THE LAST DAYS OF MARY STUART

Mary Queen of Scots.
From a Painting in possession of the Earl of Morton.

THE LAST DAYS OF
MARY STUART

AND THE JOURNAL OF BOURGOYNE
HER PHYSICIAN

BY

SAMUEL COWAN

AUTHOR OF
“MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS, AND WHO WROTE THE CASKET LETTERS?”
“THE GOWRIE CONSPIRACY” “THE ANCIENT CAPITAL OF SCOTLAND”
ETC. ETC.

LONDON
EVELEIGH NASH
1907

PREFACE

The Journal of Bourgoyne, which I had meant originally to be the text of this volume, is a work of some importance in helping us to elucidate the life and later days of the Queen of Scots. I have considered it necessary, for the benefit of the reader, to reproduce also a Summary of the voluminous correspondence which took place during the same period between Queen Mary and her confrères, and Elizabeth, and the leading ministers and secretaries of the Crown of England. The correspondence discloses the political manœuvres and secret negotiations of that eventful time—the last six months of Queen Mary's life: and the Summary occupies the first half of the volume. It has been impossible to restrict it further and convey to the reader what is meant to be conveyed—an intelligible estimate of her prison life, with all its painful vicissitudes. The letters have an important bearing on the character of the Scottish Queen, and illustrate the situation better than can be done by any criticism.

The fascination of Mary Stuart as the central figure of the greatest drama in Scottish history is an additional reason for putting another volume before the public, even though the literature on the subject is abundant; while Bourgoyne's Journal, now specially translated, we must remember, has not been much in evidence in its original form. It is really a domestic, not a political or daily, record, and is the only such record we possess, for no historian has attempted to give more than an outline of her public career. In this Journal there are entries of which we have hitherto been unaware; entries which manifest the cunning and deception of that age; chiefly and more particularly the administration of the Crown of England—thrilling reading—Elizabeth occupying the foreground and swaying the sceptre in a manner that must be read to be appreciated.

A large portion of the matter in this volume is published now for the first time, and to the rising generation the entire narrative will be quite new. The greatest point of historical importance resulting from a study of this Journal is its determination, and settlement of all doubt, of the innocence of Queen Mary of having had any connection with any plot against the life of Elizabeth; or with that huge fraud the Babington Conspiracy. How this is established the reader will realise from the accompanying recital.

S. C.

Perth, 1st January 1907.

CONTENTS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

THE LAST DAYS OF MARY STUART

CHAPTER I

The last act of the drama—Lord Burghley and Secretary Walsingham actively engaged against Queen Mary—Walsingham and his spies—Character of Walsingham—Plots of Elizabeth to take Mary's life—Savage, Ballard, Morgan, and Babington—Mary's pathetic appeal to Chateauneuf—Text of her first letter—Text of her second letter—Elizabeth and Sir Amias Paulet—The famous memoranda between Paulet and Wade as to how Mary was to be kidnapped and her papers seized—Paulet's official instructions to kidnap the Queen—Elizabeth's confirmation of these instructions—Elizabeth's final orders to kidnap Queen Mary.

It may be said without qualification that no one who has not read the Journal of Bourgoyne can have an adequate conception of the life of the Queen of Scots during her last days. These have been very little touched upon by many of the writers whose works we possess, and the reason is obvious. The life of the Queen engrossed the attention of historians, and was in itself so eventful as to practically overshadow the later days of her career.

That momentous time forms the subject of this volume, and for those who are interested in the history of that period this narrative is more particularly intended. Bourgoyne's notes extend from August 1586 to February 1587, and his summary may be regarded as the best and most accurate we possess of Queen Mary's life during what may very properly be called “The Reign of Terror.”

Mary was overwhelmed with humiliation and misery from her long confinement and the failure of all her plans to effect her escape, while her mind was constantly on the rack in order to protect herself from the espionage of spies, and the systematic intercepting of her letters, resulting in their decipherment and forgery. The correspondence of the time is voluminous, much of it bearing on the so-called Babington Conspiracy and the determined efforts of Elizabeth and Walsingham to involve Mary in that plot; Mary's release, and the plots originated to effect that release; and the mass of correspondence which these plots involved.

It would be an insufficient presentation of the case to say that Queen Mary's misery arose from her unwarrantable treatment. The treatment meted out to her by the express command of Elizabeth was, during the whole nineteen years of her captivity, one of studied and detestable cruelty, but for the period under review it was greatly accentuated. It was cruel, harsh, and inhuman, destitute of every element of justice and mercy, reminding us more of the barbarism of uncivilised rule in the dark ages,

“When wild in woods

The noble Savage ran,”

than of a court at the close of the sixteenth century with Queen Elizabeth and Lord Burghley at its head. It was a systematic course of torture, kept up daily and terminating with the disgraceful scene at the execution, when the feeble, and pitiable, and defenceless condition of the Queen might have aroused the compassion of her enemies, and spared her the outrage of Fletcher, the Dean of the Diocese, but it did not.

It is due to the Catholic party to say that every movement of Elizabeth was jealously and indignantly watched by them, while Mary's long captivity, coupled with the active reign of her son, seems to have materially toned down the enthusiasm so long felt for her in Scotland. From the businesslike way in which the official papers are now kalendered, we are able to give the text of documents which fifty years ago were not available, and to form a more accurate and intelligible estimate of the whole situation, around which so much controversy has arisen. To many readers these papers will be quite new. They are important as unfolding the intrigues of that turbulent age; the true, unvarnished character of the Queen of England, showing that her primary object was the destruction of the Queen of Scots, her part of the drama being to indicate the means by which that was to be brought about. Her disregard of truth, her duplicity, her indifference to cruelty and murder, and her strong resemblance in that respect to her father, Henry VIII., constituted her a notable member of the house of Tudor. Her treatment of the Queen of Scots is probably without a parallel in history; and it is a curious fact that during Mary's captivity neither her ministers nor her nobility, notwithstanding her unlawful conduct, could induce her to release, or modify the treatment of, the Scottish Queen. They experienced under her a “Reign of Terror,” but of a different kind from that of the unfortunate Mary.

Nor is any adequate reason given by her, certainly no bonâ fide reason, unless it were that Mary was the nearest heir to the Crown of England, and greatly her superior in every human accomplishment. A conspicuous element in this matter is the servility of her ministers. Burghley and Walsingham led the way as her lieutenants, while that poor creature, Sir Amias Paulet, was always ready and willing to torture the Queen of Scots and fall down and worship Elizabeth so long as he was paid to do so. These men were properly educated in the peculiar tactics and sentiments of their mistress. They knew her mind regarding Mary. They foresaw the end: that the latter was to be condemned, and that that was to be done, as afterwards appeared, by tampering with Mary's letters. Elizabeth's policy was absolute, disobedience to her commands being punishable with death.

Of the ability of Burghley there can be but one opinion, and it is extraordinary that he compromised himself with a scheme for the destruction of a defenceless and innocent woman for no other reason than to please Elizabeth. His attitude to Mary cannot be defended. Bourgoyne refers to him as a very vehement (very violent) man. That Burghley's private opinion was contrary to the attitude he was compelled to take up may, we think, be suggested. His conduct towards Mary was intelligible only as a stern command from his Sovereign. With Walsingham the case is different. He was a man evidently cast in a similar mould to that of his mistress, unscrupulous, unprincipled; and of all the villainy in connection with the Babington Conspiracy he may be said to have been the author: for in addition to intercepting and interpolating Queen Mary's letters by means of spies, and producing the material which accomplished her destruction, he executed in cold blood Anthony Babington and his eleven companions after a mock trial, or no trial at all, victims of a plot of his own creation, and because they were the only human beings who could prove Mary's innocence of this base and contemptible enterprise.

Walsingham's character is thus given by an eminent writer: [1] He was ambitious, cunning, heartless, and a liar. He also ruined more innocent persons than the whole of Elizabeth's Privy Council. It was he who overwhelmed the Earls of Arundel and Northumberland, destroyed the Howard family, covered the sea and the Continent with English exiles, and spread over Europe a leprous spying; while he encouraged, led on, and ruined Babington. And another writer [2] says of him: He completely deceived Charles IX. and the house of Austria, fomented the insurrection of the Huguenots in France and the wars of the Low Countries at the time that he was trusted by both reigning houses. It is said that he employed in foreign courts fifty-three secret agents and eighteen spies, and that he had the wonderful art of weaving plots in which many people got so entangled that they could not escape. He obtained evidence of the setting out of the Armada by a copy of a letter written by Philip King of Spain to the Pope, procured him by a priestly spy, who bribed a gentleman of the Pope's bedchamber to steal the key of his Holiness' cabinet, and while the Pope slept to transcribe the letter and return the key. This summary of Walsingham's character fully corroborates his conduct to the Scottish Queen.

Though free from dread of Scotland, Walsingham conceived and carried out the most treacherous and shameful plot recorded in history. He himself led the Catholics to conspire against Elizabeth. He managed to implicate the Queen of Scots, that he might be able to massacre with seeming justice the royal prisoner and her defenders. His spies filled the ports, towns, and even seminaries. He made use of Catholic conspirators to accuse and ruin Mary. His task was easy; for it was quite natural that a Queen held against all right a captive for many long years should give way to hope and encourage those who might try to release her. [3] There is reason to believe that the plots for Queen Mary's release during the nineteen years of her captivity were pretty numerous, as the activity of the Queen and the Catholics of England, France, and Spain was unabated. These plots are practically unrecorded, the inference being that they all broke down from one reason or another before arriving at maturity. There were also plots by Elizabeth to take the life of the Queen of Scots privately, such as the one to have her drowned and the other to have her poisoned or executed in private, but these also fell through. The last plot for Mary's liberation had the elements of success had it been managed with greater skill and judgment. All the arrangements were as good as completed when it was discovered by Walsingham. It has been the subject of much controversy arising from the extraordinary nature of its negotiation and development. When every plot for Mary's release had failed, and her friends were wearied out with her long captivity, an English Catholic named John Savage, who had served under the Prince of Parma in the Spanish army, had a conference on the subject of Mary's release with some of the priests at Rheims. At this conference Savage undertook the assassination of Elizabeth with his own hands. About the same time another plot was formed by Ballard, who had a conference with Charles Paget, Morgan, and Mendoza regarding an invasion of England and the deliverance of Mary. He arrived in London on 22nd May, when he met Babington. Babington had been a page on the staff of Lord Shrewsbury at Sheffield, but he was also connected with a good family in Derbyshire. Ballard, it is alleged, informed him of the proposed assassination, and that it would precede the invasion of England. Babington would not entertain the assassination, but he entered into a plot for the liberation of Mary—the Babington Plot. [4] These three men—Savage, Ballard, and Babington—were all executed for this plot. In Chapter XII. of this volume (appendix) we have reproduced some remarkable letters in connection with these plots for the Scottish Queen's release which throw additional light on the subject.

Before reproducing Bourgoyne's Journal it will be necessary for the reader's benefit to give a summary of the correspondence and political manœuvres of the period. The accompanying narrative will enable the reader to recognise Queen Mary's actual position and circumstances, and the unconquerable spirit she manifested to the very last in defending herself for nineteen years against the false and calumnious charges of her enemies. The people of Scotland appear to have been quite in the dark, and to have taken no part in the extraordinary proceedings that in her last days were going on.

One writer informs us that her death was not known in Scotland for a month after its occurrence, while the administration of the Crown of England for this period was almost wholly confined to her persecution and the creating of schemes by which her death might be accomplished.

When Mary abandoned all hope of getting satisfaction from Elizabeth, she addressed a communication on the subject to Chateauneuf, the French Ambassador in London, setting forth the nature of her grievances, and desired him to discuss the same with Elizabeth. This letter leaves us in no doubt regarding the sufferings of the writer. She speaks plainly of the cruelty of Elizabeth and of the “infirm and pitiable condition to which eighteen years of imprisonment have brought me”; that for four years she had endeavoured to please Elizabeth, and had sent her secretary with carte blanche to come to terms with her; but everything had failed. The Ambassador discussed it very seriously with Elizabeth, but made no impression. A few days after the despatch of this letter Mary wrote another to Chateauneuf, both of which we reproduce slightly condensed.

