Series 3 > Mary Queen of Scots and the Babington plot

INTRODUCTION
cxv
What can be clearer from these two columns, both in¬
spired by the same government, than that it at first wished
to emphasise this charge against Gilbert, but afterwards
deliberately omitted his name. This will be found to
agree exactly with the story we have to tell. Whilst the
indictment was being drawn up, Gilbert had fled the
country, and the government had reason enough to dread
lest he should turn upon them. Then his letters, protest¬
ing fidelity to his principals, came in; and Walsingham
recognised that he might still be confided in. So Mr.
Secretary took up a middle position. He would not alter
the indictment (which would have caused comment), but
he sent word (28 August) to Gilbert to ‘ be content that
we speak evil of him’—and the Queen’s counsel were
evidently instructed not to urge the charges against him
(below, p. 119). Keeping these facts in view, there is no
mystery in the double form of these papers.
Of the two government statements, the second, which
deliberately omits Gilbert’s name, is plainly political and
valueless. But is the first reliable ? To some extent it
is supported by other evidence. Babington’s statements
show that Gilbert had conspired with him, before he left,
about the 20th of July, for France.1 Savage’s confessions
show that Gilbert had also conspired with him, sending
him three letters of encouragement,2 and all the conspira¬
tors, including Ballard, seem to have felt quite sure of his
privity and co-operation.3 With this evidence before them
the government might well enough indict their agent
provocateur, and they obtained a verdict as a matter of
course.
1 See below, p. n6.
2 Savage describes these letters in his confessions of 15 and of 17
August. He gives 31 May as the date of their receipt (i.e. less than a week
from 7 June). Of their bearing he says, ‘ All which letters were to
encourage Savage to proceed in that action as honourable and meritorious.’
Boyd, viii. 612, 681. 8 See below, p. 106.