounted to three thousand pounds. He added, “You

think yourself very happy in obtaining so large a sum; but I am more

happy in having an opportunity of obliging a worthy man, whom I love.”

The generosity of James was more the result of a benign humor or light

fancy, than of reason or judgment. The objects of it were such as could

render themselves agreeable to him in his loose hours; not such as were

endowed with great merit, or who possessed talents or popularity which

could strengthen his interest with the public.

The same advantage, we may remark, over the people, which the crown

formerly reaped from that interval between the fall of the peers and

rise of the commons, was now possessed by the people against the crown,

during the continuance of a like interval. The sovereign had already

lost that independent revenue by which he could subsist without regular

supplies from parliament; and he had not yet acquired the means of

influencing those assemblies. The effects of this situation, which

commenced with the accession of the house of Stuart, soon rose to a

great height, and were more of less propagated throughout all the reigns

of that unhappy family.

Subsidies and fifteenths are frequently mentioned by historians; but

neither the amount of these taxes, nor the method of levying them,

have been well explained. It appears, that the fifteenths formerly

corresponded to the name, and were that proportionable part of the

movables.[*] But a valuation having been made in the reign of Edward

III., that valuation was always adhered to, and each town paid

unalterably a particular sum, which the inhabitants themselves assessed

upon their fellow-citizens. The same tax in corporate towns was called

a tenth; because there it was, at first, a tenth of the movables. The

whole amount of a tenth and a fifteenth throughout the kingdom, or a

fifteenth, as it is often more concisely called, was about twenty-nine

thousand pounds.[**] The amount of a subsidy was not invariable, like

that of a fifteenth. In the eighth of Elizabeth, a subsidy amounted

to one hundred and twenty thousand pounds: in the fortieth, it was

not above seventy-eight thousand.[***] It afterwards fell to seventy

thousand, and was continually decreasing.[****] The reason is easily

collected from the method of levying it. We may learn from the subsidy

bills,[v] that one subsidy was given for four shillings in the pound

on land, and two shillings and eightpence on movables throughout the

counties; a considerable tax, had it been strictly levied. But this was

only the ancient state of a subsidy. During the reign of James,

there was not paid the twentieth part of that sum. The tax was so far

personal, that a man paid only in the county where he lived, though he

should possess estates in other counties; and the assessors formed a

loose estimation of his property, and rated him accordingly.

* Coke’s Inst. book iv. chap. 1, cf fifteenths, quinzins.

** Coke’s Inst. book iv. chap. 1, subsidies temporary.

*** Journ. 11th July, 1610.

**** Coke’s Inst. book iv. subsidies temporary.

v See Statutes at large.

To preserve, however, some rule in the estimation, it seems to have been

the practice to keep an eye to former assessments, and to rate every man

according as his ancestors, or men of such an estimated property, were

accustomed to pay. This was a sufficient reason why subsidies could not

increase, notwithstanding the great increase of money and rise of rents.

But there was an evident reason why they continually decreased.

The favor, as is natural to suppose, ran always against the crown;

especially during the latter end of Elizabeth, when subsidies became

numerous and frequent, and the sums levied were considerable, compared

to former supplies. The assessors, though accustomed to have an eye to

ancient estimations, were not bound to observe any such rule, but might

rate anew any person, according to his present income. When rents

fell, or parts of an estate were sold off, the proprietor was sure to

represent these losses, and obtain a diminution of his subsidy; but

where rents rose, or new lands were purchased, he kept his own secret,

and paid no more than formerly. The advantage, therefore, of every

change was taken against the crown; and the crown could obtain the

advantage of none. And, to make the matter worse, the alterations which

happened in property during this age, were in general unfavorable to the

crown. The small proprietors, or twenty-pound men, went continually to

decay; and when their estates were swallowed up by a greater, the new

purchaser increased not his subsidy. So loose, indeed, is the whole

method of rating subsidies, that the wonder was, not how the tax should

continually diminish, but how it yielded any revenue at all. It became

at last so unequal and uncertain, that the parliament was obliged to

change it into a land tax.

The price of corn during this reign, and that of the other necessaries

of life, was no lower, or was rather higher, than at present. By a

proclamation of James, establishing public magazines, whenever wheat

fell below thirty-two shillings a quarter, rye below eighteen, barley

below sixteen, the commissioners were empowered to purchase corn for the

magazines.[*] These prices then are to be regarded as low; though they

would rather pass for high by our present estimation. The usual bread of

the poor was at this time made of barley.[**] The best wool, during the

greater part of James’s reign, was at thirty-three shillings a tod.[***]

At present, it is not above two-thirds of that value; though it is lo be

presumed that our exports in woollen goods are somewhat increased. The

finer manufactures, too, by the progress of arts and industry, have

rather diminished in price, notwithstanding the great increase of money.

* Rymer, tom. xvii. p. 526. To the same purpose, see also

21st lac vi. cap. 28.

** Rymer, tom. xx. p. 157.

*** See a compendium or dialogue inserted in the Memoirs of

Wool, chap. 23.

In Shakspeare, the hostess tells Falstaff, that the shirts she bought

him were Holland at eight shillings a yard; a high price at this day,

even supposing, what is not probable, that the best Holland at that time

was equal in goodness to the best that can now be purchased. In like

manner, a yard of velvet, about the middle of Elizabeth’s reign, was

valued at two and twenty shillings. It appears from Dr. Birch’s life of

Prince Henry,[*] that that prince, by contract with his butcher, paid

near a groat a pound throughout the year for all the beef and mutton

used in his family. Besides, we must consider, that the general turn of

that age, which no laws could prevent, was the converting of arable land

into pasture; a certain proof that the latter was found more profitable,

and consequently that all butcher’s meat, as well as bread, was rather

higher than at present. We have a regulation of the market with regard

to poultry, and some other articles, very early in Charles I.’s reign;

[**] and the prices are high. A turkey cock four shillings and sixpence,

a turkey hen three shillings, a pheasant cock six, a pheasant hen five,

a partridge one shilling, a goose two, a capon two and sixpence, a

pullet one and sixpence, a rabbit eightpence, a dozen of pigeons six

shillings.[***] We must consider that London at present is more than

three times more populous than it was at that time; a circumstance which

much increases the price of poultry, and of every thing that cannot

conveniently be brought from a distance: not to mention, that these

regulations by authority are always calculated to diminish, never to

increase the market prices. The contractors for victualling the navy

were allowed by government eightpence a day for the diet of each man

when in harbor, sevenpence halfpenny when at sea; [****] which would

suffice at present. The chief difference in expense between that age

and the present consists in the imaginary wants of men, which have since

extremely multiplied.[v] These are the principal reasons why James’s

revenue would go further than the same money in our time; though the

difference is not near so great as is usually imagined.