The letter to the French Ambassador speaks for itself, and gives us a better idea of her forlorn condition than any other paper we possess. It is painfully evident that she was reduced to the level of a criminal, and every comfort and every means of recreation denied her. Nobody was permitted even to approach the house where she was living without declaring their object, and no one was allowed to have access to her. “It is unreasonable,” as she says, “to make me suffer for that of which I am not the cause.” But that is not the most painful part of this pitiable letter. She adds, “And to speak still more freely, necessity making me, to my great regret, overcome shame, I began to be very ill attended to in my own person, and with no regard to my infirm state.” Even if Mary had been guilty of all that was laid to her charge, this treatment by the English Queen was infamous, and what is to be said if she was innocent? It was only a month after the date of this letter that the kidnapping of Mary took place by Elizabeth's command. The letter was in the following terms:—

Queen Mary to Chateauneuf, end of July 1586, Chartley:

“In consequence of the small satisfaction which I receive in all that concerns my condition here, I am constrained once for all to represent by you to the Queen of England my very strong complaints in this respect, seeing that the more passively I have endured all this time to give proof to her of the determination which I had in complying in all and by all with her, so much the more they reduce me step by step to the utmost distress, without any regard to my rank and without consideration of the infirm and pitiful condition to which eighteen years of imprisonment have brought me, or recollection of the promises which the said Queen has made to me to the contrary. So that it appears that my enemies, who in expectation of my death being at hand, in my sickness had last summer slightly relaxed their rage against me, wish to retrace their former steps to hasten by evil and unworthy treatment that which they do not wish or are unable to execute otherwise, lest they make themselves openly culpable.

“I have constantly during the space of four years courted the Queen of England by the most advantageous overtures and endeavours and correspondence to come to the point of some good agreement with her, and at last I sent to her my secretary in a manner with carte blanche.

“I made such offers to her that herself and those of her Council wrote to me they could desire nothing more on my part; and in sooth there never was seen nor heard of a Sovereign prince imprisoned, rightfully or wrongfully, who has redeemed his liberty on conditions so unreasonable for himself. Not only has there been nothing further done with regard to my propositions for my liberation as I had been assured of it, but almost nothing of that which had been promised has been performed to me. Instead of the mission of certain of my servants to my son, which had been granted to me in order to make an end with him of the hindrance which they alleged he made to my treaty of liberation, and which they said prevented the Queen from going further into it, I have been shut up entirely out of the way and separated from him, in order the better to reunite him to our common enemies here and to expose or subject him to his rebellious subjects. For my safety in this bondage there is nobody of judgment who does not consider it less at present than in the hands of one of the peers and lords of this kingdom, of reputation, force, and power sufficient to preserve me against the attempts of my enemies whatever may happen; which has always been my principal desire since they have removed me from the custody of Lord Shrewsbury; and in that I do not mean to do wrong to my present keeper, whom in other respects I consider a very honourable gentleman and faithful servant of his mistress.

“With regard to my condition and treatment here, which the said Queen had expressly written to me she wished to do all things very honourably as far as to disclaim that of the past, I must say in a word that I find myself at the present time rather confined in a gaol than in a prince's captivity, much below me or whom they could by right of war or otherwise justly detain. I am interdicted from all private correspondence with my son, to whose welfare and preservation as I feel myself obliged to have regard, so much the more I have of sorrow and torture in being unable to render him this maternal duty in the straits and necessity wherein he very often is.

“As to my private affairs, you are aware of the severity exercised at Chartley when he came to give an account of them, so that his journey to me amounted almost to nothing.

“My servants' despatches are delivered to me with so much delay, and mine to them, that the opportunities usually slip away before I can make use of them, the necessity, nevertheless, for it being such, that I am put as they say to my last shift. The place in which I am is made so detestable by the severity which is exercised to all who approach to it even for the ordinary conveniences necessary for me and my servants, and I am seldom permitted to do good to any poor person in the neighbourhood, the distribution of my alms having been removed from me this year, that it was too apparent how much they endeavour to make me be reputed and held as some savage and complete stranger, and so insult those not only who should have some respect for me, but whoever will have anything to do with me and my servants.

“I have not until now had so much need of having a fixed residence in which I might settle myself with the conveniences requisite for my health, being but as one passing from inn to inn.

“In like manner the expenditure of my household remains, from what I hear, so uncertain that I cannot in any way check it, being always dependent on the goodwill of the person who shall have charge of me for retrenching and disposing of it as he shall think fit. The freedom promised for my exercise with some recreation has not been preserved to me, being now prohibited from going out on festival days, without considering that in consequence of my ailments, and that the time does not always suit, especially winter, I must take it when I can. Other encroachments have been made which I cannot construe, but the restriction and deterioration of my former state, instead of having it amended as they promised me: it serving no purpose to say that the time has not been suitable for it, owing to the disorders which have happened in Christendom, as they have always replied to me, except that they wish more plainly to say that they cannot find the time suitable for doing me a good act. It is unreasonable to make me suffer for that of which I am not the cause, and perchance the treaty between the said Queen and me had by it prevented a part. I had hoped that the evidence of my sincerity destroying in her impressions to the contrary would revive towards me her good disposition, and procure for me the satisfaction of passing the little of life that remains to me in the close friendship which I have always so much desired with her. But alas! I fear that the evil has gone so far as to be irremediable, however I may endeavour to place the good against the evil, my enemies being unable to content themselves with this my long-suffering and imprisonment, or that in it I may never have any peace of mind or body. And to speak still more freely to you, necessity making me thereon, to my great regret, overcome shame. I begin to be very ill attended to in my own person, and with no regard to my infirm state, which deprives me in a manner mostly of all appetite. For which if they had been inclined to allow me to supply it at my own cost I should not have made entreaty. Being more than ever entirely hopeless of better treatment and of securing my condition and rest here for the future, I have resolved to renew more urgently than ever the request I have made to the said Queen all these years past for my liberation, conjuring her in God's name, and in as far as her conscience towards herself and honour before the world are dear to her, to see to it speedily. I entreat you very earnestly to interpose thereto as far as you can the weight and intercession of the King your master, my brother-in-law, as the mediator always proposed by me in that matter. The physicians are of opinion that there are no means left for preserving my life by strengthening my nerves from the weakness of which by want of exercise all my maladies proceed, but by some natural warm baths of Italy, which, being impossible to be had in this country, it seems to me that the said Queen, in the imminent danger in which she knows I am, ought to feel responsible for the evil consequences which may arise from refusing this last and only remedy.

Marie R.”

The second letter was as follows:—

Queen Mary to Chateauneuf, 13th July 1586, Chartley:

“I do not know what determination has been taken for my change of residence and the passports of my servants; but my keeper for some days has shown himself much more vigorous and overbearing than ordinary, cutting off entirely all access round about this house from everyone whosoever, and intending to reduce the expenditure of my household as strictly as he can, contrary to the order settled and decided by the Queen of England and her Council. If this restriction continues it will be the means of making my servants more weary of this prison and altogether insupportable to them. I have heard a report, but uncertain, that my keeper is to be discharged at the end of this summer, and some suppose I am to be delivered to the Earl of Shrewsbury, which I can with very great difficulty bring myself to believe. He speaks also of removing from me all the English servants which I have in my household. But I dare not take notice of anything until my keeper gives me a hint of it. In truth I shall not be sorry to change my host, for he is one of the most whimsical and austere persons whom I have ever known, and in a word fitter for a gaol of criminals than for the custody of one of my rank and birth. Besides that, in the event of the death of the Queen of England, I should think my life very insecure in his hands, from his little rank, credit, influence, and power, and especially in this quarter, where he makes himself exceedingly hated and ill-liked. There would be no harm in your speaking of it to Lord Burghley, but it should only be by way of conversation and from yourself on the authority of some of my friends in this kingdom, without giving him any ground of suspicion that the wind blows from this quarter.”

MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS.
Watson Gordon Portrait

When Bourgoyne began this Journal the Queen would be fully eighteen years in captivity. It will be noticed that Paulet her gaoler appears to have had carte blanche from Elizabeth to treat her with every mark of cruelty. Every such act was communicated to her, and that she never disapproved of what Paulet did indicated her tacit consent to what was going on. Considering Mary's long captivity, and the weakness of her physical frame as the result of that captivity, it is almost impossible to conceive that Elizabeth or her ministers could authorise such treatment as is fully set out in these letters. It would appear from this Journal and from other documentary evidence that Mary's life was doomed before any trial ever took place at Fotheringay. Paulet's execution of Elizabeth's orders, no doubt well discussed at the Privy Council, was to lead up as it did to Mary's execution. Her first act towards that end as recorded by Bourgoyne was the bogus Stag Hunt at Chartley—the kidnapping incident. What could be more disgraceful than that proceeding?

It is briefly referred to by some historians as merely the removal of the Queen to Tixall, but Bourgoyne's Journal discloses the true nature of the transaction; and the full description given by him, which may be accepted as authentic, shows that this outrage was an act of kidnapping pure and simple. On 3rd August there was a conference to arrange the details, between Paulet and Wade, the latter one of Elizabeth's secretaries. The narrative of this private conference, which evidently was not intended to be made public, affords us a side-light into the machinations of the period, and identifies Elizabeth with this crafty and cunning plot. The composition of the narrative is evidently hers, and the plot was carried out to the letter. (See Bourgoyne, pp. 160-70.) At this conference Elizabeth's questions were put down accompanied by Paulet's answers.

The reader will notice that the principal event is left to the last; that the seizure of Mary's papers and the seizing of Nau and Curle are plausibly put in the foreground. It is of great importance that these papers are preserved. This document was sent to Walsingham accompanied by the following letter from Paulet:—

“Chartley, 3rd August 1586. I heard from Mr. Wade yesterday, and this morning I met him and conferred with him at length, as will appear by these notes enclosed. He procured the substitute, and was the only messenger between him and me. He had been charged and troubled many ways, as knoweth the Almighty, who always preserve you.”

Memoranda of a conference between Paulet and Wade about the manner of seizing Queen Mary's papers and the kidnapping of the Queen of Scots:—

“That Her Majesty (Elizabeth) desires Sir Amias Paulet to consider in what manner the Queen (his charge's) writings might be best seized on, whether remaining there, or removing her to some other place under the colour of hunting or taking the air would be best. This Queen will be easily induced to kill a stag in Sir Walter Aston's park, where order being taken with her, some gentleman of credit may be sent forthwith to seize her chambers and cabinets in this house, and to remove out of it the gentlewomen they shall find there.

“That he also consider how Nau and Curle may be best apprehended, and in what manner that seemeth meet that they be apprehended at the very instant of the challenge made to the Queen.”

Reply: “I would not advise that this enterprise should be unfurnished with gentlemen of trust and credit, but that two gentlemen be sent to take the charge of the conducting of Nau and Curle, so as to keep them from conference. Pasquier is half a secretary and much employed in writing, and perchance not unacquainted with great causes.”

“Consider whether it be not fit to remove her, and to what place. What persons are to be retained about her, and in what manner she shall be kept.”

Reply: “The cabinets and other places cannot be duly searched unless she be removed, because the doing thereof will require some leisure, and she cannot be lodged in any other place in this house than where the cabinets are. Three gentlewomen, her master cook, her panterer, and two grooms of her chamber, may suffice in the beginning of this removal but may be increased afterwards.”

“Decide in what manner she should be removed and under what guard.”

Reply: “Sir Walter Aston's house seems for many reasons the fittest for this purpose, and he may convey her directly from his park to his house, with the assistance of my horsemen and others. I think he will require to be assisted with my guard of soldiers, who may take their board and lodging in the village adjoining, and because the house is of no strength, if I were in Sir Walter Aston's place I would have some stronger guard.”

“Have you already sufficient instructions for requesting the assistance of the well-affected gentlemen, and if not, then to advise what further commission required?”

Reply: “I have already Her Majesty's commission for levying forces.”

