FOTHERINGAY
"In darkest night for ever veil the scene
When thy cold walls received the captive Queen."
_Antona's Banks MSS._, 17--.
On Sunday 25th September 1586 Mary Stuart reached the last stage
of her weary pilgrimage. As she passed through the gloomy gateway
of Fotheringay Castle the captive Queen bade farewell to hope and
to life. Well read as she was in the history of England, Mary must
have keenly realised the ominous nature of her prison. The name of
Fotheringay had been connected through a long course of years with
many sorrows and much crime, and during the last three reigns the
castle had been used as a state prison. Catherine of Arragon, more
fortunate than her great-niece, had flatly refused to be imprisoned
within its fatal walls, declaring that "to Fotheringay she would not
go, unless bound with cart ropes and dragged thither." Tradition,
often kinder than history, asserts that James VI., after his
accession to the English throne, destroyed the castle;[17] and though
it is no longer possible to credit him with this act of filial love
or remorse, time has obliterated almost every trace of the once grim
fortress. A green mound, an isolated mass of masonry, and a few
thistles,[18] are all that now remain to mark the scene of Mary's
last sufferings. Very different was the aspect of Fotheringay at
the time of which we write. Then, protected by its double moat, it
frowned on the surrounding country in almost impregnable strength.
The front of the castle and the great gateway faced to the north,
while to the north-west rose the keep. A large courtyard occupied
the interior of the building, in which were situated the chief
apartments, including the chapel and the great hall destined to be
the scene of the Queen's death.
[Footnote 17: "Beat down the castle in a fit of
revenge."--_Archæologia_, xv. 221; Gough's _Camden_, ii. 181.]
[Footnote 18: It is a curious fact that the thistle is to be found
growing near all the places in which Queen Mary resided or was
imprisoned, both in England and Scotland.]
Mary, as we know, reached Fotheringay under the care of Sir Amyas
Paulet and Sir Thomas Gorges.[19] Sir William Fitzwilliam, castellan
of the castle, whose constant courtesy and kindness obtained the
Queen's ready gratitude, had also accompanied her. As soon as Mary
was safely consigned to her prison Sir Thomas Gorges was despatched
to inform Queen Elizabeth of the fact. His report of the journey
which he had made in company with the royal prisoner and the arrival
at Fotheringay (which must have afforded him many opportunities of
ascertaining Mary's sentiments regarding the position in which she
was now placed) would be full of the deepest interest for us, but
although, no doubt, Elizabeth eagerly inquired into every detail
regarding her cousin, no record of this report has been discovered.
[Footnote 19: Bourgoing's Journal; see Chantelauze, p. 493.]
Very little is known of Mary's first days at Fotheringay. No letters
of the Queen's relating to this time have been preserved, but from
Bourgoing's Journal we gather a few facts. His mistress, he tells
us, complained, and with justice, of the scanty and insufficient
accommodation provided for her, especially as she had observed "many
fine rooms unoccupied." As Paulet paid little attention to her
demands, and it was rumoured that the vacant apartments were reserved
for some noblemen, Mary at once suspected that she was about to be
brought to trial. She had long foreseen this issue, and had spoken
of it to her attendants. The prospect did not alarm her; to use
Bourgoing's words, "she was not in the least moved; on the contrary,
her courage rose, and she was more cheerful and in better health than
before."
