[710] A more correct opinion of this trait in her character than that expressed by Hume, Froude and some others, is given by a writer in the Dictionary of National Biography on John Heywood, the wit and epigrammatist, who says that his fortunes were at their highest under Mary, “who had a highly cultivated intelligence, and was fond of innocent fun ... and it is said that his pleasantries, often acceptable in her privy chamber, helped to amuse her even on her death-bed.”
[711] It has been elsewhere pointed out that Michiel did not, in the matter of generosity, give Mary the credit she deserved. It was natural to her to be lavishly generous, but the state of her finances was such, that parsimony became an equivalent for honesty. This he afterwards admits.
[712] Ven. Cal., vol. vi., pt. ii., 884.
[713] Ibid.
[714] Ven. Cal., vol. vi., pt. ii., 884. This version of Michiel’s Report is taken from a transcription made by Francesco Contarini, Doge of Venice, who died in 1624. Sir Henry Ellis transcribed another version which is in the Cottonian Library at the British Museum (Nero B. vii.).
[715] State Trials, vol. i., p. 72.
[716] Reeves’ History of English Law, edited by W. F. Finlason, “Criminal Law in Mary’s Reign,” vol. iii., p. 537, 538 note.
[717] Burnet, vol. ii., p. 448.
[718] Strype, Eccles. Mem., vol. iii., pt. i., p. 520.
[719] Cotton MS. Nero B. viii., f. 3, Brit. Mus.