“Have a watchful eye over your charge, and in such sort as may create no suspicion.”

Reply: “This shall be performed as near as I may.”

“That the extraordinary posts be commanded to use more diligence, and for that purpose to keep two horses in the house for the packets.”

Reply: “It seemeth meet that this order come from you, and I will also require it.”

“Your opinion touching the gentlemen in that county and in other counties next adjoining who are well affected and fit to be used in this enterprise.”

Reply: “I have lived as a prisoner in this country, and therefore not well acquainted with the state thereof; but I have a very good opinion of Sir Walter Aston, Mr. Bagott, and Mr. Greysley, all three neighbours. Mr. Trentham is one of the lieutenants of this shire, and of very good report, but I have had little to do with him.”

“Consider what order shall be taken with the unnecessary number of her servants, especially with young Pierrepont.”

Reply: “Although I take Mr. Melville to be free from all practices, and indeed liveth as a stranger to his own company and hateth Nau deadly, yet I think he should be removed from his Mistress to some gentleman's house.”

This paper is preserved in the State Paper Office, and is an authentic proof that the kidnapping outrage was carried out at the desire and by the personal order of Queen Elizabeth. The instructions given in the paper would not have been believed if the paper had not been preserved. In all this Elizabeth was deliberately violating the laws of England and the eternal principles of justice.

The Queen of Scots was not her subject. She had no jurisdiction over her, and the seizing of her papers was, in the circumstances, simply an act of highway robbery, punishable in the case of a subject with death.

At this date (9th August 1586) the plot for the kidnapping must have occupied Elizabeth's whole attention. She had evidently become doubtful as to whether Paulet was equal to the occasion, and whether the commission with which she had intrusted him was not too much for his capability. It was to his credit that she doubted his sincerity and ability concerning this infamous scheme. It will be observed that Paulet's orders of 3rd August were duplicated by Elizabeth on 9th August, so determined was she that nothing should prevent the plot being carried out.

The records of the time are incomplete, and leave us to conjecture what public feeling was. It was impossible for the nation to concur with Elizabeth's administration regarding this matter, and we observe that no expression of approval or disapproval was allowed to be recorded.

The next paper recorded is dated 9th August and is entitled “A Memorial of Things to be done about the Removal (kidnapping) of the Scottish Queen. Instructions for Sir Amias Paulet.” This paper, which we reproduce, is in the handwriting of Walsingham, and is followed by one from Elizabeth accentuating the instructions already conveyed to Paulet:—

“Remove her under colour of some good excuse before arresting Nau and Curle or seizing papers. Take her to some house near Chartley where the inhabitants are known to be best affected to us. The owner of the house to be removed where the Scottish Queen shall stay for a time. Appoint standing watches in the towns for a time and the well-affected Justices to assist in the thoroughfares. Gorges to repair to Stafford or some place near Chartley to seal the study. He to conduct the prisoners and to be assisted by Francis Hast. Have some gentlemen of credit at the search writings and send up some trusty servants with the same in the company of Wade.

“Search Nau and Curle's chests and take order with Pierrepont.”

Following on this communication of Walsingham the English Queen sent her own instructions as follows:—

Instructions of Elizabeth to Sir Amias Paulet about the removal of the Queen of Scots, the apprehending of Nau and Curle and the seizure of their papers, 9th August 1586:

“You shall, with as convenient speed as you may, under the colour of going a-hunting and taking the air, remove the Queen, your charge, to some such house near to the place where she now remaineth as you shall think meet for her to stay in for a time until you shall understand our further pleasure. And to the end that she may be kept from all means of intelligence: we think that the owner of the house where you place her shall be removed, saving such persons as are to furnish necessaries of the household. You shall between Chartley and the place where you mean to remove her, as is contained in our letters, cause her servants Nau and Curle to be apprehended, and to be delivered into the hands of some trusty gentleman of that county or the counties next adjoining, as you shall know to be discreet, faithful, and religious, for H—— B—— to conduct them to London with some convenient guard, where there shall be order given for the placing of them.

“You shall also take order with the conductors to see them brought up in two separate troops, and to have special care that they may be kept from conference with any person on their way to London, and to appoint in the places where they lodge good standing watches to be kept during the night.

“You shall immediately after she is departed from Chartley cause all such papers as are found either in her own lodging or in the lodgings of any that appertain to her (taking care that all secret corners in the lodging be diligently searched) to be seized and to be put up in bags or trunks as you shall think meet, for execution of which service you shall use besides our servant Wade two principal gentlemen of credit either of that county or of some other county adjoining. For which purpose we think John Manners the elder and Sir Walter Aston suitable to be used if they be found in the country, or some of like quality. These we would have in no way made acquainted with the said service until the Queen shall be removed and they brought to the place when and where you shall think suitable to be performed. You shall cause the said gentlemen, together with Wade, to seal up with their seals of arms the said bags or trunks where the letters and papers shall be placed: and to send up two of their trusty servants together with Wade with the said writings.

“You shall do well during the time of her abode in the house she is taken to, to cause some substantial watches to be kept both about the house as also in the town next adjoining; wherein we doubt not but you will have a special regard to use the service of such of the Justices and gentlemen in that county as are well affected, giving them special orders to choose well-affected men as watchers, and not such as are known to be recusants.

“And whereas our meaning is that hereafter she shall not have such a number of attendants as she has had, we think you should make choice of as many of her train, both men and women, as you shall see necessary to attend on her person; and for the rest they should be kept together at Chartley in such a manner as there shall be no access to them, until you shall understand our further pleasure.”

All this shows how deliberately the kidnapping scheme was carried out.

Queen Elizabeth to Paulet, 9th August 1586. Final orders to kidnap:—

“We having of late discovered some dangerous practices, tending not only to the troubling of our estate but to the peril of our own person, whereof we have just cause to judge the Queen, your charge, and her two secretaries, Nau and Curle, to have been parties and assenting in a most unprincely and unnatural sense, contrary to our expectations, considering the great and earnest protestations she hath made of the sincerity of her love and goodwill to us. Our pleasure therefore is that you cause the two secretaries to be apprehended and to be sent up to us under good and sure guard, and that you take the said Queen to some such place as you shall think meet, and there to see her straitly kept with so many of her train to attend on her as you shall think necessary until you understand our further pleasure.

“Elizabeth R.”

The interpolations on Mary's letter to Babington of 17th July 1586 were at that date three weeks old, so that this letter is apparently founded on them.

CHAPTER II

Outline of the kidnapping scheme, and how it was carried out—Paulet requires instructions as to Nau and Curle—Queen Mary's return to Chartley—Forcible seizure of her money and cabinets by Paulet and Walsingham—Letter from Yetsweirt about Nau and Curle—Private letter of Nau to Elizabeth exonerating himself and Mary—Elizabeth's fulsome gratitude to Paulet—Letter Walsingham to Paulet—Burghley and Walsingham instruct Paulet about Fotheringay—Paulet writes Walsingham (kidnapping plot)—He writes Burghley and Walsingham—Desires to resign office—Mary complains of her cruel treatment to the Duke of Guise, the Lord Chancellor, and Pasquier—Elizabeth's second order to seize Queen Mary's money—Relations between James and his mother—Letter Walsingham to Master of Gray—Mary's intercepted letters.

On the 16th August, what may be called the kidnapping of the Queen took place, and reference is made to Bourgoyne, pp. 160-70, for details. It will be observed how adroitly Gorges, a subaltern of Elizabeth's, suddenly stopped the Queen and delivered one of Elizabeth's insolent messages, charging her with the violation of an agreement which never existed and with a conspiracy against Elizabeth's life in which Elizabeth herself was known to be involved. This was her pretext for her treatment of the Scottish Queen, and ordering her servants to be seized and separated from her. Mary indignantly replied, “Far from having conspired against the Queen, I have never even had such a thought.” This availed nothing, and her followers were thereupon apprehended. The “Stag-hunt” manœuvre was successful in enticing her away from Chartley, and affording Paulet and his satellites an opportunity of carrying out the kidnapping plot and afterwards breaking into her private apartments in her absence, forcing open her cabinets, and carrying away her papers, letters, and all private documents. Bourgoyne tells the story at considerable length, and a pitiable story it is. Then when she discovered they were not returning to Chartley, that she was in fact being kidnapped, she sat down on the road and refused to remount her horse till she knew where she was being taken. Her offering up prayer under an adjoining tree, supported by Bourgoyne and Elizabeth Curle, is one of the most pathetic incidents of her life, and we are indebted to Bourgoyne for the narrative and for the words of the prayer which he has given from memory. We cannot realise at this distance of time the overwhelming agony of the poor captive bereft of her friends and attendants, held prisoner by a tyrant; being kidnapped and taken she knew not where, alike ignorant whether life or death awaited her. No one need be surprised that in such circumstances she appealed to the Almighty. Bourgoyne stood by her and rendered her noble support. He immediately discussed the situation with Paulet, and evidently made some impression on the heart of that heartless individual. It drew from Paulet the expression that the Queen would experience no harm. Paulet in an arbitrary manner took her confidential and devoted attendants from her: Nau and Curle, Melville and Bourgoyne. These were arrested and not allowed any more to accompany her; in short, Nau and Curle never saw her again. There is an important discovery brought to light here, namely, that the Queen had at this date lost all confidence in her secretary Nau because he had become unfaithful and disloyal to her. His conduct after he was taken to London was not only that of a traitor, but he actually made to Walsingham the most unfounded accusations against her.

After the kidnapping of the Queen, one of Elizabeth's attendants named Nicasino Yetsweirt wrote Walsingham on 21st August informing him that Elizabeth approved the order taken for the safe custody of Nau and Curle, and the things that Gorges and Wade had charge of, besides caskets with writings:—

“Her Majesty was anxious to have those caskets safely brought, and she was informed that a discreet person was despatched to assist Gorges and Wade in their charge. She was not satisfied with that, and would have you to provide yet better herein, and specially that the caskets might be brought under sure conduct and by sure persons, for Her Highness attaches more importance to them and their contents than to Nau and Curle. Little she esteemeth them in comparison with the caskets.

MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS.
From the Painting in Edinburgh Castle.
(By permission of Frank C. Inglis.)

“The French Ambassador and Monsieur Deshcool, who is come out of Scotland, had audience today, and Her Majesty said she never saw a man more perplexed than the Ambassador when he was about to speak. Every joint in his body did shake and his countenance changed, and specially when this intended enterprise was mentioned by her. Whereupon, seeming to take more heart to himself, he said, 'I would have moved some suite unto you, but I see your Majesty is somewhat troubled with these jeunes follastres (young fools) that are apprehended.' 'Yea,' said Her Majesty, 'they are such jeunes follastres as some of them may spend ten and twenty thousand francs of Rentes and it may be that there are some who may spend more.' Her Majesty seemeth afraid that this Ambassador might devise some mischievous means to disturb the quiet and sure bringing up of these men, and the things just rescued, whereupon she desired me to warn you that special care be taken thereof.”

This letter forms a link in the chain of the kidnapping outrage and shows the hand of Elizabeth as presumably the head of it. Nau and Curle were sent under a guard to London (Westminster Palace Prison). From that prison they witnessed on 20th September the cruel execution of Babington and one-half of his companions in Palace Yard, including Savage and Ballard; the other half were executed the following day at Tyburn. They admitted ciphering three letters to Babington from minutes alleged to have been written by Queen Mary. On Phillips' decipherment of the one dated 17th July, they said it was the same or like it, and signed an attestation to that effect. Nau, however, privily wrote a narrative of Mary's proceedings in the matter, fully exonerating himself and her from ever practising against Elizabeth's life. This he succeeded in getting delivered into Elizabeth's own hands, to the surprise and displeasure of Burghley, to whom it was shown by her. Burghley endorsed the narrative (contemptuously), “Nau's long declaration of things of no importance, sent privately to the Queen's Majesty.” In another endorsement suspicion is expressed as to how Nau got this letter put into Elizabeth's hands. Surprise should rather have been expressed that Elizabeth, having received such a letter, should have proceeded with the execution of her royal captive. Nau, from his influential position of private secretary to Queen Mary, was able to speak with authority on this point, and it was the first duty of the English Queen after receiving such a letter to make a searching investigation into the circumstances and find out the truth. If Mary was innocent, she ought to have been released on the spot. Nothing evidently would induce Elizabeth to liberate her. This letter was disregarded and the bogus indictment against Mary was proceeded with as if no such letter had been written.

