(3) “By proving Paget and Morgan to have been special dealers against Elizabeth. For charging of Paget particularly by his own letter of 29th May proposing the enterprise to the Scottish Queen.
(4) “For charging Morgan particularly by his own confession to have been a principal instigator of the plot taken up with Creyton the Jesuit with the Duke of Guise, the Archbishop of Glasgow, the Pope's Nuncio, and Father Claude. That he was privy to Gifford's practices in England, who set Savage at work to kill Elizabeth, and was to have come over to effect the same (Phillips is founding on the interpolations); that he was privy to Ballard coming into England and the cause, Ballard also was a practiser against the Queen's person (Elizabeth).
“Lastly, the furtherance of his delivery whereby may appear to the King how both he and Her Majesty were abused in the perusal of Morgan's papers when he was first demanded.”
“The papers were concealed and his proceedings disguised by Cherelles and others more careful of the Queen of Scots and the Queen's rebels than of their Master's honour and satisfaction.”
After reading this paper the reader will naturally suppose that the Queen of Scots was a wicked person to get up an agitation among the Catholics of France and Spain for the invasion of England and the consequent removal of Elizabeth from the English Crown. That such were the wishes of the Catholics will not be denied, but the connection of Mary with such a revolutionary scheme was one of the cleverest acts of Walsingham and Phillips the spy. We have printed six letters in the appendix, which are of great importance in considering this complexion of the matter. No. vi., which is a genuine letter of the Queen, should be read first. In it, though dated so late as 27th July, there is no reference to such a thing, and Mendoza was one of her most confidential friends. The paper which we have just reproduced is evidently founded on Nos. i. and v., Queen Mary to Charles Paget. These two letters are in the State Paper Office in the handwriting of Phillips, and may be set down as forgeries. We have no evidence save that of Phillips that Queen Mary wrote these two letters, and until reliable proof is produced they must be regarded as bogus productions. Whether Paget wrote No. ii. it is impossible to determine.
In the investigation of this matter we have to bear in mind that the Babington Conspiracy and the Babington Plot were two separate and distinct schemes. The former was for the assassination of Elizabeth, fabricated and tacked on by Walsingham to Babington's letter proposing Mary's liberation; the latter was Babington's plot for Mary's liberation only and for nothing else, which neither Babington nor Mary ever denied.