On October 1st Paulet sent a courteous message to the Queen
requesting an interview with her. He had received intelligence
which he would "willingly" communicate to her. Experience had taught
Mary and her followers to connect evil tidings with any unusual
display of civility on Paulet's part, nor were they deceived. When
he found himself in Mary's presence he brusquely informed her that
Queen Elizabeth, having now received Sir Thomas Gorges' report, had
expressed much surprise, and marvelled that her cousin dared to
deny the charges brought against her, when she herself possessed
proof of the facts. His mistress must now send some of her lords and
counsellors to interrogate Mary, and of this he wished to warn her,
so that she might not think she was to be taken by surprise. Then
lowering his voice, Paulet added significantly that "the Queen would
do better to beg pardon of Her Majesty, and confess her offence and
fault, than to let herself be declared guilty (by law); and that if
she would follow his advice, and agree to this, he would communicate
her decision to Queen Elizabeth, being ready to write her reply,
whatever it might be." Mary smiled at this proposal, saying that it
reminded her of the way in which children are bribed to make them
confess, and in reply said, "As a sinner I am truly conscious of
having often offended my Creator, and I beg Him to forgive me, but
as Queen and Sovereign I am aware of no fault or offence for which
I have to render account to any one here below, as I recognise no
authority but God and His Church. As therefore I could not offend, I
do not wish for pardon; I do not seek, nor would I accept it from any
one living." Then assuming a lighter tone, the Queen further remarked
that she thought Sir Amyas took much pains for but small result, and
that he seemed to make little progress in this affair. Paulet here
interrupted her, exclaiming that his mistress could show proof of
what she asserted, and that the thing was notorious. Mary therefore
would do well to confess, but he would report her answer. He then
begged the Queen to listen while he repeated her answer word by word,
and having written it down, he despatched it on the same day to the
Court.
We may ask ourselves whether Elizabeth was sincere in her overtures
to her cousin. If Mary had sued for mercy, would Elizabeth have
granted it? It is more probable that any words which could have been
extorted from Mary would have been used by the English Queen as a
safeguard for her own honour. Armed with a confession of any sort,
Elizabeth would have had no difficulty in ridding herself quietly of
her cousin, and her own reputation would have suffered less. As we
have seen, Mary at once perceived the trap prepared for her, and with
her usual promptitude and courage she easily avoided it.
About this time a little ray of comfort came to cheer the Queen's
imprisonment. Her faithful steward, Melville, who had of late been
separated from her, was permitted to return, and he brought with him
his daughter and the daughter of Bastien Pages, who was a goddaughter
of the Queen's. The consolation which Mary received from their
arrival was, however, soon allayed by the summary dismissal of her
coachmen and some other servants, a proceeding which she rightly took
to be a fresh sign of the gravity of her position.[20]
[Footnote 20: See _Letter Books of Sir Amyas Paulet_, p. 290; and
Chantelauze, p. 495.]
In London meanwhile events were proceeding rapidly. On October 8th
the Commissioners appointed to judge the Scottish Queen assembled
at Westminster. The Chancellor, Sir Thomas Bromley, having briefly
related the history of the late conspiracy, read aloud copies of the
letters addressed by Babington to Mary, her reputed answers, and
the evidence said to have been extracted from Nau and Curle. At the
conclusion nearly all present were of opinion that Mary should be
brought to trial. The Commissioners were therefore summoned to meet
at Fotheringay, and all the peers of the kingdom were invited to be
there present, save those employed in offices of state. To the great
displeasure of Elizabeth and Burleigh, Lord Shrewsbury evaded this
summons on the plea of illness. The Queen herself intimated the
approaching trial to her faithful Paulet.[21] The crisis, therefore,
had now come. No one familiar with the character of Elizabeth or
the policy of her advisers could doubt the issue of the trial. It
would have seemed only natural to suppose that France or Spain would
effectively resent the outrage offered to a sister Queen; but the
days of chivalry were past, and Philip of Spain could forsake an
ally and Henry of France abandon a sister-in-law in her dire need.
To the honour of France be it said, however, that Mary found an
ardent defender in the French Ambassador, De Chateauneuf, who exerted
himself to the utmost on her behalf; Elizabeth, however, treated his
efforts with supreme contempt.
[Footnote 21: See _Letter Books of Sir Amyas Paulet_, p. 295.]
When Chateauneuf implored that the Queen of Scotland might at least
have counsel to defend her, Elizabeth sent him word that she knew
what she was doing, and did not require advice from strangers.
She was aware that she need fear no active interference from
Chateauneuf's master. Still less did she dread opposition on the part
of the young King of Scotland. The disregard for his mother, in which
Elizabeth had herself encouraged James, was her present safeguard,
and she had determined that should he prove obstinate she would
threaten him with exclusion from the succession to the English throne.