On 24th August 1586 Paulet wrote Walsingham touching on the outrage of 16th August, desiring instructions as to the disposal of Nau and Curle's servants and the removal of Mary to Chartley. This letter is of no moment save as forming part of the record of that event:—

“Forasmuch as you required me by order from Elizabeth to acquaint her of what hath passed between this lady (Queen Mary) and me in the execution of the late charge, as also how she hath behaved herself since the apprehension of her secretaries, I have considered that the sooner I performed this duty the better it would be, and therefore I send to you enclosed my letter to Her Highness (Elizabeth). You will consider what shall be done with Nau's servant, who is of this country and came to his service from Pierrepont, and with Curle's servant, who is a Scot, they both being now unnecessary.

“Touching the residue of the Scottish family, I will send you a note of their names and charges, so that you may consider as to removing as you shall think proper.

“It is intended that this lady (Queen Mary) shall remove to Chartley to-morrow, where this household can have no long continuance without imminent danger and extreme charge to Her Majesty in many things this winter, as provision has not been made beforehand. I hear of traitors that are carried towards you every day—God be thanked for it.

“From Tixall, 24th August 1586.”

Walsingham's letter to Paulet under date 5th September was in the following terms:—

“Her Majesty continues her firm resolution to have that lady's money seized and her servants divided from her, as you may perceive by the enclosed extract of a letter I received this morning from Mr. Wade; and therefore, her pleasure being thus, I do not see why you should any longer forbear the putting of the same into execution. If afterwards inconveniences happen therefor, Her Majesty can blame none but herself.

“I am now absent from court by reason of inflammation in my leg grown of the pain of a boil, and therefore I cannot debate the matter with Her Majesty as I would. This afternoon the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Treasurer, and the Vice-Chamberlain meet at London. You shall be advised of the resolution that will be taken either for the removing of that lady to Fotheringay or bringing her directly hither to the Tower.”

Enclosure accompanying the foregoing letter:—

“Points to be considered in the proceedings against the Queen of Scots:

“Whether any tho ... ys ought to be on publication of the commission.

“Whether the accusation shall be by writing or ore tenne, and by whom.

“If she will not answer.

“If she will require counsel.

“If she will require time to answer.

“If she will require to come to the Parliament House.

“If she will require to hear the accusers.

“Whether it shall be convenient to admit the accusers to maintain the accusation upon their voluntary oath, being partakers in the accusation being criminal.

“Whether the commission may not be adjourned to any place to finish the sentence.

“Whether any entry or record shall be made of the proceedings, and whether in Latin or English.

“Whether she shall be dealt with by the name of Mary, late Queen of Scots, or by what name.

“Whether the sentence must be given there or upon an adjournment to any other place.”

The kidnapping having been carried out and completed, Elizabeth before the end of August sent the following fulsome expression of gratitude to Paulet for the manner in which he had done his duty. The text of this curious letter is evidently founded on the material introduced by Walsingham into Mary's letter to Babington of 17th July. Elizabeth, there is reason to believe, knew about this and was responsible along with Walsingham for the consequences. No such language was ever before or since applied to the Queen of Scots:—

“Amias, my most faithful and careful servant, God reward thee treblefold in three double, for thy most troublesome charge so well discharged; if you knew (my Amias) how kindly besides dutifully my grateful heart accepteth and praiseth your spotless action, your wise orders, and safe regards, performed in so dangerous and crafty a charge, it would ease your travails and rejoice your heart; in which I charge you to carry this most just thought, that I cannot balance in any weight of my judgment the value that I prize you at, and suppose no treasure to countervail such a faith, and shall condemn myself in that fault which yet I never committed if I reward not such deserts, yea let me lack when I most need if I acknowledge not such a merit with a reward. Non omnibus est datum. Let your wicked murderess know how with hearty sorrow her vile deserts compel these orders, and bid her from me ask God's forgiveness for her treacherous dealings towards the saver of her life, many a year, to the intolerable peril of her own; and yet not contented with so many forgivenesses, must fall again so horrible, far passing a woman's thought much less a Princess. And instead of excusing (whereof not one can serve, it being so plainly confessed by the author of my innocent death) let repentance take place, and let the fiend possess her, so as her better part be lost, which I pray for with hands lifted up to Him that may both save and spill.—With my most loving adieu and prayers for thy long life, your most assured and loving Sovereign,

“Elizabeth R.”

This letter, which is a further development of Elizabeth's policy, was immediately followed by one from Walsingham to Paulet dated 25th August intimating the Queen's great commendation of him and approving the proposal of removing the Scottish Queen back to Chartley, but she is to be treated as a prisoner. It will be noticed in all this that Lord Burghley is conspicuous by his absence, Elizabeth and Walsingham being solely responsible for Mary's treatment at this period:—

“Gorges and Wade came safely to London on Sunday at night with their several charges, and Her Majesty is marvellously well satisfied with the care and endeavours that you have exercised in the search of the house (Chartley). She approves of removing your charge to Chartley for the reasons you give of the strength of the house and the easing the country of their continual watches. But upon report made by Wade of the unsoundness of the country, Her Majesty meaneth that your charge (the Queen of Scots) shall be shortly conveyed to some other place, and not there remain with so much liberty as she enjoyeth, but in the state of a prisoner attended only with few persons, such as she must have of necessity. Therefore Her Majesty would have you to consider to what number the said persons may be restricted. I mean to know Her Majesty's pleasure touching the priest whom in the meanwhile you have done well to detain in Gresley's house. And you shall also know what is to be done with young Pierrepont and Melville. For young Pasquier, Her Majesty would have you send him here under sure guard such as to you shall seem convenient, because it is supposed he was privy to the writing of those letters that were in cypher.”

During Mary's captivity Elizabeth committed a series of crimes or cruelties against her, but these pale into insignificance as against the kidnapping outrage and the final scene at Fotheringay. In all the circumstances, what is there to excuse or explain this policy? In vain will the student of history investigate the matter, for explanation there is none. Elizabeth resolved that the time had come when the Scottish Queen should be removed to the place of her destruction—Fotheringay. Lord Burghley, who now appears on the scene, and Walsingham, were intrusted with the management and execution of the scheme which was to become the greatest tragedy in English history. These men on 26th August instructed Paulet as follows:—

“The Queen's Majesty, on information given to her by Wade, has resolved to have the Queen your charge removed to some other place of more safety, and for that purpose hath thought upon Fotheringay Castle in Northamptonshire, and asks us to consider of such things as are necessary for the removal. We have directed Sir Walter Mildmay to inspect the said castle and certify us of the state thereof, and how the household may be furnished with necessary provisions and wood and coal, and with a suitable quantity of beer from some brewer in the town of Fotheringay or otherwise. You will likewise send either Darell or some other apt person thither, accompanied with one of the wardrobe, to consider in what sort the stuffs and hangings that are now with you may furnish some convenient lodging for the Queen. It is not meant that she shall henceforth have that scope and liberty that heretofore she has enjoyed, but remain in the state of a prisoner, with some regard nevertheless to her degree and quality. Other particulars wherein we desire to be informed we have set down in the enclosed articles, wherein we pray you that you will reply immediately. What number of servants both of men and women will be sufficient to attend upon the Queen of Scots' person being kept as a prisoner, and how many of those that she hath attendant now upon her may be spared? The names and quality as well of such as shall attend as of such as are to be dismissed to be set down.

“How she is furnished of coach and litters for the removal both of herself and those who shall attend upon her.

“In how many days the removal from Chartley to Fotheringay may be performed (it is thought here that the readiest way is by Leicester), having regard to the sickly state of her body.

“What well-affected gentlemen there are between Chartley and Fotheringay who have convenient houses to lodge the said Queen, wherein Sir Walter Mildmay's advice shall be used.

“Whether it shall not be convenient for her to stay two or three days in Leicestershire or in some convenient place in Northamptonshire until the said house may be put in readiness, wherein Sir Walter's advice is also to be used, by sending some discreet person from you to him.

“Under what guard she should be conveyed until she comes into Leicestershire, where the country being sound you shall need the less assistance.

“If you are furnished with money for this removal, and if not what sum you will require. There is now orders given for your man to receive £600 or £700 here at London. You are to decide how soon she should be removed.”

In continuation of this correspondence we have the following communication dated the succeeding day from Paulet to Walsingham referring to the removal of the Queen from Sir Walter Aston's house at Tixall to Chartley conducted by Sir Walter, Mr. Gresley, Mr. Chetwynd, and others; the Queen's visit to Curle's wife and baptizing Curle's child:—

“This lady was removed hither on the 25th of this month by Sir Walter Aston, Mr. Bagott, Mr. Gresley, Mr. Littleton, Mr. Chetwynd, and others to the number of one hundred and forty horses at the least. At the coming out of Sir Walter Aston's gate she said with a low voice, weeping, to some poor folks who were there assembled, 'I have nothing for you; I am a beggar as well as you; all is taken from me,' and when she came to the gentlemen she said, weeping, 'Good gentlemen, I am not witting or privy to anything intended against the Queen.' She visited Curle's wife (who was delivered of child in her absence) before she went to her own chamber, bidding her to be of good comfort, and that she would answer for her husband in all things that might be objected against him. Curle's child remaining unchristened, and the priest removed before the arrival of this lady, she desired that my minister might baptize the child with such godfathers and godmothers as I would procure, so as the child might bear her name. This being refused, she came shortly after into Curle's wife's chamber, and laying the child on her knee, she took water out of the basin, and casting it upon the face of the child said, 'Mary, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,' calling the child by her own name Mary. This may not be found strange in her who maketh no conscience to break the laws of God and man.

“At the coming hither Mr. Darell delivered the keys as well of her chamber as of her coffers to Bastian, which he refused by direction from his mistress, who required Mr. Darell to open her chamber door, which he did; and then this lady, finding that her papers were taken away, said in great choler that two things could not be taken from her: her English blood and her Catholic religion, which both she would keep until her death, adding further these words: 'Some of you will be sorry for it,' meaning the taking away of her papers. I was not present when these words were spoken, but no doubt they reached me, in what sense she only knoweth. I may be sorry for others, but I know there is nothing in her papers that can give me cause to be sorry for myself. I am deceived also that she is not hasty to see me or speak with me, only she sent to know if I would convey her letter to Her Majesty, which I refused, saying that no letters should pass out of this house without orders from above. She made the like request at Sir Walter Aston's house, which I also refused and desired your direction thereon. I received yours of the 25th, by which you continue to increase my joy by your report of Her Majesty's gracious acceptance of my unworthy services. God be thanked that so many of the principal conspirators are apprehended, and God make us thankful for his singular mercies.”

It is possible Paulet did not know of the interpolations on Queen Mary's letters. He was evidently outside the select circle which carried them out. The close of this letter would indicate that he, being outside of it, was convinced of the complicity of Mary in the Babington Plot. He never for a moment suspected the sincerity of Elizabeth.

When Mary reached Chartley from Tixall on 25th August she found her coffers and desks rifled and all her papers and jewels taken away. One cabinet in her bedroom, strange to say, had been overlooked, and it contained her money. Paulet wrote immediately to Walsingham, the result being that Paulet and Richard Bagot, a magistrate, on receipt of Walsingham's reply, rudely entered the presence of Mary, intimating that they were commanded to take her money, and advised her to deliver it up quietly. Mary emphatically refused to comply, and declared she would not give up the key. Paulet called his servants and told them to bring bars to break open the door. Seeing the uselessness of further resistance, she submitted, and saw him seize five rolls of canvas, containing five thousand French crowns, two leather bags, one having £104 in gold and the other £3 in silver; the silver he left with her. In Nau's chamber he found two bags, one with £900 and the other with £286, and a chain valued at £100. In Curle's chamber he found two canvas rolls each containing one thousand crowns; they were Queen Mary's gift to Mrs. Curle on her marriage. Paulet sealed and took possession of them in Elizabeth's name, and delivered them into Bagot's charge. [5]

This was another of the disreputable transactions carried out by Elizabeth's orders. The question may very naturally be asked, What right had she to break into lockfast places and seize the money and jewels, etc., of the Scottish Queen? If a subject behaved in this manner he would be immediately arrested and punished.

