from his duty by hope of gain, fear of loss, or any private respect whatsoever."* And, as is usual with Mr. Froude, he dresses up in support of this view a picturesque story, all the details of which he relates with circumstantial minuteness. He describes Mary as trying upon this stern Puritan, "notwithstanding his forbidding creed," all the "enchantments" of which she was an accomplished mistress. Paulet had been governor of Jersey; and an assurance of the same post from Mary herself as sovereign, under improved conditions of honour and emolument, was the charm by which he was to be won. "She hinted," Mr. Froude says, "by the advice of Morgan, that if ever she came to the crown, he might have another manner of assurance of that island [Jersey] than ever was given to an English subject." What authority has Mr. Froude for putting such words into Mary's mouth? Any reader would think that Poulet was the authority. "He understood her perfectly," he adds: that is, Poulet, understood those words when uttered by Mary. And "he replied," says Mr. Froude, to the hint respecting the island of Jersey, that he could not be "diverted from his duty for hope of gain, for fear of loss, or for any other respect whatsoever."+ This circumstantial story of Mr. Froude's is built up, like many of his most positive averments on matters of far higher moment, on the authority of a letter of Morgan, Queen Mary's French agent, written from the Bastile, and, as Mr. Froude supposes, "smuggled into Tutbury."t And undoubtedly Morgan did write such a letter, and in that letter does convey such a suggestion to Mary. Nor is it at all unlikely that Mary would have acted on the suggestion, had the letter actually reached her early in her intercourse with Paulet. But unfortunately for Mr. Froude's theory, Morgan's letter, although written March 30 (old style), 1585, did not reach the Queen of Scots' hands for fully twelve months, being one of the eight letters which had lain for months in the French ambassador's hand's in London, and which were delivered together to her in April, 1586, a full year after the date of Mr. Froude's imaginary interview! Nor is it merely by exposure of these small inaccuracies, which are unhappily but too familiar to Mr. Froude's critics, that Father Morris has overthrown the credibility of that luckless historian. He has entered into a full and dispassionate examination of Paulet's true relations with Walsingham, partly *Froude's "History of England," vol. xii. p. 9. Froude's "History of England," vol. xii. p. 95. in the illustrative notes interspersed among the documents in the letter-book, but more particularly in a most interesting preface, with extracts from Paulet's letters during his embassy at Paris, for which he professes himself indebted to a friend. It is impossible for us, of course, to enter into the details. We shall only say that they exhibit Paulet as holding in effect that "all means used towards a good end become lawful" (p. xxii.), as acting and living in habitual relations with "hired Papists, who traded in the secrets of the Catholic party with Walsingham" (preface xxxi.), "bargaining for their recompense" (ibid.), negotiating for the purchase of a service against Morgan, very similar to that with which Walsingham is charged against Mary (xxviii.), deprecating the foolish parsimony of the Queen in putting the paltry price of a hundred crowns on the services of one of these instruments (p. xxxv.), and frankly professing that "rewards and pensions are tho merchandise of princes" (ibid.). In a word, this clear and able summary of Paulet's Paris letters abundantly demonstrates the fact that "Walsingham, when he sent Sir Amias down to Tutbury, knew him from past experience for a man who would be willing to connect himself with "instruments" like Gifford and Phelippes,* and who would, keeping the end in view, approve and abet the worst intrigues against Mary Stuart" (p. xxxix.). And the author of the preface significantly adds that "Elizabeth's knowledge of the plot against Morgan, goes some way to explain her anger and disappointment when Paulet refused to act upon her instigation for secretly cutting off his prisoner" (p. xxxix.). (2). With the second of Walsingham's instruments, Gifford, Mr. Froude deals less tenderly. He does not disguise or soften any portion of Gifford's baseness and villany. But while in his exposure of the personal baseness and depravity of Gifford, he is unsparing and outspoken, he distinctly dissociates Walsingham from him in every other relation than that of a mere detective and spy. And as