On Saturday, 11th October, the Commissioners reached Fotheringay.
Some were lodged in the castle, though the greater number found rooms
in the village and neighbouring farmhouses and cottages. A duplicate
copy of the Commission was at once transmitted to Mary. The act
bore the names of forty-eight members, but of these nine or ten had
refused to attend.
The Primate of England headed the list, and among the most important
names occurred those of Cecil, Lord Burleigh, Walsingham, Sir
Christopher Hatton, the Earls of Leicester and Warwick, Davison,
Elizabeth's Secretary, Beale, and others.[22]
[Footnote 22: The full list is given by Bourgoing; see Chantelauze,
p. 496.]
On the following day, Sunday, the lords attended service in the
castle chapel. They afterwards sent a deputation to Mary, composed of
Sir Walter Mildmay, Sir Amyas Paulet, Barker (Elizabeth's notary),
and Stallenge, Usher of Parliament. They were the bearers of a
letter from their mistress, couched in brief and imperious terms.
This epistle, which was addressed simply to "The Scotish," without
any other title or expression of courtesy, stated that Elizabeth
having heard that Mary had denied participation in the plot against
her person, notwithstanding that she herself possessed proofs of the
fact, she now considered it well to send some of her peers and legal
counsellors to examine Mary and judge the case, adding that as the
Queen of Scotland was in England, and under her protection, she was
subject to the laws of the country.[23]
[Footnote 23: See R.O., Mary Queen of Scots, vol. xx. No. 6, dated
6th October.]
In reply to this document, which, as she observed, read as a command
addressed to a subject, Queen Mary replied with dignity. "I am myself
a queen," said she, "daughter of a king, a stranger, and the true
kinswoman of the Queen of England. I came into England on my cousin's
promise of assistance against my enemies and rebel subjects, and was
at once imprisoned. I have thus remained for eighteen years, always
ill-treated and suffering constant trials at the hands of Queen
Elizabeth. I have several times offered to treat with the Queen with
good and honest intentions, and have often wished to speak with her.
I have always been willing to do her service and give her pleasure,
but I have always been prevented by my enemies. As a queen I cannot
submit to orders, nor can I submit to the laws of the land without
injury to myself, the King my son, and all other sovereign princes.
As I belong to their estate, majesty, and dignity, I would rather die
than betray myself, my people, or my kingdom, as a certain person has
done. I decline my judges," continued Mary, "as being of a contrary
faith to my own. For myself, I do not recognise the laws of England,
nor do I know or understand them, as I have already often asserted.
I am alone, without counsel, or any one to speak on my behalf. My
papers and notes have been taken from me, so that I am destitute of
all aid, taken at a disadvantage, commanded to obey, and to reply
to those who are well prepared and are my enemies, who only seek
my ruin. I have made several offers to the Queen of England which
have not been accepted, and now I hear that she has again entered
into a league with my son, thus separating mother from child. I am
a Catholic, and have placed myself under the protection of those
Catholic kings and princes who have offered me their services. If
they have planned any attempt against Queen Elizabeth, I have not
been cognisant of it, and therefore it is wrong to treat me as if I
were guilty." Mary concluded by demanding that reference should be
made to her former protestation.[24]
[Footnote 24: Made at the time of the Sheffield Conferences.]
Mildmay and Paulet carried Mary's reply to the Commissioners, who
were assembled in the large apartment which had been prepared for
them, near the Queen's rooms. After a consultation had been held, Sir
Amyas, Barker, and Stallenge returned to the Queen's presence, in
order to obtain her sanction to the copy of her answer to Elizabeth,
which had been committed to writing.
Barker knelt before Mary and read aloud the letter, which, Bourgoing
tells us, was reported in "good style," and with no omission save
the passage in which Mary expressed her desire to see Elizabeth.