It is important at this crisis to know what letters passed between Paulet and Walsingham. We are in possession of only some of these, and the information they convey is that a gigantic scheme was progressing for the murder of the Scottish Queen, and that these men were the puppets of Elizabeth for accomplishing her design. What is obvious is that Paulet's letters were written with profound caution—almost terror—lest he should offend his mistress. His letters and his treatment of the Queen show that to her he was both cunning and false, alike destitute of the honour of a gentleman and of those feelings of humanity which are essential to a man intrusted with the delicate duty of custodian of a Queen. Only once did he show that he realised his responsibility, when in a letter to Walsingham of 30th August he desired to be relieved of his onerous duty. The letters were in the following terms:—

Paulet to Walsingham:

“It may please your Honour to be advised that, receiving your letters of the 26th and 28th of the month, I have, according to your direction, despatched Mr. Darell this morning towards Fotheringay for the views of the lodgings there, which no doubt will be furnished with the hangings belonging to this house, whereof there is a good store of all sorts of length and breadth. I send herewith my opinion touching your article addressed unto me, and have sent the copy as well of the articles as of my postills to Sir Walter Mildmay, so that he may supply all the defects by his better judgment and knowledge of these countries. I think myself happy for many causes to be removed out of this country, and now I should think myself twice happy if this Queen with the change of lodgings might also change her keeper; and indeed a gentleman of that country might supply this place with less expense to Her Majesty and better surety of his charge, having his servants, tenants, and good neighbours at hand.

“Although I am bold to write as I wish, yet I will never desire it, but as it may stand with Her Majesty's good pleasure as one that embraceth all Her Highness's commands with all willing obedience.

“From Chartley, 30th August 1586.”

And again, on 15th September, Paulet said:

“I find by your letter of the 12th, received last night at midnight, that you were not acquainted with my Lord Treasurer's first and second letters to me of the 8th, the contents whereof may appear unto you by my answer of the same sent to his Lordship. I find this lady very willing to remove so as to hear often from the French Ambassador, by reason that her lodging is within thirty miles of London; and now twenty carts are appointed to be laden here this next morrow, and I think we shall remove from hence about the middle of this next week, if we be not stayed by contrary news, whereof I thought good to advise you. Since my last letters to you I have found in a casket in Nau's chamber £5, 10s. in gold and £1, 7s. 3d. in white money, and among the same the silver piece enclosed, by which you may easily judge of his malicious, cankered, and traitorous heart towards Her Majesty. All this Queen's seals were in this casket, which are in great numbers, and two serve for privy packets and all other purposes.”

This letter was immediately followed by one of considerable importance from Queen Mary to the Duke of Guise, September 1586:—

“My good cousin, if God do not help you to find means of aiding your poor cousin, it is all over this time. The bearer will tell you how they treat me and my two secretaries. For God's sake help and save them if you can. We are accused of having wished to disturb the State, and of having practised against the life of the Queen or consented to it; but I have asserted what is true, that I know nothing of it. It is said that some letters have been seized in the possession of one Babington, one Charles Paget, and his brother, which testify to the conspiracy, and that Nau and Curle have confessed it. I maintain that they could not do so unless more than they know were forced out of them by means of torture.”

(This confession was the result of the rack.)

Pasquier or de Pasquier, a literary friend and follower of Mary, was apprehended along with Nau and Curle for no reason whatever, and very shortly after that event he was brought before the Lord Chancellor to see what secret information about Mary they could possibly draw out of him. As he was in reality a member of Mary's household, Elizabeth's ministers were sanguine that they would get important information. In that, however, they were disappointed, as Pasquier was able to keep his own counsel. On 2nd September 1586 he appeared before the Lord Chancellor, when the following interrogatories were put to him, but we have no answers recorded. These cunning questions were in the interest of Elizabeth, and constitute a mean attempt on the part of Bromley to drag the Scottish Queen into trouble:—

“Whether he has been at any time acquainted with the practice for the setting of the Scottish Queen at liberty?

“Whether he has not been made acquainted with some practice within the realm of disposing the hearts of Catholics to join with such foreign forces as should invade the realm?

“Whether he has not within these four or five months written letters to certain persons in foreign parts to show how the Catholics of this realm stood affected with them?

“What practice he has been made acquainted with in these three months prejudicial to Her Majesty's State or person?

“How he knoweth that the Queen of Scots has had her secret letters carried or brought to her?”

In the midst of these negotiations Walsingham appears to have had another subject on hand: this was the relations between Mary and her son.

It need not be the least surprising that Walsingham should have written the following false and calumnious letter to the Master of Gray, dated 15th September. If he could surreptitiously open, copy, and interpolate Queen Mary's letters, he was quite capable of giving the advice contained in this communication. This Master of Gray was one of Mary's enemies, and was mainly instrumental in putting discord between mother and son. No man knew better than Walsingham that Mary was innocent of Darnley's murder, but to admit this would be to jeopardise his scheme for her execution. Consequently her innocence could not be entertained. Mary losing her Crown had nothing whatever to do with the Darnley murder. She never voluntarily gave up the Crown, but it was compulsorily taken from her by Lindsay and Ruthven when she was confined in Loch Leven in 1567, in order that Moray might assume the Regency:—

“I thank you for sounding the King's disposition, how he could be content to have the Queen his mother proceeded against for the late fact, but I suppose it will be in vain to move him any further, because he may conceive it would be contra bonos mores, in respect of the bond of nature between them, that he should make himself a party against her. Nevertheless, you may with good reason persuade him that he make no mediation for her, or oppose himself against the course that is intended to be adopted with her, considering the hard treatment that his father received at her hands, for which detestable deed she was deprived of her Crown. It is meant that she shall be tried here according to the Act made in the last Parliament, and that agreeably to the contents of the said Act certain noblemen shall be appointed to charge her, who assembled for that purpose the 27th of this month, and shall be with her by the 4th of the next at Fotheringay Castle, seven miles from Stamford, whither she is appointed to be brought. But the matters whereof she is guilty are already so plain and manifest, being also confessed by her two secretaries, as it is thought they shall require no long debating. We suppose she will appeal and challenge the privilege of her sovereignty, which in this case neither by the civil law nor by the laws of this realm can be available.”

Bourgoyne's Journal exposes the cruelty of Queen Mary's enemies and their importunity about the Babington Conspiracy, and while she protested that during her captivity “Elizabeth had maintained, sustained, and aided her rebel subjects, alienated her son from her, and taken away what she possessed,” and could prove this, they would not listen to it, but wanted to squeeze out of her something that would incriminate herself.

The following paper, which is in the handwriting of Phillips, one of Walsingham's spies, is preserved in the Record Office under date September 1586. It is reproduced not because it is of any value, but rather to show the persistent and cunning efforts to entrap the Scottish Queen. It concerns the Babington Conspiracy, and is a wholly unauthenticated document. The papers Phillips refers to are from Mary's cabinets, seized on the day she was kidnapped; and in order to understand the object of the paper, we must keep in view that it assumes the accuracy of Mary's interpolated letter of 17th July to Babington. In short, it was Phillips, the writer of this paper, who was the copyist of these interpolations.

Bereft of these, any plot against Elizabeth by Mary is the merest fable and cannot be proved; and what remains is a series of enterprises for the release simpliciter of the Scottish Queen. Mary was connected only with schemes for her own liberty, and for that she cannot be blamed. This paper is a laboured and wicked attempt to induce posterity to believe that she was hatching plots for Elizabeth's murder and an invasion of England. There is no proof to defend this charge:—

“Memorial showing how the ten parcels of extracts and copies of the Scottish Queen's intercepted letters delivered to Wotton are to be used.

“For declaration of the attempt against the Queen's person (Elizabeth), invasion of the realm, and stirring rebellion within the land, proposed and wrought by Charles Paget, Ballard, and Babington, as is contained in the instructions with her acceptance and approbation of the whole.

“The extract of the letters sent by Charles Paget to the Scottish Queen of the 29th May 1586 with her answer of the 27th July.

“The copies of the letters between the said Queen and Babington, verified by Nau's confession, showing the manner of writing and making up all her despatches, and particularly proving the letters of the Queen to Babington have been penned by herself and taken out of a minute by her own hand (Nau's confession was got by the rack). The extract of the letters written from the Scottish Queen to Don Bernard de Mendoza, the Bishop of Glasgow, Sir Francis Englefeld, and Lord Paget, 27th July 1586, with sundry propositions.

“That an overture had been made to her by the Catholics of England to join with foreign forces for the execution of an enterprise to the disturbance of the present State.

“That she allowed and embraced the same (this was a plan for her own liberty).

“That she thereupon made them an ample despatch (which was the letter to Babington), with directions for all things necessary for the execution of what was proposed.

“That every one of them should give the best assistance they could for effecting the enterprise.

“The Bishop of Glasgow to travel to Rome by all means to advance the correspondence of the Pope with the King of Spain, and to try to set up some new faction against that of England. In France to deal with the Duke of Guise either to keep France occupied, or, peace being made, to join with the King of Spain in this enterprise.

“Sir Francis Englefeld and Lord Paget to be earnest in Spain with the King in her name for his full resolution upon the overtures to be made him by Mendoza, and thereupon for his advice when and how his forces shall march.

“To draw the French King's affection from the Scottish Queen and incense him against her and her servants, and particularly for the delivery of Morgan and Paget—

(1) By showing the said Queen and her servants' devotion to Spanish causes to the prejudice of the Crown of France.

“The extract of her own despatch to Charles Paget and Mendoza of 20th May 1586 concerning the delivery of her son into the King of Spain's hands, and gift of this Crown unto the Spaniard by testament.” (This was not the Crown of England, and her letters—21st May 1586—must be referred to in order to understand the matter. See appendix.)

(2) “By the extract whereby Morgan is discovered to have had intelligence and practised with Mendoza both against the Queen and the French King even since his imprisonment.”

(3) “By proving Paget and Morgan to have been special dealers against Elizabeth. For charging of Paget particularly by his own letter of 29th May proposing the enterprise to the Scottish Queen.

(4) “For charging Morgan particularly by his own confession to have been a principal instigator of the plot taken up with Creyton the Jesuit with the Duke of Guise, the Archbishop of Glasgow, the Pope's Nuncio, and Father Claude. That he was privy to Gifford's practices in England, who set Savage at work to kill Elizabeth, and was to have come over to effect the same (Phillips is founding on the interpolations); that he was privy to Ballard coming into England and the cause, Ballard also was a practiser against the Queen's person (Elizabeth).

“Lastly, the furtherance of his delivery whereby may appear to the King how both he and Her Majesty were abused in the perusal of Morgan's papers when he was first demanded.”

“The papers were concealed and his proceedings disguised by Cherelles and others more careful of the Queen of Scots and the Queen's rebels than of their Master's honour and satisfaction.”

After reading this paper the reader will naturally suppose that the Queen of Scots was a wicked person to get up an agitation among the Catholics of France and Spain for the invasion of England and the consequent removal of Elizabeth from the English Crown. That such were the wishes of the Catholics will not be denied, but the connection of Mary with such a revolutionary scheme was one of the cleverest acts of Walsingham and Phillips the spy. We have printed six letters in the appendix, which are of great importance in considering this complexion of the matter. No. vi., which is a genuine letter of the Queen, should be read first. In it, though dated so late as 27th July, there is no reference to such a thing, and Mendoza was one of her most confidential friends. The paper which we have just reproduced is evidently founded on Nos. i. and v., Queen Mary to Charles Paget. These two letters are in the State Paper Office in the handwriting of Phillips, and may be set down as forgeries. We have no evidence save that of Phillips that Queen Mary wrote these two letters, and until reliable proof is produced they must be regarded as bogus productions. Whether Paget wrote No. ii. it is impossible to determine.