* Page 449.

** Rymer, tom. xix. p. 511.

*** We may judge of the great grievance of purveyance by

this circumstance, that the purveyors often gave but

sixpence for a dozen of pigeons, and twopence for a fowl.

Journ. 25th May, 1626.

**** Rymer, tom. xvii. p. 441, et seq.

v This volume was written above twenty years before the

edition of 1778. In that short period, prices have perhaps

risen more than during the preceding hundred and fifty.

The public was entirely free from the danger and expense of a standing

army. While James was vaunting his divine vicegerency, and boasting of

his high prerogative, he possessed not so much as a single regiment

of guards to maintain his extensive claims; a sufficient proof that he

sincerely believed his pretensions to be well grounded, and a strong

presumption that they were at least built on what were then deemed

plausible arguments. The militia of England, amounting to one hundred

and sixty thousand men,[*] was the sole defence of the kingdom. It is

pretended that they were kept in good order during his reign.[**] The

city of London procured officers who had served abroad, and who taught

the trained bands their exercises in Artillery Garden; a practice

which had been discontinued since 1588. All the counties of England,

in emulation of the capital, were fond of showing a well-ordered and

well-appointed militia. It appeared, that the natural propensity of

men towards military shows and exercises will go far, with a little

attention in the sovereign, towards exciting and supporting this spirit

in any nation. The very boys, at this time, in mimicry of their elders,

enlisted themselves voluntarily into companies, elected officers, and

practised the discipline, of which the models were every day exposed

to their view.[***] Sir Edward Harwood, In a memorial composed at the

beginning of the subsequent reign, says, that England was so unprovided

with horses fit for war, that two thousand men could not possibly be

mounted throughout the whole kingdom.[****] At present, the breed of

horses is so much improved, that almost all those which are employed,

either in the plough, wagon, or coach, would be fit for that purpose.

The disorders of Ireland obliged James to keep up some forces there,

and put him to great expense. The common pay of a private man in the

infantry was eightpence a day, a lieutenant two shillings, an ensign

eighteen pence.[v]

* Journ. 1st March, 1623.

** Stowe. See also Sir Walter Raleigh of the Prerogatives of

Parliament, and Johnston Hist. lib. xviii.

*** Stowe.

**** In the Harleian Miscellany, vol. iv, p. 255.

v Rymer, tom. xvi. p. 717.

The armies in Europe were not near so numerous during that age; and

the private men, we may observe, were drawn from a better rank than at

present, and approaching nearer to that of the officers.

In the year 1583, there was a general review made of all the men in

England capable of bearing arms; and these were found to amount to

one million one hundred and seventy-two thousand men, according

to Raleigh.[*] It is impossible to warrant the exactness of this

computation; or rather, we may fairly presume it to be somewhat

inaccurate. But if it approached near the truth, England has probably,

since that time, increased in populousness. The growth of London,

in riches and beauty, as well as in numbers of inhabitants, has

been prodigious. From 1600, it doubled every forty years;[*] and

consequently, in 1680, it contained four times as many inhabitants as

at the beginning of the century. It has ever been the centre of all the

trade in the kingdom; and almost the only town that affords society and

amusement. The affection which the English bear to a country life, makes

the provincial towns be little frequented by the gentry. Nothing but

the allurements of the capital, which is favored by the residence of

the king, and by being the seat of government and of all the courts of

justice, can prevail over their passion for their rural villas.

London at this time was almost entirely built of wood, and in every

respect was certainly a very ugly city. The earl of Arundel first

introduced the general practice of brick buildings.[**]

The navy of England was esteemed formidable in Elizabeth’s time, yet

it consisted only of thirty-three ships, besides pinnaces;[***] and the

largest of these would not equal our fourth-rates at present. Raleigh

advises never to build a ship of war above six hundred tons. James was

not negligent of the navy. In five years preceding 1623, he built ten

new ships, and expended fifty thousand pounds a year on the fleet.

* Sir William Petty.

** Sir Edward Walker’s Political Discourses, p. 270

*** Coke’s Inst. book iv. chap. 1. Consultation in

parliament for the navy.

Of the Invention of Shipping. This number is much superior to that

contained in Murden, and that delivered by Sir Edward Coke to the house

of commons; and is more likely.

By Raleigh’s account, in his discourse of the first invention of

shipping, the fleet, in the twenty-fourth of the queen, consisted only

of thirteen ships, and was augmented afterwards eleven. He probably

reckoned some to be pinnaces, which Coke called ships, besides the value

of thirty-six thousand pounds in timber, which he annually gave from the

royal forests.[*] The largest ship that ever had come from the English

docks was built during this reign. She was only one thousand four

hundred tons, and carried sixty-four guns.[**] The merchant ships, in

cases of necessity, were instantly converted into ships of war. The king

affirmed to the parliament, that the navy had never before been in so

good a condition.[***]

Every session of parliament, during this reign, we meet with grievous

lamentations concerning the decay of trade, and the growth of Popery:

such violent propensity have men to complain of the present times, and

to entertain discontent against their fortune and condition. The king

himself was deceived by these popular complaints, and was at a loss

to account for the total want of money, which he heard so much

exaggerated.[****] It may, however, be affirmed, that during no

preceding period of English history, was there a more sensible increase,

than during the reign of this monarch, of all the advantages which

distinguish a flourishing people. Not only the peace which he maintained

was favorable to industry and commerce: his turn of mind inclined him

to promote the peaceful arts: and trade being as yet in its infancy, all

additions to it must have been the more evident to every eye which was

not blinded by melancholy prejudices.[v] [63]

By an account[v*] which seems judicious and accurate, it appears, that

all the seamen employed in the merchant service amounted to ten thousand

men, which probably exceeds not the fifth part of their present number.

Sir Thomas Overbury says, that the Dutch possessed three times more

shipping than the English, but that their ships were of inferior burden

to those of the latter.[v**] Sir William Monson computed the English

naval power to be little or nothing inferior to the Dutch,[v***] which

is surely an exaggeration. The Dutch at this time traded to England with

six hundred ships; England to Holland with sixty only.[v****]

* Journ. 11th March, 1623. Sir William Monson makes the

number amount only to nine new ships, (p. 253.)