Mary signified her approval of the letter, and observed that she
wished now to reply to those points of her cousin's letter which in
her trouble and agitation had before escaped her. She repeated that
she did not consider herself under the protection of the Queen; that
she had not come into England for refuge, but to obtain assistance;
and that, notwithstanding the promise of help from Elizabeth, she
had been made prisoner and detained by force. She was not, she said,
subject to the laws of England, which are made for the English and
such as come to reside in England, whereas she had always been dealt
with as a captive and had had no advantage from the laws, nor had she
been in subjection to them. She had always kept her own religion,
which was not that of England, and she had lived according to her own
usages, to all of which no objection had been made.
Here Sir Amyas, "appearing to show himself more considerate," bade
the Queen remember that he had no orders either to listen to her or
to report her words; but Barker, "whispering in his ear," assured him
that he could let her speak, and add her words and anything else he
wished to the report. Paulet did not, however, avail himself of this
piece of advice, and thus the interview ended.
On the following morning, about ten o'clock, just as the Queen
was seated at table for her early dinner, Sir Amyas, Barker, and
Stallenge came to inquire whether she would be pleased to see the
Commissioners, as they desired to speak with her. Mary expressed her
willingness to receive them, and accordingly several members, chosen
from the different orders of peers, privy-councillors, and lawyers,
entered her presence, one by one, with great ceremony, preceded by an
usher bearing the great seal of England.
The Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas Bromley, speaking in the name of all,
announced that they had come by command of the Queen of England their
mistress, who, being informed that the Queen of Scotland was charged
with complicity in a conspiracy against her person and state, had
commissioned them to examine her on several points concerning this
matter. He further reminded Mary that the Commission was authorised
by letters patent thus to interrogate her; and concluded by
remarking that as neither her rank as sovereign nor her condition as
prisoner could exempt her from obedience to the laws of England, he
recommended Her Majesty to listen in person to the accusations about
to be brought against her, as, should she refuse, the Commissioners
would be obliged in law to proceed against her in her absence.
Mary, who was much moved by this arrogant speech, replied with tears
that she had received Elizabeth's letter, and that she would rather
die than acknowledge herself her subject. "By such an avowal,"
continued she, "I should betray the dignity and majesty of kings, and
it would be tantamount to a confession that I am bound to submit to
the laws of England, even in matters touching religion. I am willing
to reply to all questions, provided I am interrogated before a free
Parliament, and not before these Commissioners, who doubtless have
been carefully selected, and who have probably already condemned me
unheard." In conclusion Mary bade them consider well what they were
doing. "Look to your consciences," said she, "and remember that the
theatre of the world is wider than the realm of England." Noble and
pathetic words, to the truth of which the history of three hundred
years bears ample testimony.
Burleigh (whom Bourgoing designates as "Homme plus véhement")[25]
here interrupted the Queen, and informed her that the council, after
receiving her former reply, had taken the advice of several learned
doctors of canon and civil law; and that the latter, after mature
deliberation, had decided that the Court could, despite her protest,
proceed in the execution of their Commission. "Will you therefore,"
continued Burleigh rudely, "hear us or not? If you refuse, the
assembled council will continue to act according to the Commission."
[Footnote 25: A curious note in Beale's hand (Yelverton MSS. 31,465)
gives us the reason for Burleigh's "vehemence" against Mary at this
moment. It runs as follows: "The Bishop of Glasgow, the Scottish Q.'s
Ambassador in France, had written unto her how W. Cecill, son and
heir to Sir Tho. Cecill, had been at Rome and reconciled. That there
was good hope that the L. Treasurer, his grandfather, would do her
what pleasure he could. Item, in another letter he advertised her how
Sir Edward Stafford (?), Her Maj.'s Ambassador in France, had shewed
unto him a letter from the L. Treasurer, whereby he presumed that the
said L. Tr'r. did favour her. These letters came to the Q. Mty.'s
knowledge, and the matter came to the L. Tr'r.'s knowledge, which
for the purgation of himself to be nothing inclined that way, made
him, as it is thought, more earnest against her."]
