for the murder of Mary. The blame of having propagated equivocal expressions in an equivocal manner, and thereby producing the resolute answer of Paulet, (or they would otherwise have caused the death of Mary,) would therefore fall chiefly on Davison and Walsingham.

But, and this is the main question, are these letters genuine? We find them printed first in 1722, in the third volume of Mackenzie's Lives; then in 1725, in Freebairn's Life of Marie; then in 1727, in Hearne's Chronicle of Robert of Gloucester, vol. II., p. 676. In the first place, the Editors and Reporters of Biographia Britannica, art. Davison; State Trials, vol. IV., p. 219, et seqq., do not agree together, who first had the letters printed, and whence they were obtained. Thus while one says, both were copied from the originals; others relate that both were found among Paulet's papers, or that a Mr. Urry, or Curry, copied them from an old manuscript, in which there is also Paulet's account of the execution of Mary. I observe, Firstly. It is inconceivable how the originals of both letters should have been found together anywhere.

Secondly. It is inconceivable that nobody should have copied them from Paulet's papers before the year 1722, or that Mr. Urry, who copied them, did not likewise communicate the important letter, on Mary's death, to her Biographer.

Thirdly. Not the slightest critical account is added of the original, or of Paulet's papers, or of the old copy-book. No editor saw or examined its authenticity, and it does not even appear certain, where and how the copies were made, or who possessed them. To enable us to form a decided opinion, this and similar points must be cleared up, in order to obviate the doubts that at once suggest themselves.

Fourthly. Davison, whose statements, besides, differ in many places, says, "Walsingham, (State Trials, vol. IV., p. 212,) was, at this time, ill at his country-house, as it seems, because he would have nothing to do with all the matters relative to

Mary." And yet we are to believe that this most prudent of all the statesmen of those times, (who had counteracted Leicester's proposal to put Mary out of the way secretly, and who was for a time suspected of favouring her,) inconsiderately united in so highly dangerous an affair, with a man so little to be depended on as Davison. (Camden, p. 473.) Lastly, how are we to account for his affirming on the one hand, that he had with great courage dissuaded Elizabeth from the execution of Mary, and then writing, without orders, a letter, recommending her murder, by which he sacrificed at once his own and Walsingham's character, as well as that of the Queen.

Fifthly. The subscription to the letter of Paulet and Drury, "your most assured friends," appears to Salmon, in his Review of State Trials, so unusual and unsuitable, that on that ground alone he declares the letters to be spurious; and says, "regular proofs of their authenticity are out of the question, but many would decide at once, according to their opinions and feelings." He concludes his observations, (p. 34,) by saying, “I make it a rule to judge of Princes, as well as of private persons, according to the general spirit and connection of their actions, not according to a single event, especially when there are sufficient grounds for believing that it has not been fairly represented. But I know not whence it comes; the multitude are inclined to accuse their superiors on the slightest insinuations, and eager to swallow whatever is adduced to their disadvantage, though they would acknowledge the injustice of such a mode of proceeding in any case in which a private person was concerned.

[The preceding note was already sent to the press when the Author's new work, "Elizabeth and Mary Stuart," was published. In this work, which contains the result of further laborious researches in the British Museum and State-paper Office, is the following passage:]

"I have discussed, in my 'History of Europe,' the question,

VOL. I.

D d

whether Elizabeth caused Paulet to be written to, to this effect: New discoveries place the matter in a different light. First, I found a letter of Elizabeth to Paulet, of January 5, 1587, (it may be 1586,) in which she consoles him for the loss of his son, and adds, with respect to your recall, this is a subject of our especial care, and we think shortly to send you a successor. At the same time we assure you that your services have been highly agreeable, and have so pleased us, that we pray to God that your successor may tread in your steps. You will, doubtless, give him such instructions and advice as may be necessary for the good of our service in this most dangerous world.'