** Stowe.

*** Parl. Hist, vol vi. p. 94.

**** Rymer, tom. xvii. p. 413.

v See note LLL, at the end of the volume.

v* The trade’s increase, in the Harleian Misc. vol. iii.

v** Remarks on his travels, Harl. Misc. vol. ii. p. 348.

v*** Naval Tracts, p. 329, 350.

v**** Raleigh’s Observations.

A catalogue of the manufactures for which the English were then eminent,

would appear very contemptible, in comparison of those which flourish

among them at present. Almost all the more elaborate and curious arts

were only cultivated abroad, particularly in Italy, Holland, and the

Netherlands. Ship-building and the founding of iron cannon were the

sole in which the English excelled. They seem, indeed, to have possessed

alone the secret of the latter; and great complaints were made every

parliament against the exportation of English ordnance.

Nine tenths of the commerce of the kingdom consisted in woollen

goods.[*] Wool, however, was allowed to be exported, till the nineteenth

of the king. Its exportation was then forbidden by proclamation; though

that edict was never strictly executed. Most of the cloth was exported

raw, and was dyed and dressed by the Dutch; who gained, it is pretended,

seven hundred thousand pounds a year by this manufacture.[**] A

proclamation issued by the king against exporting cloth in that

condition, had succeeded so ill during one year, by the refusal of the

Dutch to buy the dressed cloth, that great murmurs arose against it; and

this measure was retracted by the king, and complained of by the nation,

as if it had been the most impolitic in the world. It seems indeed to

have been premature.

In so little credit was the fine English cloth even at home, that the

king was obliged to seek expedients by which he might engage the people

of fashion to wear it.[***] The manufacture of fine linen was totally

unknown in the kingdom.[****]

* Journ. 26th May, 1621.

** Journ. 20th May, 1614. Raleigh, in his Observations,

computes the loss at four hundred thousand pounds to the

nation. There are about eighty thousand undressed cloths,

says he, exported yearly. He computes, besides, that about

one hundred thousand pounds a year had been lost by kerseys;

not to mention other articles. The account of two hundred

thousand cloths a year exported in Elizabeth’s reign, seems

to be exaggerated.

*** Kymer, tom. xvii. p. 415.

**** Rymer, tom. xvii. p. 415.

The company of merchant adventurers, by their patent, possessed the sole

commerce of woollen goods, though the staple commodity of the kingdom.

An attempt made during the reign of Elizabeth to lay open this important

trade, had been attended with bad consequences for a time, by a

conspiracy of the merchant adventurers not to make any purchases of

cloth; and the queen immediately restored them their patent.

It was the groundless fear of a like accident, that enslaved the nation

to those exclusive companies which confined so much every branch of

commerce and industry. The parliament, however, annulled, in the third

of the king, the patent of the Spanish company; and the trade to Spain,

which was at first very insignificant, soon became the most considerable

in the kingdom. It is strange that they were not thence encouraged to

abolish all the other companies, and that they went no further than

obliging them to enlarge their bottom, and to facilitate the admission

of new adventurers.

A board of trade was erected by the king in 1622.[*] One of the reasons

assigned in the commission is, to remedy the low price of wool, which

begat complaints of the decay of the woollen manufactory. It is more

probable, however, that this fall of prices proceeded from the increase

of wool. The king likewise recommends it to the commissioners to inquire

and examine, whether a greater freedom of trade, and an exemption from

the restraint of exclusive companies, would not be beneficial. Men were

then fettered by their own prejudices; and the king was justly afraid

of embracing a bold measure, whose consequences might be uncertain.

The digesting of a navigation act, of a like nature with the famous

one executed afterwards by the republican parliament, is likewise

recommended to the commissioners. The arbitrary powers then commonly

assumed by the privy council, appear evidently through the whole tenor

of the commission.

The silk manufacture had no footing in England: but, by James’s

direction, mulberry-trees were planted, and silk-worms introduced.[**]

The climate seems unfavorable to the success of this project. The

planting of hops increased much in England during this reign.

* Rymer tom, xvii. p. 410.

** Stowe

Greenland is thought to have been discovered about this period; and

the whale fishery was carried on with success: but the industry of the

Dutch, in spite of all opposition, soon deprived the English of this

source of riches. A company was erected for the discovery of the

north-west passage; and many fruitless attempts were made for that

purpose. In such noble projects, despair ought never to be admitted,

till the absolute impossibility of success be fully ascertained.

The passage to the East Indies had been opened to the English during

the reign of Elizabeth; but the trade to those parts was not entirely

established till this reign, when the East India company received a

new patent, enlarged their stock to one million five hundred thousand

pounds,[*] and fitted out several ships on these adventures. In 1609,

they built a vessel of twelve hundred tons, the largest merchant ship

that England had ever known. She was unfortunate, and perished by

shipwreck. In 1611, a large ship of the company, assisted by a pinnace,

maintained five several engagements with a squadron of Portuguese,

and gained a complete victory over forces much superior. During the

following years, the Dutch company was guilty of great injuries towards

the English, in expelling many of their factors, and destroying their

settlements: but these violences were resented with a proper spirit

by the court of England. A naval force was equipped under the earl

of Oxford,[**] and lay in wait for the return of the Dutch East India

fleet. By reason of cross winds, Oxford tailed of his purpose, and the

Dutch escaped. Some time after, one rich ship was taken by Vice-admiral

Merwin; and it was stipulated by the Dutch to pay seventy thousand

pounds to the English company, in consideration of the losses which that

company had sustained.[***]

* Journ. 26th Nov. 1621.

** In 1622.

*** Johnstoni Hist. lib. xix.

But neither this stipulation, nor the fear of reprisals, nor the sense

of that friendship which subsisted between England and the states, could

restrain the avidity of the Dutch company, or render them equitable

in their proceedings towards their allies. Impatient to have the sole

possession of the spice trade, which the English then shared with them,

they assumed a jurisdiction over a factory of the latter in the Island

of Amboyna; and on very improbable, and even absurd pretences, seized

all the factors with their families, and put them to death with the most

inhuman tortures. This dismal news arrived in England at the time

when James, by the prejudices of his subjects and the intrigues of

his favorite, was constrained to make a breach with Spain: and he was

obliged, after some remonstrances, to acquiesce in this indignity from

a state whose alliance was now become necessary to him. It is remarkable,

that the nation, almost without a murmur, submitted to this injury

from their Protestant confederates; an injury which, besides the horrid

enormity of the action, was of much deeper importance to national

interest, than all those which they were so impatient to resent from the

house of Austria.