The Queen reminded Burleigh that she was a queen, and not a subject,
and could not be treated as one. He retorted that Queen Elizabeth
recognised no other queen but herself in her kingdom. He and his
colleagues, he said, had no wish to treat Mary as a subject;
they were well aware of her rank, and were prepared to treat her
accordingly; but they were bound to fulfil the line of duty laid down
for them by the Commission, and to ascertain whether she was subject
to the laws of England. He ended by declaring that she was assuredly
subject to the civil and canon law as it was observed abroad. The
Queen remaining unconvinced by these arguments, the Commissioners
were forced to retire for a time.
Before leaving her Burleigh made a curious speech, bidding Mary
recall to her memory the benefits which had been heaped upon her by
her cousin! insisting in especial upon some remarkable instances of
her clemency. "The Queen, my mistress," said he, "has punished those
who contested your pretensions to the English crown. In her goodness
she saved you from being judged guilty of high treason at the time
of your projected marriage with the Duke of Norfolk, and she has
protected you from the fury of your own subjects."
Mary replied to this extraordinary speech with a sad smile.
As soon as she had dined, the Queen, who, as Bourgoing tells us,
had not been able to write for a long time, owing to rheumatic
pains in her arm, set to work to make notes, to assist her when the
Commissioners should return; fearing, as she said, that her memory
might fail her. As was usual with her, however, the very danger of
her position inspired her with fresh vigour and courage, and when
the moment came she defended herself as "valiantly as she was rudely
assailed, importuned, and pursued by the Commissioners; and she ended
by saying far more than she had prepared in writing."
In the course of the afternoon Sir Amyas and three others were
deputed to wait on Mary with a duplicate copy of the Commission,
which she had requested to see. They proceeded to explain this
document, which was chiefly founded on two Acts of Parliament
passed two years previously. By the former of these it was declared
high treason for any one to speak of Mary's succession to the
crown of England during the lifetime of Elizabeth. The second
decreed that should any one, of whatsoever rank, in the kingdom or
abroad, conspire against the life of Elizabeth, or connive at such
conspiracy, it should be lawful for an extraordinary jury comprised
of twenty-four persons to adjudge that case. These laws (which the
Queen justly felt to have been framed specially for her destruction)
were now to be applied. She was accused of "consenting" to the
"horrible fact of the destruction of Elizabeth's person and the
invasion of the kingdom," and she was now called upon to submit to
the interrogations of the appointed judges. To the energetic protests
offered by Mary the deputies made no reply, but withdrew to consult
with the other Commissioners; and later in the day the attack was
renewed.
On this occasion Bourgoing says that the lords came in fewer numbers
than in the morning, but with the same ostentatious ceremony.
The Queen began by referring to a passage in Elizabeth's letter, and
demanded to know what the word "protection" there signified. "I came
into England," said she, "to seek assistance, and I was immediately
imprisoned. Is that 'protection'?" Burleigh, always the spokesman,
and who invariably seemed animated with a wish to attack Mary, was
puzzled to reply to this simple question, and endeavoured to evade
it. He had "read the letter in question," he said, "but neither he
nor his colleagues were so presumptuous as to dare to interpret their
mistress's letter. She, no doubt, knew well what she wrote; but it
was not for subjects to interpret the words of their sovereign."
"You are too much in the confidence of your mistress," returned Mary,
"not to be aware of her wishes and intentions, and if you are armed
with such authority by your Commission as you describe, you have
surely the power to interpret a letter from the Queen." Burleigh
denied that he and his companions had known anything of the letter;
adding, however, that he was aware that his mistress considered that
every person living in her kingdom was subject to its laws. "This
letter," continued Mary, "was written by Walsingham; he confessed to
me that he was my enemy, and I well know what he has done against
me and my son." At this point the Commissioners "discussed among
themselves as to whether Walsingham had been in London at the
time when the letter was written or not, but could not decide the
question." Mary then again protested against the injustice of being
tried by the laws of a country in which she had lived only as a
prisoner.
"If your Majesty," retorted one of the lords, "was reigning
peacefully in your own kingdom, and some one were to conspire against
you, would you not proceed against him, were he the greatest king in
the world?"