In the investigation of this matter we have to bear in mind that the Babington Conspiracy and the Babington Plot were two separate and distinct schemes. The former was for the assassination of Elizabeth, fabricated and tacked on by Walsingham to Babington's letter proposing Mary's liberation; the latter was Babington's plot for Mary's liberation only and for nothing else, which neither Babington nor Mary ever denied.

CHAPTER III

Interview between Queen Mary and Paulet at Fotheringay—Elizabeth nominates commissioners for the trial—Elizabeth's commission to Burghley and Walsingham to conduct the trial—Important letter, Elizabeth to Burghley, Mary's sentence prearranged—The commissioners in Mary's bedchamber—The three private interviews—The Lord Chancellor Bromley opens the trial—Mary exposes Walsingham's duplicity (Petit's version)—Close of the first day and conversation with her physician—Sentence of death—Burghley writes Davison—The gross illegality of the trial exposed—The commissioners in the Star Chamber—Tytler's opinion of the Babington Plot—Mary Seton's letter to Courcelles—Paulet to Walsingham, 24th October 1586.

After Queen Mary's pathetic letters to the French and Spanish Ambassadors at the end of July (see pp. 304-5) no further communications of hers are to be found for four months. On 23rd November she received official notice of her death sentence, and on that overwhelming occasion she wrote to the Pope, to Henry III., to the Duke of Guise and the Archbishop of Glasgow, informing them of the appalling event. What happened to her during these four months is so far recorded by Bourgoyne. It was a painful and exciting period for her and her household. The State Paper Office as regards Mary is practically silent for the time, but Elizabeth and her court were in a state of great activity.

In order to understand the situation, it will be necessary to make a brief reference to the events of these four months. The time was mainly occupied with schemes of Walsingham for getting the Scottish Queen involved in the so-called Babington Conspiracy. These plots were conceived and developed with all the skill and audacity of men educated for the work. Walsingham and Phillips the spy occupied the chess-board, and their object was to “checkmate the Queen.” A startling move took place on 2nd August, when Phillips desired Walsingham to order Babington's arrest; and on the following day Francis Myles wrote Walsingham recommending Ballard's apprehension, while Phillips asked a warrant to do so. Same day Babington announced to Queen Mary the treachery of one of his companions (Maude), and begged her not to falter, as it was an honourable enterprise (his plot for her release): “What they could and would they would perform or die.” This letter has been copied three times by Walsingham's spies who intercepted Mary's letters, and this shows how important these men regarded it as a weapon against herself. Their actions were prompt. Then came the kidnapping plot, when the Scottish Queen was taken she knew not where. There is also recorded the so-called confessions of Savage as to the Babington Plot and his knowledge of those who practised against Elizabeth. This paper is in the handwriting of Phillips, which suggests forgery. A few days later, namely, on 20th August, Courcelles wrote Pinart that forces were being levied in Scotland to aid Elizabeth, and that they were under the command of the Master of Gray. On 4th September Walsingham wrote Phillips that Curle admits receipt of Babington's letters and the Queen of Scots' answer; Phillips to see Elizabeth and get her orders as to granting her favour to Curle in the hope of drawing information out of him. On the same day Walsingham acquainted Paulet with Elizabeth's orders as to Mary's treatment: “They are in consultation about having her brought to the Tower and proceeded against according to statute made in last Parliament.” On the same day are recorded Nau and Curle's confessions about Mary's letter to Babington (in the handwriting of Phillips). On 10th September Nau wrote Elizabeth that he knew nothing whatever of the enterprise more than is contained in the enclosed, which protests that Queen Mary had no connection whatever with the design of Babington and others. There is a vacancy of seventeen days on the Record, and on 27th September it is recorded that Burghley ordered Walsingham to send Phillips for certain letters which would be wanted at the meeting of the lords next morning.

After a fatiguing journey of four days under much privation and suffering, Queen Mary arrived at Fotheringay on Sunday, 25th September. The journey is fully described by Bourgoyne. For a week after her arrival there are no entries in the Journal, from which we infer that she was for that period undisturbed by her persecutors. But on the following Saturday, 1st October, the dark shadow of Elizabeth was felt at Fotheringay. Paulet, in his usual insolent manner, communicated to Mary one of Elizabeth's characteristic messages: “That she had sufficient proof to contradict what Mary had said to Gorges” (see Bourgoyne, p. 189). She was careful, however, never to produce that proof. These words were doubtless an invention for the purpose of enabling her to convey what really was the message: “That the Queen of England was to send some lords and counsellors to speak to her,” e.g. Mary's trial and condemnation. Elizabeth at this date had evidently resolved on Mary's execution and how she was to accomplish it. On the same day Paulet again had an interview with Queen Mary in order to torture her a little more about the bogus conspiracy against Elizabeth's life. He desired her to ask pardon of Elizabeth and confess her fault. Mary's elastic spirit got the better of her, and she said ironically that “his proposal reminded her of what one would say to children when one wanted them to confess.” Paulet, who was destitute of humour, remained silent as if struck dumb. His importunity to get Mary to “confess something,” as he put it, was a trick to inveigle her, but it failed. This must have been a great disappointment to Elizabeth, for she had no evidence to prove her case. Elizabeth nominated the commissioners for Queen Mary's trial.

The commission was issued on 5th October to forty-six persons, and included peers, privy councillors, the Lord Chancellor, five judges, and the Crown lawyers, constituting them a court to inquire into and determine all offences committed by the Scottish Queen against the statute of the 27th year of Elizabeth. Shrewsbury and ten others declined to serve on this commission. The commissioners arrived at Fotheringay on 11th October, and Bromley and Burghley were appointed to conduct the trial. Elizabeth could not take the life of the Scottish Queen without the formality of a trial, and she therefore made her arrangements for an imposing function, so as to satisfy the public mind that she was doing her duty and that the trial was of the utmost importance, being no less than to determine a conspiracy against her own life and an invasion of England. In an age when the people were grossly ignorant and probably superstitious, a charge like this, on its becoming publicly known, was bound to set the people against the Scottish Queen.

MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS.
From the Collection of Lord Elphinstone, at Carberry Tower.

After the arrival of the commissioners we have the solemn farce of “preaching and prayers” at the chapel of Fotheringay, which Sir Walter Mildmay and others attended as a prelude to the trial. When we consider that these men came there (a) to try an innocent person, (b) that they had no proof, (c) that they had their Sovereign's command to condemn her with or without proof, this service was a mockery. It was not a Catholic service, consequently Mary had nothing to do with it. And in anticipation of what was coming, we have Elizabeth's really first insolent letter to Mary as referred to by Bourgoyne, in which she addresses her as “Madam” and appends simply her signature “Elizabeth.” No one can realise how keenly Mary felt this insult, while Bourgoyne passes it over as evidently too painful to be recorded.

The impatience of the English Queen to have the captive tried and executed is manifest from the following paper, which conveys her instructions on the subject. Burghley and Walsingham were to use their discretion respecting the manner of first communicating with Mary, in respect of any private interview, if she should desire one, and likewise as to the expediency of admitting the public.

Commission from Queen Elizabeth to Lord Burghley and Walsingham, 7th October 1586:—

“Whereas in the course of your proceedings at Fotheringay it has not yet been considered what form is to be kept by you and others of the commissioners in acquainting the Scottish Queen with our pleasure and the delivering of our letters (a matter notwithstanding fit to have been thought on), or whether to send some two or three of the nobility and council to her to that effect, or to commit the same only to the charge of Sir Amias Paulet, in whose custody she presently remaineth. We have thought good to put you in mind thereof, and in case any scruple arise expressly to authorise you to proceed as in your judgment is most conformable to our honour and service.

“It may be that she may desire to have private conference with some of you, with whom she may offer to deal more frankly than before the whole number, wherein you may happen to make some difficulty without special warrant and direction from us. We authorise you, in case any such request be made, and that you find it expedient to make choice of two, three, or four of the nobility and council there, besides yourself, to repair privately to her to hear what she has to say and deliver to you without prejudice, notwithstanding that commission and warrant we have already given for your guidance, and where also we are informed that many private persons, as well as strangers as of our own subjects (amongst whom we hear are many ill-affected), are already gone down to the place of your meeting, to observe and hearken after the doings there.

“Forasmuch as under this cloak there may resort thither some bad and dangerous men, whose conduct at such a time may penetrate to the heart of our service, we think it should be well considered whether it be expedient to have the proceedings against her so public that every man may hear, or such only as by the commissioners shall be admitted; as also, whether in case she desire to hear her servants, Nau, Curle, and Parker, personally to testify those things they have confessed against her, it shall be necessary to have them there, or to proceed otherwise without them, which points we have thought meet be presented to you.”

Queen Elizabeth to Lord Burghley and Walsingham, 8th October 1586:—

“Whereas the Scottish Queen may probably desire a conference with some of you our commissioners during your abode at Fotheringay, as yet you have not been authorised to assent by any special directions from us, our pleasure is, in case any such request be made, that you two with other two, three, or four of our council there, do resort to her to hear what she shall have to say to you, and thereafter, if you find cause, to advise us. And these our letters shall be to you, and the rest of our council whom you shall think meet to join you, sufficient warrant and discharge in this behalf.”

The following is an important letter in judging of the policy and conduct of Elizabeth. It was written before the trial took place, and its date would be between the 1st and 14th October:

“Upon the examination and trial of the cause, you shall by verdict find the said Queen guilty of the crime wherewith she standeth charged.”

These are momentous words. The trial at Fotheringay was therefore a mockery of justice, as Queen Mary's fate was sealed long before by the irrevocable edict of the English Queen. Lord Burghley and others of the commissioners, Walsingham excepted, must have felt themselves in a position of great difficulty and responsibility in convicting the Scottish Queen contrary to the general consensus of opinion, and without being able to produce any bonâ fide proof. They, however, could not help themselves. They must obey the edict or take the consequences. This was the greatest blunder the English Queen ever committed, and this fact dawned upon her the morning after Queen Mary's death. During the remaining years of her life she was tortured day by day by an evil conscience, and died a miserable death:—

Queen Elizabeth to Lord Burghley:

“Whereas by your letter received we find that the Scottish Queen absolutely refuses to submit herself to trial or make any answer to such things as by you and the rest of our commissioners she is to be charged with; and that notwithstanding you are determined to proceed to sentence against her, according to our commission given you, we have thought good to let you understand that upon the examination and trial of the cause you shall by verdict find the said Queen guilty of the crimes wherewith she stands charged; and that you accordingly proceed to the sentence against her. Yet do we find it meet, and such is our pleasure, that you nevertheless forbear the pronouncing thereof until you have made your personal return to our presence and reported to us your proceedings and opinions, unless you find it may prejudice your principal commission or hinder our service to advise us and abide our further answer. And this shall be to you and the rest of the commissioners sufficient warrant and discharge.” [6]

This is a letter that has not been sufficiently brought to the front by historians of Queen Mary. It practically settles the question of the Babington Conspiracy, and stamps that plot, so far as the life of Elizabeth is concerned, as a purely bogus transaction. If the Queen of England could have proved her case or identified the Scottish Queen with it she would never have written this letter. In the face of this communication, which condemned Queen Mary before she was heard, the conclusion is inevitable that the Babington Conspiracy against Elizabeth was a huge fraud, unknown to the Scottish Queen, fabricated by Walsingham and Phillips, proclaimed to the world in all sincerity by Lord Burghley, and having its inspiration directly from the Queen of England. In all this the character of Elizabeth is quite intelligible, her ideas of the eternal principles of justice such as no one can misapprehend, while students of history must form their own opinion, after perusing this letter, how far she was responsible for the deliberate murder of the Queen of Scots, whom she had tortured nineteen years in captivity.