The exports of England from Christmas, 1612, to Christmas 1613, are

computed at two millions four hundred and eighty-seven thousand four

hundred and thirty-five pounds; the imports at two millions one hundred

and forty-one thousand one hundred and fifty-one: so that the balance

in favor of England was three Hundred and forty-six thousand two hundred

and eighty-four.[*] But in 1622, the exports were two millions three

hundred and twenty thousand four hundred and thirty-six pounds; the

imports two millions six hundred and nineteen thousand three hundred and

fifteen; which makes a balance of two hundred and ninety-eight thousand

eight hundred and seventy-nine pounds against England.[**] The coinage

of England from 1599 to 1619 amounted to four millions seven hundred

and seventy-nine thousand three hundred and fourteen pounds thirteen

shillings and fourpence:[***] a proof that the balance, in the main,

was considerably in favor of the kingdom. As the annual imports and

exports together rose to near five millions, and the customs never

yielded so much as two Hundred thousand pounds a year, of which tonnage

made a part, it appears that the new rates affixed by James did not, on

the whole, amount to one shilling in the pound, and consequently were

still inferior to the intention of the original grant of parliament.

The East India company usually carried out a third of their cargo in

commodities.[****] The trade to Turkey was one of the most gainful to

the nation. It appears that copper halfpence and farthings began to be

coined in this reign.[v] Tradesmen had commonly carried on their retail

business chiefly by means of leaden tokens. The small silver penny was

soon lost, and at this time was nowhere to be found.

* Misselden’s Circle of Commerce, p. 121.

** Misselden’s Circle of Commerce, p. 121.

*** Happy Future State of England, p. 78.

**** Munn’s Discourse on the East India Trade.

v Anderson, vol. i. p. 477.

What chiefly renders the reign of James memorable, is the commencement

of the English colonies in America; colonies established on the noblest

footing that has been known in any age or nation. The Spaniards, being

the first discoverers of the new world, immediately took possession of

the precious mines which they found there; and, by the allurement of

great riches, they were tempted to depopulate their own country, as well

as that which they conquered; and added the vice of sloth to those of

avidity and barbarity, which had attended their adventurers in those

renowned enterprises. That fine coast was entirely neglected which

reaches from St. Augustine to Cape Breton, and which lies in all the

temperate climates, is watered by noble rivers, and offers a fertile

soil, but nothing more, to the industrious planter. Peopled gradually

from England by the necessitous and indigent, who at home increased

neither wealth nor populousness, the colonies which were planted along

that tract have promoted the navigation, encouraged the industry, and

even perhaps multiplied the inhabitants of their mother country. The

spirit of independency, which was reviving in England, here shone

forth in its full lustre, and received new accession from the aspiring

character of those who, being discontented with the established church

and monarchy, had sought for freedom amidst those savage deserts.

Queen Elizabeth had done little more than given a name to the continent

of Virginia; and, after her planting one feeble colony, which quickly

decayed, that country was entirely abandoned. But when peace put an end

to the military enterprises against Spain, and left ambitious spirits

no hopes of making any longer such rapid advances towards honor and

fortune, the nation began to second the pacific intentions of its

monarch, and to seek a surer, though slower expedient, for acquiring

riches and glory. In 1606, Newport carried over a colony, and began a

settlement; which the company, erected by patent for that purpose

in London and Bristol, took care to supply with yearly recruits of

provisions, utensils, and new inhabitants. About 1609, Argal discovered

a more direct and shorter passage to Virginia, and left the track of the

ancient navigators, who had first directed their course southwards to

the tropic, sailed westward by means of the trade winds, and then turned

northward, till they reached the English settlements. The same year,

five hundred persons, under Sir Thomas Gates and Sir George Somers, were

embarked for Virginia. Somers’s ship, meeting with a tempest, was driven

into the Bermudas, and laid the foundation of a settlement in those

islands. Lord Delawar afterwards undertook the government of the English

colonies: but, notwithstanding all his care, seconded by supplies from

James and by money raised from the first lottery ever known in the

kingdom, such difficulties attended the settlement of these countries,

that, in 1614, there were not alive more than four hundred men, of all

that had been sent thither. After supplying themselves with provisions

more immediately necessary for the support of life, the new planters

began the cultivating of tobacco; and James, notwithstanding his

antipathy to that drug, which he affirmed to be pernicious to men’s

morals, as well as their health,[*] gave them permission to enter it

in England; and he inhibited by proclamation all importation of it from

Spain.[**] By degrees, new colonies were established in that continent,

and gave new names to the places where they settled, leaving that of

Virginia to the province first planted. The Island of Barbadoes was also

planted in this reign.

* Rymer, tom. xvii. p. 621.

** Rymer, tom. xvii. p. 621, 633.

Speculative reasoners, during that age, raised many objections to the

planting of those remote colonies; and foretold that, after draining

their mother country of inhabitants, they would soon shake off her yoke,

and erect an independent government in America: but time has shown,

that the views entertained by those who encouraged such generous

undertakings, were more just and solid. A mild government and great

naval force have preserved, and may still preserve during some time, the

dominion of England over her colonies. And such advantages have commerce

and navigation reaped from these establishments, that more than a

fourth of the English shipping is at present computed to be employed in

carrying on the traffic with the American settlements.

Agriculture was anciently very imperfect in England. The sudden

transitions, so often mentioned by historians, from the lowest to the

highest price of grain, and the prodigious inequality of its value

in different years, are sufficient proofs, that the produce depended

entirely on the seasons, and that art had as yet done nothing to fence

against the injuries of the heavens. During this reign, considerable

improvements were made, as in most arts, so in this, the most beneficial

of any. A numerous catalogue might be formed of books and pamphlets

treating of husbandry, which were written about this time. The nation,

however, was still dependent on foreigners for daily bread; and though

its exportation of grain forms a considerable branch of its commerce,

notwithstanding its probable increase of people, there was, in that

period, a regular importation from the Baltic, as well as from France

and if it ever stopped, the bad consequences were sensibly felt by

the nation. Sir Walter Raleigh, in his Observations, computes that two

millions went out at one time for corn. It was not till the fifth of

Elizabeth, that the exportation of corn had been allowed in England; and

Camden observes, that agriculture from that moment received new life and

vigor.

The endeavors of James, or, more properly speaking, those--of the

nation, for promoting trade, were attended with greater success than

those for the encouragement of learning. Though the age was by no means

destitute of eminent writers, a very bad taste in general prevailed

during that period; and the monarch himself was not a little infected

with it.

