She confessed, however, that Nau had been in the service of her uncle, the cardinal of Lorraine, and had been recommended to her by the king of France, as a man in whom she might safely confide.

She also acknowledged Curle to be a very honest man, but simple and easily imposed on by Nau.

If these two men had received any letters, or had written any answers, without her knowledge, the imputation, she said, could never lie on her.

And she was the more inclined, she added, to entertain this suspicion against them, because Nau had, in other instances, been guilty of a like temerity, and had ventured to transact business in her name, without communicating the matter to her.[**] [26] * See note Y, at the end of the volume.
** See note Z, at the end cf the volume.
The sole circumstance of her defence which to us may appear to have some force, was her requiring that Nau and Cure should be confronted with her, and her affirming that they never would to her face persist in their evidence.

But that demand, however equitable, was not then supported by law in trials of high treason, and was often refused, even in other trials where the crown was prosecutor.