An important interview took place on 12th October between Queen Mary and Sir Walter Mildmay, Edward Barker, and Paulet, when they delivered to her a letter from Elizabeth. The object of the interview was to persuade Mary to stand her trial. After she had read Elizabeth's letter she said she was sorry that the English Queen was so ill-disposed to her; that after so many promises made on her behalf she found she was neglected, and though she had forewarned things dangerous to her and the State, she was not believed but contemned. And the Act of Parliament lately passed gave her sufficient understanding what was intended against her.

In the afternoon of the same day a second interview took place, the deputation waiting to know if she adhered to her former answers. She asked them to be read over and she would consider them. That being done, she said they were all right. She had omitted in the morning to reply to Elizabeth's remark that “because she (Mary) had enjoyed and was under the protection of her laws, therefore she was subject to be tried by them.” Her answer was that she came into this realm for safety, and ever since had been kept a prisoner, so that she enjoyed no protection from the laws of this realm and no benefit therefrom; neither was it lawful for her to take notice of the laws from any man. This she wished to add to her former answers.

The third interview took place the following day, 13th October, when Bromley and Burghley spoke with her. They said, in a very harsh manner, that the statements of the two previous interviews were insufficient; that neither her pretended captivity nor her claim of privilege of being born a queen could exempt her from answering in this realm to such a crime as she was charged with. They wanted a definite reply whether she meant to continue in her refusal of appearing before the commissioners to answer the charge; and though they might justly proceed to trial without her presence, or any further notice of her, yet in honour, and because of Elizabeth's good disposition to justice, they desired her to alter her answer and to hear what should be produced and proved against her. They wished to convince her that in this manner of proceeding nothing was offered or intended against her but what was conform to the laws of the realm and to justice. They required her immediate answer, and gave her to understand that if she refused the commissioners were to proceed with the trial without further information.

To this arrogant speech the Queen replied that she was no subject of the realm of England, and would rather die than become one. She was prepared to affirm on oath that she never did evil to the Queen or the State of England, and was not to be proceeded against, as she was no criminal; therefore she adhered to her former answer and protestation. She might answer before a free Parliament, but she knew not what obligation or promises some of the commissioners had come under before seeing her. She thought all their procedure merely formal, as she believed she was already condemned by those who should try her.

It is necessary to observe at this point that Elizabeth wrote Burghley on 12th October that as the Scottish Queen refuses to submit to be tried, she requests that, “in case they proceed and find her guilty, they are to defer passing sentence until they return to her and report proceedings.”

The question naturally arises, how did Elizabeth know on 12th October that Mary refused to submit to be tried, when it was on that same day that Mary made the announcement? The one Queen was at Windsor, the other at Fotheringay, and the transmission of letters at that period was slow. Elizabeth did not and could not know on the 12th October what happened at Fotheringay on the same date; she could not but be aware that the Scottish Queen would protest against any such proposal as being tried, and the letter to Burghley was simply a part of her policy to have Mary executed notwithstanding any trial.

On the morning of 14th October the trial began, when Bromley opened the proceedings charging Mary with the Babington Conspiracy. The Queen, notwithstanding the interview of the previous day, defended herself with great eloquence. It was the crowning effort of her life, in spite of the exertions of Bromley and Burghley to crush her. In asserting her innocence she “protested before the living God that she loved the Queen of England,” and in her concluding sentence she “appealed to Almighty God, her Church, and all Christian princes, and the Estates of the kingdom, she was ready and prepared to sustain and defend her honour as an innocent person.” She charged Walsingham as being her enemy. Whether she knew of his interpolations on her letters is not clear, but she undoubtedly suspected him.

Walsingham's reply was significant and cunning: “He bore no ill will to anyone; he had never attempted anyone's life (yet he was plotting against Queen Mary's life at the time he was speaking), and protested that he was a gentleman, and a faithful servant of his mistress.” No one will doubt the last remark, and no one will believe the words that go before. Mary had charged him with being in communication with Ballard, one of the conspirators. If she had followed up this line of argument she would have defeated her accusers, but she was not allowed to produce a single witness nor to refer to her letters, and therefore could only say what she imperfectly remembered.

Petit's version of the Walsingham incident varies from this. She said, addressing him haughtily, “Do you think, Master Secretary, that I am not aware of the artifices you use against me with such knavish cruelty? Your spies beset me on all sides; but you perhaps do not know that many of those spies have made false depositions, and have warned me of what you are about. And if he has so acted, my lords, how shall I be assured that he has not forged my cyphers to put me to death, when I know he has conspired against my child's life and mine?”

Those withering words, falling suddenly and without warning on the head of the guilty Walsingham, called forth a quick reply: “God is my witness,” exclaimed he, “that in private I have done nothing but what an honest man ought to have done, and in public I have done nothing unworthy of my office. I have carefully sifted the conspiracies against Elizabeth, and had Ballard tendered me his services I should have accepted them.”

Queen Mary: “Give no more heed to the words of those who slander me than I do to the statements of those who betray you. No value is to be attached to the testimony of those spies or agents whose words always give the lie to their hearts. Do not believe that I have been vain enough to wish that harm should be done to Elizabeth. No; I shall never seek her ruin at the cost of my honour, my conscience, or my salvation. Your proceedings are unjust: passages are taken from my letters, and their real meaning twisted; the originals were taken from me; neither the religion I profess nor my sacred character as a queen respected. My lords, if my personal feelings can make one sympathetic chord vibrate in your bosoms, think of the royal majesty insulted in my person; think of the example which you set; think of your own Queen, who was, like me, wrongly mixed up in a conspiracy. I am accused of having written to Christian princes in the interest of my freedom. I confess I have done so, and I should do so again. What human creature, O good God, would not do the same to escape from a captivity such as mine! You lay to my charge my letters to Babington. Well, be it so, I deny them not; only show me a single word in them about Elizabeth, and then I shall allow your right to prosecute me.”

That Mary was so persistently attacked and importuned about this, first by Gorges, then by Paulet, Bromley, and Burghley, without proof, indicates pretty clearly:—

1. That she was ignorant of the so-called assassination plot.

2. That the interpolations on her letter to Babington were the work of Walsingham.

3. That the importunity of Elizabeth's ministers was by Elizabeth's express command, and was part of a deliberate plan to incriminate Mary, in order to justify her execution.

4. That this course was considered the most politic in order to defend their action before the crowned heads of Europe.

To the unlearned in those times a charge of this kind instituted by the Queen of England would, as already stated, be calculated to raise great suspicions against the Queen of Scots.

There is some similarity between the murderers of Darnley meeting solemnly at the Privy Council and resolving to prosecute and punish the murderers, and this trial at Fotheringay, when Elizabeth, who was responsible for the conspiracy against her own life, resolved to punish the authors of that conspiracy. In view of this, the speech of the Lord Chancellor in opening the case is an extraordinary exhibition of the corrupt morality of the period. The scheme to incriminate Mary was not a secret one. Its execution by Walsingham and others would make it universally known at the English court. Of the conduct of Elizabeth's ministers in this matter there is only one explanation, and that was their fear of death. They were presumably terrified by such a bloodthirsty woman, and were glad to do anything rather than irritate her. Mary told them that Babington's plot was simply to release her, and she demanded to see any letter of hers referring to a conspiracy against Elizabeth. But no such letter could be produced; only copies, and these interpolated.

It would appear from Bourgoyne that during the trial the manner of the prosecutors was “to keep reading or speaking, in order to persuade the lords that she was guilty.” All this was doubtless prearranged. When the Queen returned to her chamber she said to Bourgoyne that the trial put her in mind of that of Jesus Christ. They did to her in her place as the Jews did to Him: “Away with Him, crucify Him.” She saw that she was practically condemned, and that nothing could save her. She appealed to Almighty God as the judge of her innocence, and demanded a public trial. This they refused, and this must be regarded as a proof of the weakness of their case.

The trial at Fotheringay was private and limited to Elizabeth's commissioners and a very few others. Burghley at the close of the Queen's speech tried to make a point against her by charging her with wearing the arms of England. To charge the captive queen with that when she had been nineteen years in captivity was an inexcusable and heartless proceeding, and shows how little better he was than his mistress. In regard to Nau and Curle, Queen Mary said she could not answer for them what they had written about this enterprise (conspiracy); that they had done it of themselves without her knowledge. Nau had been a traitor for about a year before this, and there is no doubt that anything he said against her, though void of truth, would be greedily devoured by Elizabeth's ministers. Mary said that she and Nau had many quarrels because she would not give in to his ideas and would not instruct him. He did her great harm, and to save themselves they had accused her.

When Elizabeth gave sentence of death Bourgoyne says there was great excitement in Parliament over it. We do not doubt this, for every member of Parliament outside of Elizabeth's ministers could not but be impressed with Mary's eloquent words and with her innocence, and with Elizabeth's tyrannical conduct. The treatment of Mary by her tormentors was still further illustrated. All her last requests were refused by Paulet, and eventually she was not allowed to write a letter without showing it to him and allowing him to read it. Had the Crown of Scotland ever reached a lower depth?

On the evening of the second day of the trial, 15th October, Burghley appears to have written the following letter to Davison, one of Elizabeth's secretaries. As Davison would put the letter before his mistress, and Burghley knew that, that would account for the wording of it. The letter is not creditable to Burghley. It was a dish prepared to suit the palate of Elizabeth. “I did so encounter her (Mary) with the reasons, etc., as she had not the advantage she looked for.” Why was Queen Mary there at all?

Burghley, from his position, could not but be aware of the tampering with her letters; that he could produce no authentic proof against her; that before the trial he had Elizabeth's order to condemn her; and this letter to Davison was therefore a discreditable communication from the first minister of the Crown:—“This Queen of the Castle (Mary at Fotheringay) was content to appear again before us in public to be heard, but in truth not to be heard for her defence, for she could say nothing but negatively that the points of the letters that concerned the practice against the Queen's person (Elizabeth) were never by her written, nor of her knowledge; the rest for invasion, for escaping by force, she would neither deny nor affirm. But her intention was by long, artificial speeches to move pity, to lay all the blame on the Queen's Majesty, or rather on the Privy Council, stating that all the troubles of the past did ensue because of her reasonable offers and our refusals; and in these her speeches I did so encounter her with reasons out of my knowledge and experience as she had not that advantage she looked for; as I am sure the auditory did find her case not pitiable, her allegations untrue, by which means great debate fell yesternight very long, and this day renewed with great vigour. And we find all persons in the commission fully satisfied, as by Her Majesty's order judgment will be given at our next meeting; but the record will not be provided in five or six days, and that was our reason why, if we had proceeded to judgment, we should have tarried five or six days more. And surely the country could not bear it by the waste of bread, specially our company being there, and within six miles above two thousand horsemen, but by reason of Her Majesty's letter we of her Privy Council, that is, the Lord Chancellor, Mr. Rich, the Secretary, and myself, only did procure this prorogation for the other two causes.”