On the origin of letters among the Greeks, the genius of poets and

orators, as might naturally be expected, was distinguished by an amiable

simplicity, which, whatever rudeness may sometimes attend it, is so

fitted to express the genuine movements of nature and passion, that the

compositions possessed of it must ever appear valuable to the discerning

part of mankind. The glaring figures of discourse, the pointed

antithesis, the unnatural conceit, the jingle of words; such false

ornaments were not employed by early writers; not because they were

rejected, but because they scarcely ever occurred to them. An easy,

unforced strain of sentiment runs through their compositions; though at

the same time we may observe, that, amidst the most elegant simplicity

of thought and expression, one is sometimes surprised to meet with a

poor conceit, which had presented itself unsought for, and which the

author had not acquired critical observation enough to condemn.[*]

* The name of Polynices, one of OEdipus’s sons, means in the

original “much quarrelling.” In the altercations between the

two brothers, in Æschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, this

conceit is employed; and it is remarkable, that so poor a

conundrum could not be rejected by any of these three poets,

so justly celebrated for their taste and simplicity. What

could Shakspeare have done worse? Terence has his “inceptio

est amentium, non amanthim.” Many similar instances will

occur to the learned. It is well known that Aristotle treats

very seriously of puns, divides them into several classes,

and recommends the use of them to orators.

A bad taste seizes with avidity these frivolous beauties, and even

perhaps a good taste, ere surfeited by them: they multiply every day

more and more in the fashionable compositions: nature and good sense are

neglected: labored ornaments studied and admired: and a total degeneracy

of style and language prepares the way for barbarism and ignorance.

Hence the Asiatic manner was found to depart so much from the simple

purity of Athens: hence that tinsel eloquence which is observable in

many of the Roman writers, from which Cicero himself is not wholly

exempted, and which so much prevails in Ovid, Seneca, Lucan, Martial,

and the Plinys.

On the revival of letters, when the judgment of the public is yet raw

and unformed, this false glitter catches the eye, and leaves no room,

either in eloquence or poetry, for the durable beauties of solid sense

and lively passion. The reigning genius is then diametrically opposite

to that which prevails on the first origin of arts. The Italian writers,

it is evident, even the most celebrated, have not reached the proper

simplicity of thought and composition; and in Petrarch, Tasso, Guarini,

frivolous witticisms and forced conceits are but too predominant. The

period during which letters were cultivated in Italy was so short, as

scarcely to allow leisure for correcting this adulterated relish.

The more early French writers are liable to the same reproach. Voiture,

Balzac, even Coraeneille, have too much affected those ambitious

ornaments, of which the Italians in general, and the least pure of the

ancients, supplied them with so many models. And it was not till late,

that observation and reflection gave rise to a more natural turn of

thought and composition among that elegant people.

A like character may be extended to the first English writers; such as

flourished during the reigns of Elizabeth and James, and even till long

afterwards. Learning, on its revival in this island, was attired in the

same unnatural garb which it wore at the time of its decay among the

Greeks and Romans. And, what may be regarded as a misfortune, the

English writers were possessed of great genius before they were endowed

with any degree of taste, and by that means gave a kind of sanction to

those forced turns and sentiments which they so much affected. Their

distorted conceptions and expressions are attended with such vigor of

mind, that we admire the imagination which produced them, as much as we

blame the want of judgment which gave them admittance. To enter into

an exact criticism of the writers of that age, would exceed our present

purpose. A short character of the most eminent, delivered with the same

freedom which history exercises over kings and ministers, may not be

improper. The national prepossessions which prevail, will perhaps render

the former liberty not the least perilous for an author.

If Shakspeare be considered as a man, born in a rude age, and educated

in the lowest manner, without any instruction either from the world or

from books, he may be regarded as a prodigy: if represented as a poet,

capable of furnishing a proper entertainment to a refined or intelligent

audience, we must abate much of this eulogy. In his compositions,

we regret that many irregularities, and even absurdities, should so

frequently disfigure the animated and passionate scenes intermixed with

them; and at the same time, we perhaps admire the more those beauties,

on account of their being surrounded with such deformities. A striking

peculiarity of sentiment adapted to a singular character, he frequently

hits, as it were by inspiration; but a reasonable propriety of thought

he cannot for any time uphold. Nervous and picturesque expressions, as

well as descriptions, abound in him; but it is in vain we look either

for purity or simplicity of diction. His total ignorance of all

theatrical art and conduct, however material a defect, yet, as it

affects the spectator rather than the reader, we can more easily excuse,

than that want of taste which often prevails in his productions, and

which gives way only by intervals to the irradiations of genius. A great

and fertile genius he certainly possessed, and one enriched equally

with a tragic and comic vein; but he ought to be cited as a proof,

how dangerous it is to rely on these advantages alone for attaining an

excellence in the finer arts.[*] And there may even remain a suspicion,

that we overrate, if possible, the greatness of his genius; in the same

manner as bodies often appear more gigantic, on account of their being

disproportioned and misshapen. He died in 1616, aged fifty-three years.

* Invenire etiam barbari solent, disponere et ornare non

nisi eruditus.--PLIN

Jonson possessed all the learning which was wanting to Shakspeare, and

wanted all the genius of which the other was possessed. Both of

them were equally deficient in taste and elegance, in harmony and

correctness. A servile copyist of the ancients, Jonson translated into

bad English the beautiful passages of the Greek and Roman authors,

without accommodating them to the manners of his age and country. His

merit has been totally eclipsed by that of Shakspeare, whose rude genius

prevailed over the rude art of his contemporary. The English theatre has

ever since taken a strong tincture of Shakspeare’s spirit and character;

and thence it has proceeded, that the nation has undergone, from all

its neighbors, the reproach of barbarism, from which its valuable

productions in some other parts of learning would otherwise have

exempted it. Jonson had a pension of a hundred marks from the king,

which Charles afterwards augmented to a hundred pounds He died in 1637,

aged sixty-three.

Fairfax has translated Tasso with an elegance and ease, and at the same

time with an exactness, which, for that age, are surprising. Each line

in the original is faithfully rendered by a correspondent line in the

translation. Harrington’s translation of Ariosto is not likewise without

its merit. It is to be regretted, that these poets should have imitated

the Italians in their stanza, which has a prolixity and uniformity in

it that displeases in long performances. They had, otherwise, as well

as Spenser, who went before them, contributed much to the polishing and

refining of the English versification.

