Camden informs us, that Curle afterwards claimed a reward from Walsingham, on pretence of some promise; but Walsingham told him that he owed him no reward, and that he had made no discoveries on his examination which were not known with certainty from other quarters.

The third supposition is, that neither the queen nor the two secretaries, Nau and Curle, ever saw Babington's letter, or made any answer; but that Walsingham, having deciphered the former, forged a reply.

But this supposition implies the falsehood of the whole story, told by Camden, of Gifford's access to the queen of Scots' family, and Paulet's refusal to concur in allowing his servants to be bribed.

Not to mention, that as Nau's and Curle's evidence must, on this supposition, have been extorted by violence and terror, they would necessarily have been engaged, for their own justification, to have told the truth afterwards; especially upon the accession of James.
But Camden informs us, that Nau, even after that event, persisted still in his testimony.
We must also consider, that the two last suppositions imply such a monstrous criminal conduct in Walsingham, and consequently in Elizabeth, (for the matter could be no secret to her,) as exceeds all credibility.
If we consider the situation of things, and the prejudices of the times, Mary's consent to Babington's conspiracy appears much more natural and probable.

She believed Elizabeth to be a usurper and a heretic.