Mary was evidently not aware that, by an Act passed fifteen years before, witnesses in trials for high treason were required to be confronted with the accused, and not one of her six-and-thirty judges had the courage to inform her of this important fact. All remained deaf to her appeals; her secretaries were not examined and her notes were not produced. Nothing could have been more utterly worthless than the evidence produced against her. The letters were alleged to be copies of cyphers, but by whom the cyphers were deciphered, and by whom the copies were made, the commissioners were not informed, nor did they ask a question on the subject. [7]

On the second day neither the attorney-general nor the solicitor-general nor the Queen's sergeant took any part in the proceedings. Whether he was dissatisfied with the mode in which they had conducted the case, or whether he was desirous of displaying his erudition and his animosity against the Scottish Queen, Burghley took upon himself the whole management of the trial. Such conduct on the part of a judge was neither dignified nor decent, nor do we find in any other of the State trials of this reign so marked a departure from established usage. It may perhaps be taken as a proof of his declining powers that he had even the vanity to boast of the skill and success with which he had encountered and defeated the “Queen of the Castle,” as he facetiously termed the woman against whose life and reputation he had plotted incessantly for more than twenty years. [8]

On the 25th October the commissioners met in the Star Chamber, Westminster. With one exception, they found Mary guilty, not of the various matters laid to her charge by Burghley, but of having compassed and imagined since 1st June divers matters “tending to the hurt, death, and destruction of the Queen of England.” Lord Zouch alone had the spirit to dissent from the sentence, declaring that he was not satisfied that she had done so. Thus ended the most disgraceful of all the judicial iniquities which disgrace the history of England. No witnesses were examined, and of the various documents produced against her not one was original. They were not even copies of written papers; they were only alleged to be copies of cyphers, on the credit of men who were not confronted with the accused, and whose signatures attached to their alleged confessions were either obtained through fear of torture or forged by Phillips. [9] It is evident that the utmost exertions and the strictest search on the part of Mary's enemies, directed by all the skill and vigour of Walsingham and carried into effect by the unscrupulous artifices and ingenuity of Phillips, had not been able to find the smallest scrap of evidence under Mary's hand which could connect her with the plot against Elizabeth's life. The whole case has been examined and carefully weighed, and the result is a confirmation of Mary's innocence. [10]

That devoted friend of the Queen of Scots, Marie Seton, one of the four Maries, now living in the convent of Rheims in France, had evidently heard of the overwhelming calamity which had befallen her old mistress, and writing a private letter to Courcelles, the French Ambassador in Scotland, sent by Henry III. to urge Queen Mary's cause before Elizabeth, under date 21st October 1586, said:—

“If she had not had a long experience of his courtesy she would complain of lack of news, as she only heard yesterday of his going to Scotland, in a letter from Paris on the return of M. d'Epinart's son. Begs to recall herself to his memory. It is nearly twenty years since Marie Seton left Scotland, and almost all her relatives and friends had died during that period: still there must be some who would let her know any news that he might be kind enough to tell her. She apologises for a short letter, but has to write in great haste. She only adds that she is in great trouble and anxiety over the news which the talk in France has of fresh troubles to the Queen her mistress, and commends M. de Courcelles to God, praying to God that he may be happier than she is,” etc.

The espionage of the Scottish Queen continued with unabated energy. Paulet was careful not to name her in his correspondence with his august mistress, but used the expression “this Queen.” This pleased Elizabeth, and Paulet had her instructions to report daily everything that passed even to the minutest particular. The following letter, Paulet to Walsingham, 24th October 1586, enables us to understand the sort of material Elizabeth desired and relished. This illiterate individual instructing the Queen of Scots what books to read is highly ludicrous. Mary's sarcasm would doubtless be exercised on such a tempting opportunity, but Paulet takes care not to record it:—

“I took occasion yesterday, accompanied with Stallenge, to visit this Queen, who hath been troubled these two days past with a defluxion in one of her shoulders. I see no change in her from her former quietness and security certified in my last letter, careful to have her chambers put in good order, desirous to have divers things provided for her own necessary use, expecting to have her money shortly restored, taking pleasure in trifling toys, and in the whole course of her speech free from grief of mind to all outward appearance. I tarried with her one hour and a half at the least, which I did on purpose to feel her disposition, and moving no new matter myself, suffered her to go from subject to subject at her pleasure. She had a long conversation with Lady Shrewsbury of the Lord of Abergavenny, and of some other things not worthy of notice. This only I thought good to signify to you, that failing in the talk of the late assembly here, and having glanced at Lord Zouch for his speech in her chamber, and also of Lord Morley for some things delivered by him to the lords sitting next to him, which she said she overheard and told him so in the open assembly. She was curious to be informed of the names of those sitting in such a place, and of others sitting in other places, saying that one had said little, another somewhat more, and others very much. I told her that I might easily perceive by her reference to the lords which she had named that she was much inclined to think ill of all of those who spoke, and that I would forbear to name any to her, praying her to think honourably of the whole assembly, and to think that those who spoke and the rest who were silent were of one mind, to hear her cause with all impartiality. She added that the histories made mention that the realm was used to blood. I answered that if she would peruse the Chronicles of Scotland, France, Spain, and Italy, she would find that this realm was far behind any other Christian nation in shedding of blood, although the same was often very necessary where dangerous offences arose. She was not willing to go further into this matter, and indeed it was easy to see that she had no meaning in this speech to reach her own cause, but spoke by way of observation, after her usual manner. Thus you see that I am bold to trouble you with trifles, as one willing to be blamed rather for lack of good manners than for want of diligence.”

It would appear that on 11th November Walsingham received an anonymous letter, evidently from a Catholic writer, informing him that Elizabeth dared not put the Queen of Scots to death for fear of the consequences. This threat, however, was not followed by any movement to support it. The indifference of the Scottish people to the persecution and imprisonment of their Sovereign cannot be explained unless their loyalty to James VI., her son, stood in the way, and they could not face a rebellion.

CHAPTER IV

Elizabeth's instructions to Lord Buckhurst to communicate the sentence of death to Mary, and her remarkable reasons for this act—Elizabeth compromised in the Babington Conspiracy—Her letter to Paulet to allow the commissioners an interview with Mary—Elizabeth's chicanery (Petit's version)—Paulet to Walsingham, 21st November 1586—Letter Henry III. to his Ambassador in London to request James to save his mother's life—Sentence of death communicated to Mary by Buckhurst—Queen Mary's pathetic letter to the Pope informing him that she has been sentenced to die, and giving her last instructions—Her letter to the Duke of Guise informing him of her sentence, and giving instructions about her affairs.

Having in the previous chapter touched on the various points which occupied the attention of Queen Mary's enemies during the past four months, we now arrive at a critical period, the month of November. The situation was gradually becoming more serious and more acute, indicating that the mind of Elizabeth was not only fixed on the Scottish Queen during the day but during the night. The subject, in short, engrossed her whole attention. On 16th November 1586 she formulated her final instructions to Lord Buckhurst regarding the sentence of death which in her former letter she had ordered her ministers to find and pronounce. In this document, which we give in full, much is false and conjectural, much of it grotesque, while none of it is sincere or truthful. It would not occur to the Queen of England that these interpolations on Queen Mary's letters would ever be discovered:—

“Instructions given by Elizabeth to Lord Buckhurst and Robert Beale to declare to the Queen of Scots the sentence passed against her and the demand for her execution:

“After you have informed yourselves particularly as well of the treatise offered and other things needful which have passed between us and the Scottish Queen; of the manifold favours we have from time to time shown to her, both before and since her arrival within our realm, requited by her great ingratitude toward us, of which our pleasure is you shall receive some special note and remembrance from our principal secretary Walsingham, as also of the whole course of our proceedings with her in trial of the late unnatural and wicked conspiracy against our life and Crown, whereof she is found by a just and honourable sentence of our nobility to have been not only privy and consenting, but also a compasser and contriver to the inevitable danger of our life and state. God of his great mercy towards us and our poor people most happily and miraculously discovered and prevented the same. Our pleasure is that you shall immediately repair to Fotheringay, where the said Queen now remains in charge of Sir Amias Paulet, and after you have delivered our letter to him and imparted our instructions and other directions, you shall go together to the Scottish Queen, to whom you shall signify the cause of our sending you to her, namely, to let her understand how the lords and our commissioners lately sent to Fotheringay have proceeded from their return from her. You shall particularly explain the causes which moved them to postpone the pronouncing of their sentence, their several meetings after their return at our Star Chamber to examine and perfect their proceedings, so that no just exception might be taken against the same; the producing before them of Nau and Curle; their free, voluntary, and public maintaining and confirming in their presence, without either hope of reward or fear of punishment, of all those things which they had before testified both by word, subscription, and oath, against her; and finally, the sentence given by the universal consent of all the lords and other commissioners, that she was not only privy to the late most horrible and wicked conspiracy against our person, but a contriver and compasser thereof according to the words of the sentence, which to this effect our pleasure is shall be delivered to you. And also how the Parliament of this realm now assembled, having been informed of our honourable and just proceedings by our commission, directed to the lords and others appointed for the examination and trial thereof, and made acquainted with the particulars of those things with which they found her charged, together with the testimonies and proofs produced against her, and her own answers to the same. Finding, after deliberate consideration, that the sentence pronounced by the commissioners was most just, lawful, and honourable, have not only with full consent and without scruple or contradiction affirmed and approved the same, but also by sundry deputies selected from both Houses of the Lords and Commons and addressed to us in the name of the realm, offered and presented their humble and earnest petitions to us, both written and oral, tending to the moving and persuading of us by their strong and invincible arguments to proceed to the finishing of the sentence by the execution of her whom they find to be the seed plot, chief and motive and author of all these conspiracies which these many years past have been hatched, intended, and attempted against our person, Crown, and State, and do yet still threaten the same. If we should not apply that remedy which in honour, justice, and necessity appertaineth, we should be guilty and inexcusable before God and the whole world of all the miseries and calamities that may ensue of our neglect or refusal to agree to their humble petition, so greatly affecting the safety of our person and preservation of the State, of religion, and common weal of our realm, none of which can in their opinion be otherwise sufficiently provided for and assured against such outward dangers than by a just execution of her by whom and for whom they have been, and are still likely to be, devised, attempted, and followed out against us. And for that we are pressed on all sides as well with respect to honour, justice, surety, and necessity as the unfortunate suit and petition of our Lords and Commons, who still protest that they can find no other way of assurance for our person, religion, and State than by proceeding against her according to justice. You shall therefore let her understand that we know not how it shall please God to incline and dispose our heart in this matter, but we have thought meet in conscience that she should be forewarned thereof, so that she may the better bethink herself of her former sins and offences both to God and to us, and call on Him for grace to be truly penitent and for her late unnatural and ungodly conspiracy against our life. This crime is so much the greater and more odious in the sight of God and man in that she hath suborned and encouraged some of our own subjects to be the actors and doers of an act so foul and horrible against their Sovereign and anointed prince her own near kinswoman, and one that, however she may account thereof in nature and duty for past benefits, ought to have received a more charitable measure at her hands if either the fear of God or common humanity had prevailed anything with her. And because she should have no reason to think herself hardly dealt with in the manner of our proceedings against her, you shall let her know how much the respect of her degree, calling, and nearness in blood to ourselves hath moved us to take the course we have done in sending her a number of our chief and most ancient nobility to examine and try her offence. We might have proceeded otherwise by an ordinary course of law without these respects and ceremonies if we had not preferred our own honour to any other particular affection of malice or revenge against her, which you may truly say is such as if the consequence of her offence reached no farther than to ourselves as a private person. We protest before God we could have been very well contented to have freely remitted and pardoned the same, if we might hereafter have lived sufficiently cautioned and assured against the like, a thing so much the more hopeless however she might hereafter reform herself. The taking of our life and subversion thereby of the present state of religion and commonwealth is amongst her factors and instruments abroad and at home now held and approved in their bloody divinity, as work meritorious and lawful before God and man. And whereas in the opening of these particulars she may happen, as in the late meeting of our commissioners with her, to fall into some justification of her former offers and demeanour towards us, removing the cause of all these mischiefs from herself and imputing the same to the hard treatment she may pretend to have received at our hands. We have thought meet, in case she shall fall into any such argument, that you remind her how much she is to blame to wrong us in honour with her unjust and untrue assertions, considering how much more graciously we have dealt with her than she could with any judgment or reason expect, if we had proportioned our favour with her own demerits. You may take occasion to point out to her those our deserts and benefits with her many ingratitudes in recompense for them, which is conform to a special note from our secretary which shall be delivered to you. Lastly, in case you shall find her desirous to communicate with either of you apart under a pretence of revealing any matter or secret of weight to be delivered to us concerning either ourselves or our service, we think it not amiss that you conform yourselves to her desire, and thereby, if you find cause, to advise us before your return, which we leave to your discretion.

“Elizabeth R.”

This is probably the most startling official paper to be found during the period covered by our narrative. It is pure fiction and was written a month after Queen Mary's trial. The first question that arises is this: Was Elizabeth connected directly or indirectly with the interpolations on these letters, and if so, to what extent? She was much too clever a woman to commit anything to writing that would incriminate herself. We have evidence that Walsingham, her secretary, was the writer of them, and that he paid Phillips to open the letters surreptitiously, copy them, and on the copies introduce the interpolations. The originals were evidently destroyed, for they were never seen again. [11]