In Donne’s satires, when carefully inspected, there appear some flashes

of wit and ingenuity; but these totally suffocated and buried by the

harshest and most uncouth expression that is any where to be met with.

If the poetry of the English was so rude and imperfect during that

age, we may reasonably expect that their prose would be liable to still

greater objections. Though the latter appears the more easy, as it is

the more natural method of composition, it has ever in practice been

found the more rare and difficult; and there scarcely is an instance,

in any language, that it has reached a degree of perfection, before the

refinement of poetical numbers and expression. English prose, during the

reign of James, was written with little regard to the rules of grammar,

and with a total disregard to the elegance and harmony of the period.

Stuffed with Latin sentences and quotations, it likewise imitated

those inversions, which, however forcible and graceful in the ancient

languages, are entirely contrary to the idiom of the English. I shall

indeed venture to affirm, that, whatever uncouth phrases and expressions

occur in old books, they were chiefly owing to the unformed taste of

the author; and that the language spoken in the courts of Elizabeth and

James, was very little different from that which we meet with at present

in good company. Of this opinion, the little scraps of speeches which

are found in the parliamentary journals, and which carry all air so

opposite to the labored: rations, seem to be a sufficient proof; and

there want not productions of that age, which, being written by men who

were not authors by profession, retain a very natural manner, and may

give us some idea of the language which prevailed among men of the

world. I shall particularly mention Sir John Davis’s Discovery.

Throgmorton’s, Essex’s, and Nevil’s letters. In a more early period,

Cavendish’s life of Cardinal Wolsey, the pieces that remain of Bishop

Gardiner, and Anne Boleyn’s letter to the king, differ little or nothing

from the language of our time.

The great glory of literature in this island during the reign of James,

was Lord Bacon. Most of his performances were composed in Latin; though

he possessed neither the elegance of that, nor of his native tongue. If

we consider the variety of talents displayed by this man, as a public

speaker, a man of business, a wit, a courtier, a companion, an author, a

philosopher, he is justly the object of great admiration. If we consider

him merely as an author and philosopher, the light in which we view

him at present, though very estimable, he was yet inferior to his

contemporary Galilaeo, perhaps even to Kepler. Bacon pointed out at a

distance the road to true philosophy: Galilaeo both pointed it out to

others, and made himself considerable advances in it. The Englishman was

ignorant of geometry: the Florentine revived that science, excelled

in it, and was the first that applied it, together with experiment, to

natural philosophy. The former rejected, with the most positive disdain,

the system of Copernicus: the latter fortified it with new proofs,

derived both from reason and the senses. Bacon’s style is stiff and

rigid: his wit, though often brilliant, is also often unnatural and

far-fetched; and he seems to be the original of those pointed similes

and long-spun allegories which so much distinguish the English authors:

Galilaeo is a lively and agreeable, though somewhat a prolix writer.

But Italy not united in any single government, and perhaps satiated with

that literary glory which it has possessed both in ancient and modern

times, has too much neglected the renown which it has acquired by giving

birth to so great a man. That national spirit which prevails among the

English, and which forms their great happiness, is the cause why they

bestow on all their eminent writers, and on Bacon among the rest, such

praises and acclamations as may often appear partial and excessive. He

died in 1626, in the sixty-sixth year of his life.

If the reader of Raleigh’s history can have the patience to wade through

the Jewish and rabbinical learning which compose the half of the volume,

he will find, when he comes to the Greek and Roman story, that his pains

are not unrewarded. Raleigh is the best model of that ancient style

which some writers would affect to revive at present. He was beheaded in

1618, aged sixty-six years.

Camden’s history of Queen Elizabeth may be esteemed good composition,

both for style and matter. It is written with simplicity of expression,

very rare in that age, and with a regard to truth. It would not perhaps

be too much to affirm, that it is among the best historical productions

which have yet been composed by any Englishman. It is well known that

the English have not much excelled in that kind of literature. He died

in 1623, aged seventy-three years.

We shall mention the king himself at the end of these English writers;

because that is his place, when considered as an author. It may safely

be affirmed, that the mediocrity of James’s talents in literature,

joined to the great change in national taste, is one cause of that

contempt under which his memory labors, and which is often carried by

party writers to a great extreme. It is remarkable, how different from

ours were the sentiments of the ancients with regard to learning. Of the

first twenty Roman emperors, counting from Caesar to Severus, above the

half were authors; and though few of them seem to have been eminent in

that profession, it is always remarked to their praise, that by their

example they encouraged literature. Not to mention Germanicus, and his

daughter Agrippina, persons so nearly allied to the throne, the greater

part of the classic writers whose works remain, were men of the highest

quality. As every human advantage is attended with inconveniencies, the

change of men’s ideas in this particular may probably be ascribed to the

invention of printing; which has rendered books so common, that even men

of slender fortunes can have access to them.

That James was but a middling writer, may be allowed: that he was a

contemptible one, can by no means be admitted. Whoever will read his

Basilicon Doron, particularly the two last books, the true law of free

monarchies, his answer to Cardinal Perron, and almost all his speeches

and messages to parliament, will confess him to have possessed no mean

genius. If he wrote concerning witches and apparitions; who, in that age

did not admit the reality of these fictitious beings? If he has composed

a commentary on the Revelations, and proved the pope to be Antichrist;

may not a similar reproach be extended to the famous Napier; and even to

Newton, at a time when learning was much more advanced than during the

reign of James? From the grossness of its superstitions we may infer the

ignorance of an age; but never should pronounce concerning the folly

of an individual, from his admitting popular errors, consecrated by the

appearance of religion.

Such a superiority do the pursuits of literature possess above every

other occupation, that even he who attains but a mediocrity in them,

merits the preëminence above those that excel the most in the common and

vulgar professions. The speaker of the house of commons is usually an

eminent lawyer; yet the harangue of his majesty will always be found

much superior to that of the speaker, in every parliament during this

reign.

Every science, as well as polite literature, must be considered as being

yet in its infancy. Scholastic learning and polemical divinity retarded

the growth of all true knowledge. Sir Henry Saville, in the preamble

of that deed by which he annexed a salary to the mathematical and

astronomical professors in Oxford, says, that geometry was almost

totally abandoned and unknown in England.[*] The best learning of that

age was the study of the ancients. Casaubon, eminent for this species

of knowledge, was invited over from France by James, and encouraged by

a pension of three hundred pounds a year, as well as by church

preferments.[**] The famous Antonio di Dominis, archbishop of Spalatro,

no despicable philosopher, came likewise into England, and afforded

great triumph to the nation, by their gaining so considerable a

proselyte from the Papists. But the mortification followed soon after:

the archbishop, though advanced to some ecclesiastical preferments.[***]

received not encouragement sufficient to satisfy his ambition; he made

his escape into Italy, where he died in confinement.