"In a letter of Paulet's, of the 9th of December, 1586, he says, 'Queen Elizabeth has answered the French ambassador in such a sound, princely, and majestic manner, as to excite the admiration of all that heard it. Her Highness has been so justly provoked in many ways, that she will not give way to the pride of so poor a neighbour, but check it in the bud.' In conclusion, Paulet says, that he is convinced of the honorable necessity of the case;' by which he, undoubtedly, means the execution of Mary. On the 2d of January, 1587, Paulet writes to Walsingham, 'I wish you all good means to restore your health; but this cold season seems to need hot and earnest solicitors; the delay is dreadful; God send a good and happy issue.'

"Hence it should seem that Paulet considered the sentence

as just, and the execution of it necessary. An idea might therefore arise, that he would consider the secret execution of Mary as recommended by policy, and justified, and would assist in it. There are in the British Museum, (Cod. Harl. 6994, No. 29-30,) copies of the two printed letters of Davison and Walsingham to Paulet, of the 1st of January; and Paulet's answer of the 2d of February, but it is not stated whence they

came.

"On the same 1st of February, Davison, (without Walsingham,)

wrote as follows to Paulet. 'I beg you burn this and the inclosed, as we assure you shall be done with your answer when it has been shown to the Queen for her satisfaction.' I also found the Postscript of a letter from Davison, dated the 3d of February; the letter itself is missing, and no mention is made of Walsingham. The PS. says, 'I requested you in my last letter to burn the two I sent you, on account of the contents, which, as I see from your answer to the secretary (Walsingham,) does not appear to have been done. I again beg you make heretics of both, as shall be done to your letter when her Majesty has seen it.' At the end of the Postscript he says, 'I beg you let me know what you have done with my letters, because they are not fit to be preserved, that I may satisfy her Majesty, who might otherwise take offence thereat. If you treat this proposal in the same manner, you will not in the least err.' On the 8th of February, Paulet answers Davison. 'Christ commands us to bear the impatience of the afflicted; I find, to my great satisfaction, that you have learned this Christian doctrine. For you are satisfied to bear my malapertness, by which you bind me to love and honour you more and more, which I will faithfully do. Should I say that I had burnt the papers, (you know which,) I do not know whether everybody would believe me; I therefore keep them to deliver them into your own hands the next time I am in London. God bless you, and let all your doings turn to his glory. "Yours, most assuredly to my little power, "A. PAULET."

"Fotheringay; Feb. 8, 1587."

If we consider the matter impartially, as it now stands, the following may be the result: Firstly, there seems to be no doubt that the two letters in question were really written to and by Paulet. Notwithstanding all the care and anxiety, copies at least have been preserved, to the authenticity of which the two subsequent letters of Davison, and Paulet's second letter,

bear indirect testimony. Salmon's objection to the subscription, "Your most assured friends," falls to the ground; for I find that this expression was in general use at that time, and the only doubt remaining is, whether Paulet and Drury were of sufficient rank to use them to Davison and Walsingham. Paulet, however, in his second letter writes, "Yours, most assuredly."

"Secondly: it is very probable that Elizabeth had spoken of this plan, at least with Davison; but it is doubtful whether she gave a formal direction to write to Paulet, and whether she saw his answer, as Davison affirms. Davison had, perhaps, calculated on an answer from Paulet, approving the idea, in order thus more effectually to support it, and give strength to his negociation. Hence his great fear, lest any thing should prematurely transpire.

Thirdly while the documents that have been found bring us nearer to the truth, and throw fresh light on the subject, a new enigma arises. Davison affirms that the Queen signed the warrant, and gave it to him, to be immediately delivered and executed; and yet, after the public execution had already been ordered, caused negociations to be entered into for a private murder. This is evidently a confusion of dates, (a HysteronProteron,) and a misrepresentation of facts. The matter is cleared up in a very simple manner, if we assume that Elizabeth provisionally signed the warrant, but commanded Davison not to give it out of his hands."

It has been judged best to give this whole passage without cancelling the Author's preceding arguments, so that the reader has the whole before him. We refer him for the complete view of the question between the two Queens to the Author's new work, which will shortly be published in English.-Translator's Note.

(30) Page 337. To have it in readiness if any attempt should be begun. State Trials, vol. IV., p. 208. Popham,