disowned the authorship of the compromising clauses. But if her denial was worthless as evidence of her innocence, the assertion of a forger in the employ of her enemies was likewise worthless as evidence of her guilt. Why, then, were not the original papers laid before the commissioners, that she might be reduced to silence by the evidence of her own and of her secretary’s handwriting? Shall we be asked to believe that Walsingham, if he had all he needed in the original, would have had recourse to a copy? Indeed, Mary’s letter, as it has reached us through Philipps and Walsingham, presents an incoherence of parts which, even if every other reason were wanting, would render its genuineness extremely doubtful. The argument founded on this incoherence has been frequently used, but its strength remains unimpaired. Mary orders that nothing shall be done towards releasing her from prison until Elizabeth is murdered. Four horsemen are to be kept in readiness to immediately inform her that this has been accomplished. Then she is to be set at liberty, but care must be taken that the army prepared to receive her, or the stronghold destined to shelter her, be such as will render her person secure, for (she writes) "it were sufficient excuse given to that queen in catching me again, to enclose me in some hold, out of which I should never escape, if she did use me no worse." This precaution against the revenge of Elizabeth is quite natural, and just what we should expect from Mary in her letter to Babington; but it would be inconceivable and absurd if Mary had already made provision that Elizabeth should first of all be murdered. Had Philipps forged the entire letter, he would not have committed this blunder, but even an expert may reveal his identity when he attempts to interpolate a lengthy document. It will avail but little to insist that there remains what Froude calls the "positive proof of two very credible witnesses" in support of the charge against the Scottish queen. These "very credible witnesses" were Mary’s secretaries, Nau and Curle; and the "positive proof" was their subscription to a "copy"--that ever recurring "copy"--of Mary’s deciphered answer to Babington’s last letter, which had been wrung from them in circumstances little calculated to enhance its value. Since their forced separation from Mary at Chartley, they had been carefully guarded and accurately learned the nature of the evidence which they were expected to give. On the 20th. September, Babington and six of his associates were made a ghastly and terrifying spectacle to every weak-hearted friend of Mary’s. "They were all hanged but for a moment, according to the letter of the sentence, taken down while the susceptibility of agony was unimpaired, and cut in pieces afterwards, with due precautions for the protraction of pain."[#] [#] Froude, "History of England," Vol. XII., Chap. 69.