* Rymer, tom. xvii. p. 217

** Rymer, tom. xvii. p. 709.

*** Rymer, tom. xvii. p. 96.

NOTES.

[Footnote 1: NOTE A, p. 10. The parliament also granted the queen the

duties of tonnage and poundage; but this concession was at that time

regarded only as a matter of form, and she had levied these duties

before they were voted by parliament. But there was another exertion

of power which she practiced, and which people in the present age,

from their ignorance of ancient practices, may be apt to think a little

extraordinary. Her sister, after the commencement of the war with

France, had, from her own authority, imposed four marks on each tun

of wine imported, and had increased the poundage a third on all

commodities. Queen Elizabeth continued these impositions as long as she

thought convenient. The parliament, who had so good an opportunity

of restraining these arbitrary taxes when they voted the tonnage and

poundage, thought not proper to make any mention of them. They knew that

the sovereign, during that age, pretended to have the sole regulation of

foreign trade, and that their intermeddling with that prerogative

would have drawn on them the severest reproof, if not chastisement. See

Forbes, vol. i. p. 132, 133. We know certainly, from the statutes and

journals, that no such impositions were granted by parliament.]

[Footnote 2: NOTE B, p. 20. Knox, p. 127. We shall suggest afterwards

some reasons to suspect, that perhaps no express promise was ever given.

Calumnies easily arise during times of faction, especially those of

the religious kind, when men think every art lawful for promoting their

purpose. The congregation, in their manifesto, in which they enumerate

all the articles of the regent’s mal-administration, do not reproach

her with this breach of promise. It was probably nothing but a rumor

spread abroad to catch the populace. If the Papists have sometimes

maintained that no faith was to be kept with heretics, their adversaries

seem also to have thought, that no truth ought to be told of idolaters.]

[Footnote 3: NOTE C. p. 23. Spotswood, p. 146. Melvil, p. 29. Knox,

p. 225, 228. Lesley, lib That there was really no violation of the

capitulation of Perth appears from the manifesto of the congregation in

Knox, p. 184, in which it is not so much as pretended. The companies

of Scotch soldiers were, probably, in Scotch pay, since the congregation

complains, that the country was oppressed with taxes to maintain armies.

Knox, p, 164, 165. And even if they had been in French pay, it had been

no breach of the capitulation, since they were national troops, not

French. Knox does not say, (p. 139,) that any of the inhabitants of

Perth were tried or punished for their past offences, but only that they

were oppressed with the quartering of soldiers; and the congregation,

in their manifesto, say only that many of them had fled for fear.

This plain detection of the calumny with regard to the breach of the

capitulation of Perth, may make us suspect a like calumny with regard

to the pretended promise not to give sentence against the ministers. The

affair lay altogether between the regent and the laird of Dun; and that

gentleman, though a man of sense and character, might be willing to take

some general professions for promises. If the queen, overawed by the

power of the congregation, gave such a promise in order to have liberty

to proceed to a sentence, how could she expect to have power to execute

a sentence so insidiously obtained? And to what purpose could it serve?]

[Footnote 4: NOTE D, p. 24. Knox, p. 153, 154, 155. This author pretends

that this article was agreed to verbally, but that the queen’s scribes

omitted it in the treaty which was signed. The story is very unlikely,

or rather very absurd; and in the mean time it is allowed, that

the article is not in the treaty; nor do the congregation, in their

subsequent manifesto, insist upon it. Knox, p. 184. Besides, would

the queen regent, in an article of a treaty, call her own religion

idolatry?]

[Footnote 5: NOTE E, p. 25. The Scotch lords, in their declaration, say,

“How far we have sought support of England, or of any other prince, and

what just cause we had and have so to do, we shall shortly make manifest

unto the world, to the praise of God’s holy name, and to the confusion

of fell those that slander us for so doing; for this we fear not to

confess, that, as in this enterprise against the devil, against idolatry

and the maintainers of the same, we chiefly and only seek God’s glory to

be notified unto men, sin to be punished, and virtue to be maintained;

so where power faileth of ourselves, we will seek it wheresoever God

shall offer the same.” Knox, p. 176.]

[Footnote 6: NOTE F, p. 61. This year, the council of Trent was

dissolved, which had sitten from 1545. The publication of its decrees

excited anew the general ferment in Europe, while the Catholics

endeavored to enforce the acceptance of them, and the Protestants

rejected them. The religious controversies were too far advanced

to expect that any conviction would result from the decrees of this

council. It is the only general council which has been held in an age

truly learned and inquisitive; and as the history of it has been written

with great penetration 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.]

[Footnote 7: NOTE G, p. 69. It appears, however, from Randolfs Letters,

(see Keith, p. 200,) that some offers had been made to that minister,

of seizing Lenox and Darnley, and delivering 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 farther, Goodall, vol. ii. p. 358. The other conspiracy, of

which Murray complained, is much more uncertain, and is founded on very

doubtful evidence.]

[Footnote 8: NOTE H, p. 73. 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 adolescentiæ vigore;” in the vigor of youth. Now, that event

happened only a few years before, (lib. xvii. cap. 44.) That Bothwell

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 Epistolae Regum Scotorum. it

appears, by authentic documents, that Patrick, earl of Bothwell, father

to James, who espoused Queen Mary, was alive till near the year 1560.

Buchanan, by a mistake which has been long ago corrected, calls him

James.]

[Footnote 9: NOTE I, p. 84. Mary herself confessed, in her instructions

to the ambassadors, whom she sent to France, that Bothwell persuaded

all the noblemen, that their application in favor 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.]

[Footnote 11: NOTE K, p. 108 Mary’s complaints 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

prevent her honor 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.]

[Footnote 12: NOTE L, p. 110. We shall not enter into a long discussion

concerning the authenticity of these letters. We shall only remark

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

subscription, it is very difficult, and almost impossible, to

counterfeit several pages, so as to resemble exactly the handwriting

of any person. These letters were examined and compared with Mary’s

handwriting, by the English privy council, and by a great many of the

nobility, among whom were several partisans of that princess. They might

have been examined by the bishop of Ross, Herreis, and others of Mary’s

commissioners. The regent must have expected that they would be very

critically examined by them; and had they not been able to stand that

test, he was only preparing a scene of confusion to himself. Bishop

Lesley expressly declines the comparing of the hands, which he calls

no legal proof. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 389. 2. The letters are very

long, much longer than they needed to have been, in order to serve

the purposes of Mary’s enemies; a circumstance which increased the

difficulty, and exposed any forgery the more to the risk of a detection.