"Never," replied Mary, "never would I act in such a manner; however,
I see well that you have already condemned me--all you do now is
merely for form's sake. I do not value my life, but I strive for the
preservation of my own honour, and the honour of my relatives and of
the Church. You frame laws according to your own wishes," continued
the Queen; "and as in former days the English refused to recognise
the _salique_ law in France, so I do not feel bound to submit to
your laws. If you wish to proceed according to the common law of
England, you must produce examples and precedents. If you follow the
canon law, those only who framed it can interpret it. Roman Catholics
alone have the right to explain and apply it." To this Burleigh
replied that the canon law was used ordinarily in England, especially
regarding marriages and kindred matters, but not in what touched
the authority of the Pope, which they neither desired nor approved.
"In consequence then," continued Mary, "you cannot avail yourselves
of the privilege of him whose authority you deny. The Pope and his
delegates alone can interpret the canon law, and I know of no one in
England who has received this authority from the sovereign pontiff.
As for the civil laws, they were made by the Catholic Emperors of
old, or in any case, sanctioned by them; and these laws can only
be applied by such as approve their authors, and would wish to
imitate them. As these laws were often obscure and difficult, and
people wished to interpret them, each according to his own idea,
universities were established in Italy, France, and Spain. Here in
England, where none such exist, you do not possess the knowledge of
the true spirit and interpretation of these laws, but you interpret
them according to your own wishes, and in such a way as to serve the
law, and the police law of your country. If you wish to try me by the
true civil law, I demand that some members of the universities be
allowed to judge my case, so that I may not be left to the judgment
of such lawyers as are subservient to the laws of England alone. But
I see that you wish to prevent me from benefiting either by the canon
or the civil law. You wish to reduce me to subject myself to the law
of this country; but," continued the Queen earnestly, "I have no
knowledge of this law. It is not my profession, and you have taken
from me all power of studying it. Kings and princes usually have
around them such persons as are versed in these matters, but I have
no one. I therefore beg you to give me information in order that I
may know how those in my position have been treated in the time past,
and what has been admitted by law or precedent, either favourable to
my case or not."
Mary's hearers eagerly seized the opportunity afforded them, and
suggested that she should see the judges and lawyers then present
at Fotheringay, who would explain the matter to her. At first the
Queen seemed as if she were inclined to favour this proposal. "Her
Majesty, very well pleased, at first agreed, till she perceived by
some words of the Treasurer (Burleigh) that by this suggestion they
had no intention but to make her aware by them (the judges) that her
cause was bad, that she was subject to the laws of England, and that
there was a just case against her, so that consequently she might in
the end be judged by them. So Her Majesty, perceiving that she could
not communicate with the judges about her business without humbling
herself, refused to hear them."[26]
[Footnote 26: Chantelauze, pp. 505-508.]
The envoys now proposed to the Queen to hear the new Commission.
After listening to it attentively, Mary observed that she saw it
referred to laws which she must refuse to recognise, as she suspected
that they had been framed expressly for her ruin by those persons who
were her enemies, and who aimed at dispossessing her of her right
to the kingdom. Elizabeth's emissaries replied that even though the
laws were new, they were as just and equitable as those of other
countries. Her Majesty, they added, knew well that it was necessary
on occasion to abrogate certain laws and frame new ones.
"These new laws," returned Mary, "cannot be used to my prejudice. I
am a stranger, and consequently not subject to them, and the more
especially as I belong to a different religion. I confess to being
a Catholic, and for this religion I would wish to die, and shed my
blood to the last drop. In this matter do not spare me; I am ready
and willing, and shall esteem myself very happy if God grants me
the grace to die in this quarrel." The Queen's hearers, amazed at
her courage, refrained from pressing her further, and reserved--as
Bourgoing tells us--their reply for a future occasion.