regards the origin of the Babington conspiracy, he positively asserts that Walsingham had no connection with it by himself or by his instruments; that the channel of communication which Gilbert Gifford had opened was made use of by the conspirators, but that the purpose had no existence in Walsingham's original design, and that it does not appear that Gifford himself was even trusted with the secret, or was more than partially, accidentally, and * Such is the orthography of the original papers, which Father Morris follows throughout. We have followed that of the received modern histories. externally connected with either Babington or his accomplices. (xii. p. 226.) Space does not permit us to enter fully into the evidence which Father Morris brings together, not only of Gifford's being in the pay of Walsingham long before the point of the Babington conspiracy, at which Mr. Froude brings him upon the stage, but also of his entering as a partner and even an instigator into this and other similar plots. We can but indicate a few of the points. Blackwood states that two years earlier Gifford was acting as Walsingham's spy at Rheims, and had come twice to London to incite Savage to regicide. And both Morgan's correspondence and Châteauneuf's memoir mark out Gifford as the prime mover in the plot. For eight months before it was fully organized he had been living in close intimacy with Morgan and the other refugees in Paris. Gifford, Poley, and Phelippes were all in Paris during the summer of 1585, insinuated themselves into the confidence of Mary Stuart through Morgan. Walsingham's agents were already associated with Babington, for letters from Morgan and Paget of that date recommend the trio, Babington, Poley, and Gifford as persons able and willing to serve the Queen of Scots. In December, 1585, Gifford returned to England, furnished with ample recommendations to Mary from Morgan and from the Archbishop of Glasgow.§ After presenting himself at the French embassy in London, he went straight to Phelippes' house, where he lived during the month of January, “practising secretly among the Catholics," that is, insinuating himself into the confidence of Babington and his friends, and opening Walsingham's route of communication with Chartley. But it does stop here. We must make room for another specimen of Mr. Froude's utter untrustworthiness in the matter of historical authorities, which Father Morris has pointed out in his account of Gifford's antecedents. One of Mr. Froude's authorities is a Memoir by the French Ambassador, Châteauneuf, which distinctly alludes to Gifford * Jebb, “De vita et rebus gestis Mariæ, 1725," vol i. p. 281,-"Ledit Gifford (comme il se verra ci-après) était un homme suscité par les signeurs du Conseil d'Angleterre pour perdre la Reine d'Escosse, comme par toutes les cours de l'Europe ils ont des hommes, lesquels, sous ombre d'être Catholiques, leur servent d'espions, et n'y a Collége de Jésuites, ni à Rome ni en France, où ils n'en trouvent qui disent tous les jours la messe pour se couvrir et mieux servir à cette Princesse [Elizabeth]; même il y a beaucoup de prêtres en Angleterre tolérés par elle pour pouvoir, par le moyen des confessions auriculaires, découvrir les menées des Catholiques." -Châteauneuf's "Memoir," Labanoff, tom. vi. p. 279. + Gifford's name appears in the indictment of Savage as having urged him to assassinate Elizabeth.-Howell's "State Trials,” vol. i. p. 1120. Labanoff, tom. iv. pp. 212, 328. Châteauneuf's "Memoir," Labanoff, tom. vi. p. 281. by name as connected with the plots in progress, both before and after the organization of the conspiracy of Babington. Now, although Mr. Froude draws a good deal of material from this Memoir, he takes no notice whatever of these inconvenient facts as to Gifford. And the suppression is not confined to this. During the spring and summer, Gifford, in concert with Babington and Ballard, was actively developing the conspiracy, crossing frequently to Paris, where he associated himself with Morgan and Paget, and laid their projects of revolt and regicide before Bernardino de Mendoza, the Spanish ambassador, who, smarting under his own expulsion from England, and resenting on his master's behalf the action of the English Government in the Low Countries, lent a ready ear. "A cette occasion," says Châteauneuf,* "le dit de Mendoza n'oublia rien de belles promesses, tant au dit Gifford et à ceux qui étaient à Paris, qu'aux autres qui étaient en Angleterre pour les y inciter, avec promesses d'une armée de mer et de tous les moyens de son maître." Of these facts Mr. Froude, though he draws a good deal of material from Châteauneuf's memoir, takes no notice whatever. Nor is this all. Châteauneuf's statements are confirmed in full by a letter, of which Mr. Froude has made ample use, from Mendoza to Philip, August 13, 1586. In Mr. Froude's resumé of this despatch, Ballard is represented as laying before Mendoza the full details of a formidable conspiracy. He describes the state of religion in England, and gives the particulars of the strength of the Catholic party in the different counties, with a roll-call of noblemen and gentry prepared to rise in revolt.