3. They are not so gross and palpable as forgeries commonly are, for

they still left a pretext for Mary’s friends to assert that their

meaning was strained to make them appear criminal. See Goodall, vol. ii.

p. 361. 4. There is a long contract of marriage, said to be written

by the earl of Huntley, and signed by the queen, before Bothwells

acquittal. Would Morton, without any necessity, have thus doubled the

difficulties of the forgery, and the danger of detection? 5. The letters

are indiscreet; but such was apparently Mary’s conduct at that time.

They are inelegant; but they have a careless, natural air, like letters

hastily written between familiar friends. 6. They contain such a variety

of particular circumstances as nobody could have thought of inventing,

especially as they must necessarily have afforded her many means of

detection. 7. We have not the originals of the letters, which were in

French. We have only a Scotch and Latin translation from the original,

and a French translation, professedly done from the Latin. Now it is

remarkable that the Scotch translation is full of Gallicisms, and is

clearly a translation from a French original; such as make fault, faire

des fautes; make it seem that I believe, faire semblant de le croire;

make brek, faire brèche; this is my first journey, c’est ma première

journée; have you not desire to laugh? n’avez vous pas envie de rire;

the place will hold unto the death, la place tiendra jusqu’à la mort; he

may not come forth of the house this long time, il ne peut pas sortir du

logis de long-tems; to make me advertisement, faire m’avertir; put order

to it, metire ordre à cela; discharge your heart, décharger votre coeur;

make gud watch, faites bonne garde, etc. 8. There is a conversation

which she mentions between herself and the king one evening; but Murray

produced before the English commissioners the testimony of one Crawford,

a gentleman of the earl of Lenox, who swore that the king, on her

departure from him, gave him an account of the same conversation. 9.

There seems very little reason why Murray and his associates should

run the risk of such a dangerous forgery, which must have rendered them

infamous, if detected: since their cause, from Mary’s known conduct,

even without these letters, was sufficiently good and justifiable. 10.

Murray exposed these letters to the examination of persons qualified

to judge of them: the Scotch council, the Scotch parliament, Queen

Elizabeth and her council, who were possessed of a great number of

Mary’s genuine letters. 11. He gave Mary herself an opportunity of

refuting and exposing him, if she had chosen to lay hold of it. 12. 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

favored 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 acknowledgment 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 Advocates’ 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 favor, 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 very 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. See MS. in the

Advocates’ library, A. 3, 29, p. 88.

I find an objection made to the authenticity of the letters, drawn from

the vote of the Scotch privy council, which affirms the letters to be

written and subscribed by Queen Mary’s own hand; whereas the copies

given in to the parliament, a few days after, were only written, not

subscribed. See Goodall, vol. ii. p. 64, 67. But it is not considered,

that this circumstance is of no manner of force. There were certainly

letters, true or false, laid before the council; and whether the letters

were true or false, this mistake proceeds equally from the inaccuracy or

blunder of the clerk. The mistake may be accounted for; the letters

were only written by her; the second contract with Bothwell was only

subscribed. A proper accurate distinction was not made; and they are

all said to be written and subscribed. A late writer, Mr. Goodall, has

endeavored to prove that these letters clash with chronology, and that

the queen was not in the places mentioned in the letters on the days

there assigned. 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 Bonsard, 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

Bothwell, 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 every body; 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.]

[Footnote 13: NOTE M, p. 111. 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 of 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 remarkable 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.

It is true, the bishop of Ross, in an angry pamphlet, written by him

under a borrowed name, (where it is easy to say any thing,) affirms that

Lord Herreis, a few days after the king’s death, charged Murray with the

guilt, openly to his face, at his own table. This latter nobleman, as

Lesley relates the matter, affirmed, that Murray, riding in Fife with

one of his servants, the evening before the commission of that crime,

said to him among other talk, “This night, ere morning, the Lord Darnley

shall lose his life.” See Anderson, vol. i. p. 75. But this is only a

hearsay of Lesley’s concerning a hearsay of Herreis’s, and contains

a very improbable fact. Would Murray, without any use or necessity,

communicate to a servant such a dangerous and important secret, merely

by way of conversation;[**?] We may also observe, that Lord Herreis

himself was one of Queen Mary’s commissioners, who accused Murray. Had

he ever heard this story, or given credit to it, was not that the time

to have produced it? and not have affirmed, as he did, that he, for his

part, knew 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

Bothwell, 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 any body. 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.]

[Footnote 14: NOTE N, p. 111. 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 this 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 written an Inquiry, 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 Inquiry, from beginning to end,

is composed of such scandalous artifices; and from this instance, the

reader may judge of the candor, fair dealing, veracity, and good manners

of the inquirer. 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.]

[Footnote 15: NOTE O, p. 129. By Murden’s state papers, published after

the writing of this history, it appears that an agreement had 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 that 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.]

[Footnote 16: NOTE P, p. 130. 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.]

[Footnote 17: NOTE Q, p. 187. That the queen’s negotiations 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 examine

the person of the duke; and as that prince had lately recovered from

the small-pox, she desires her 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.]

[Footnote 18: NOTE R, p. 203. 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 rigor 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.]

[Footnote 19: NOTE S, p. 205. 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 en the unhappy

fate which had attended his family, endeavored 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. He died a prisoner

in 1595. He carried his religious austerities so far, that they were

believed the immediate cause of his death.]

[Footnote 20: NOTE T, p. 216. Mary’s extreme animosity against Elizabeth

may easily be conceived, and it broke out about this tune 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

in 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. She 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 honor. 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 amiable; but her absolute

authority, at the same time that it gave an uncontrolling swing to her

violent passions, enabled her to compensate her infirmities by many

great and signal virtues.]

[Footnote 21: NOTE U, p. 226. Camden, p. 525. This evidence was that of

Curie, 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 Curie’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. Id. ibid.]

[Footnote 24: NOTE X, p. 226. 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 Lord Royston. It is a copy attested by Curie, Mary’s secretary, and

endorsed 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 behavior, 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, 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

honor, 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) a letter of hers, 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?]

[Footnote 25: 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.]

[Footnote 26: 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.