The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 (330 page)
Read The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 Online
Authors: David Hume
[u]Camden, p. 507. Bentivoglio, part 2, lib. iv.
[w]Camden, p. 507. Bentivoglio, part 2. lib. iv.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
275
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/791
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 4
[z]Camden, p. 512. Bentivoglio, part 2. lib. 4.
[c]Ibid. p. 349. Camden, p. 513. Rymer, tom. xv. p. 803.
[g]Digges, p. 139. Haynes, p. 607.
[NOTE [S]]
Mary’s extreme animosity against Elizabeth may easily be conceived, and it broke out, about this time, 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 expence in gratifying her amorous passions: That notwithstanding her licentious amours, she was not made like other women; and all those who courted her 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 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 PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
276
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/791
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 4
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 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 honour. See the Sydney 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 Huntington’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 uncontroling swing to her violent passions, enabled her to compensate her infirmities by many great and signal virtues.
[i]Murden’s State Papers, p. 517.
[l]Ibid. State Trials, p. 114.
[m]State Trials, vol. i. p. 111.
[n]State Trials, vol. i. p. 135. Camden, p. 515.
[q]State Trials, vol. i. p. 138.
[NOTE [T]]
Camden, p. 525. This evidence was that of Curle, 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 Curle’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.
[NOTE [U]]
The detail of this conspiracy is to be found in a letter of the queen of Scots to Charles Paget, her great confident. 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 Curle, Mary’s secretary, and indorsed 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: PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
277
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/791
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 4
And farther, 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 behaviour, 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 honour, 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 M S. of Dr. Campbel’s.
There is in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 573, a letter of her’s 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?
[t]State Trials, vol. i. p. 113.
[NOTE [V]]
The volume of State Papers collected by Mr. 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 PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
278
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/791
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 4
State 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.
[NOTE [W]]
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 cypher, 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 partizans. 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 decyphered 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 an 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 enterprize: And it cannot appear strange, that where men of so much merit as Babington could be engaged, by bigotry alone, in so criminal PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
279
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/791
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 4
an enterprize, 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 Nan and Curle by Elizabeth, it never is the practice to punish lesser criminals, who had given evidence against the principal.