He quotes a single passage of the narrative, in which Mary is said simply to refuse answering; and then a single passage from Goodall, in which she boasts simply that she will answer; and he very civilly, and almost directly, calls the author a liar, on account of this pretended contradiction.

That whole Inquiry, from beginning to end, is composed of such scandalous artifices; and from this instance, the reader may judge of the candor, fair dealing, veracity, and good manners of the inquirer.

There are indeed three events in our history, which may be regarded as touchstones of party-men.

An English whig, who asserts the reality of the Popish plot, an Irish Catholic, who denies the massacre in 1641, and a Scotch Jacobite, who maintains the innocence of Queen Mary, must be considered as men beyond the reach of argument or reason, and must be left to their prejudices.] [Footnote 15: NOTE O, p.129.By Murden's state papers, published after the writing of this history, it appears that an agreement had been made between Elizabeth and the regent for the delivering up of Mary to him.
The queen afterwards sent down Killigrew to the earl of Marre, when regent, offering to put Mary into his hands.

Killigrew was instructed to take good security from the regent that that queen should be tried for her crimes, and that the sentence should be executed upon her.