§ In short, the envoy furnishes full information respecting a triple conspiracy, including a plan for a general Catholic rising, a scheme for Elizabeth's assassination, and proposals for a Spanish invasion. So "Ballard told his story" to the Spaniard, who heartily approves everything, particularly the plan of assassination. "Ballard's story" is pretty accurately repeated by Mr. Froude from his authority, with one startling variation. He has from first to last substituted Ballard's name for that of Gifford in the original. Mendoza opens his report by informing Philip that, some months previously, “un clerigo"|| had come over to acquaint him with the Catholic movement in England, but that the information supplied being incomplete, he had answered only in general terms, at the same time requiring further particulars. In consequence, he reports, the Catholics * Labanoff, tom. vi. p. 287. + Simancas Archives, B 57, printed by Teulet, "Histoire de l'Ecosse au XVI. siècle," vol. iii. p. 423, Bannatyne Club edition. "Hist." vol. xii. P. 128. Among them appears "milord Gifford, persona de hedad, es padre del gentilhombre que me ha venido a hablar." Ballard is always so designated in Mendoza's letters. ¶ Mendoza to Idiaquez, May 12, 1586. Simancas, B 57, n. 310; Teulet. had sent a second envoy,* a gentleman named Gifford, of good family, well accredited, and furnished with ample instructions. Mendoza writes in full confidence towards Gifford, or, as he more often styles him," el gentilhombre,” as will appear from the passage which Mr. Froude has had the courage to reproduce and apply to Ballard. So the letter proceeds. Throughout it is Gifford, not Ballard, to whom the mission of the Catholic party is confided, who unfolds the secrets of the confederacy and lays open the plan for regicido. It is Walsingham's agent whom Mendoza unsuspectingly welcomes as the negotiator of proposals "so profitable in the interests both of religion and of the King of Spain." (pp. 145, 146.) It is difficult to account for so glaring a mis-reading of a very plain and straightforward narrative. But whatever conclusion as to Mr. Froude's trustworthiness in the use of authorities may be drawn from this perversion, it is impossible to doubt that he utterly ignores the clearest evidence of history in denying Gifford's full cognisance and active complicity in Babington's plot from the beginning; and that in withholding that fact from his readers, in order to relieve Walsingham from the suspicion of contriving, or even encouraging the conspiracy, he has violated the very first principles of historical impartiality. (3). Mr. Froude's treatment of the case of the third of Walsingham's instruments, Thomas Phillipps is even more extraordinary, when it is considered that the whole case of the Queen of Scots, as regards complicity in Babington's conspiracy, absolutely and entirely hinges on the credibility of his testimony, and the trustworthiness of the documents which came from his pen. Mr. Burton, whom no one will suspect of prepossession in Mary's favour, has truly said that "if we suppose a certain cipher to have been forged by Walsingham's instruments, then the charge against the Queen of Scots has not been proved." Now, the "instrument" to whom Mr. Burton refers, is no other than Thomas Phillipps, and the only transcript of this all-important cipher which is available now, or which was laid before the Commissioners at Mary's trial, is the decipher from Thomas Phillipps's practised hand. How entirely the case depends on this single witness is admirably summed up by Father Morris : "Han me embiado los Catholicos un gentilhombre llamado Maistre Gifford, de buena casa, con señas en su creencia." +"Hist.," vol. xii. p. 130. The whole document, in which the Queen of Scots is only slightly mentioned, will repay examination. Gifford had evidently imposed grossly exaggerated statements upon Mendoza respecting the Catholic party. Burton's "History of Scotland," vol. vi. p. 14. |