To judge by the event, in any case, is always absurd; especially in the present.

The king's murder, indeed, procured Murray the regency; but much more Mary's ill conduct and imprudence, which he could not possibly foresee, and which never would have happened, had she been entirely innocent.] [Footnote 14: NOTE N, p.111.I believe there is no reader of common sense, who does not see, from the narrative in the text, that the author means to say, that Queen Mary refuses constantly to answer before the English commissioners, but offers only to answer in person before Queen Elizabeth in person, contrary to her practice during the whole course of the conference, till the moment the evidence of her being an accomplice in her husband's murder is unexpectedly produced.

It is true, the author, having repeated four or five times an account of this demand of being admitted to Elizabeth's presence, and having expressed his opinion, that as it had been refused from the beginning, even before the commencement of the conferences, she did not expect it would now be complied with, thought it impossible his meaning could be misunderstood, (as indeed it was impossible;) and not being willing to tire his reader with continual repetitions, he mentions in a passage or two, simply, that she had refused to make any answer.

I believe, also, there is no reader of common sense who peruses Anderson or Goodall's collections, and does not see that, agreeably to this narrative, Queen Mary insists unalterably and strenuously on not continuing to answer before the English commissioners, but insists to be heard in person, by Queen Elizabeth in person; though once or twice, by way of bravado, she says simply, that she will answer and refute her enemies, without inserting this condition, which still is understood.

But there is a person that has written an Inquiry, historical and critical, into the Evidence against Mary Queen of Scots, and has attempted to refute the foregoing narrative.