Mary now demanded to see the former protestation which she had made
at Sheffield. "I have not changed since then," she remarked, "being
the same person still, my rank and quality remaining undiminished,
and my sentiments unaltered, while the circumstances were then
almost identical with those of the present crisis." Being thus
pressed, Sir Thomas Bromley and Lord Burleigh read aloud the
protestation, refusing at the same time either to approve or accept
it. Bromley acknowledged, however, that he had on the previous
occasion received it from Mary and presented it to his mistress. "Her
Majesty," continued he, "neither approved nor accepted it, and we are
not at liberty to receive it, nor you to make use of it. The Queen of
England has power in her own kingdom over all persons who conspire
against her without respect to quality or degree. As your rank is,
however, well known, the Queen is treating you very honourably,
having selected so worthy a company of the great men of her kingdom
as her Commissioners in this matter. We have taken no step against
you; we are not judges, but have only come to examine you."
The day passed thus in mutual discussion until dusk, when Sir
Christopher Hatton, seeing that no progress was being made,
interposed, and adopting a conciliatory tone, observed that to his
mind many unnecessary matters were being discussed. He and his
colleagues were there simply to ascertain whether the Queen of Scots
was, or was not, guilty of having participated in the plot against
their mistress. He was of opinion, he said, that the Queen should
not refuse to be examined, as in that case people would take her to
be guilty, whereas were she to consent to be interrogated she could
prove her innocence, which would bring honour to herself and rejoice
Queen Elizabeth. Hatton added that in his parting interview with his
mistress she had protested to him with tears that nothing had ever
so wounded her as the thought that her cousin should have sought to
injure her,--a thing which she could not have believed of her.
"What favour can I look for when I shall have established my
innocence?" demanded Mary; "and what reparation will be made to me
for being brought here by force, treated as a criminal and a subject,
and convoked before an assembly of judges in an apartment specially
prepared for my trial?"
"Your honour will suffer no injury," returned Hatton persuasively,
"and my mistress will be satisfied. As for the place of your trial,
that is of no consequence; any place would do equally well. This
castle was chosen as being the Queen's property and suitable for the
occasion. If any of your people have alarmed you, be reassured, there
is no danger for you. We have chosen the large hall close to your own
apartment, as being more commodious for you in your weak health, and
as it is Her Majesty's presence-chamber, we have there erected her
dais. To us, who are sent here as her Commissioners, this attribute
of state represents our Queen, as if she were here in person."
Burleigh here impatiently interrupted Hatton by exclaiming that it
was time to retire, and demanded once more of Mary whether she would
be examined or not. "The Commissioners are determined to proceed in
any case," said he, "and the council will assemble to-morrow."
"I am not obliged to answer you," replied Mary. "May God inspire you,
and may you be directed to do right according to God and to reason. I
beseech you, think well of what you are about."
The Commissioners then withdrew.
Elizabeth had been at once informed of the previous day's interview,
of Mary's refusal to be interrogated, and of the resolution of the
Commissioners to proceed with the trial and sentence, even in the
absence of the prisoner. Alarmed at this decision, the Queen sent
a courier post-haste to urge Burleigh and his companions not to
pronounce sentence until they should return, and give her a complete
report of the proceedings. The same messenger was the bearer of a
letter to Mary, the reception of which must have added bitterness to
this day of trial.[27] The letter ran as follows:--
You have planned in divers ways and manners to take my
life and to ruin my kingdom by the shedding of blood. I
never proceeded so harshly against you; on the contrary,
I have maintained you and preserved your life with the
same care which I use for myself. Your treacherous doings
will be proved to you, and made manifest in the very place
where you are. And it is my pleasure that you shall reply
to my Nobles and to the Peers of my kingdom as you would
to myself were I there present. I have heard of your
arrogance, and therefore I demand, charge, and command you
to reply to them. But answer fully, and you may receive
greater favour from us.
ELIZABETH.[28]
[Footnote 27: Chantelauze, pp. 508-511.]
[Footnote 28: Egerton, pp. 86, 87.]
In this epistle Elizabeth, as we see, once more held out hopes of
clemency to her cousin, but it seems probable that Mary paid little
heed to promises which she had so often found to be delusive.
Bourgoing makes no allusion to this letter, but he says that his
mistress, seeing the determination of the Commissioners to proceed
in any case, "remained all the night in perplexity." On one side she
dreaded being obliged to appear "in a public place against her duty,
her state, and her quality," while on the other she foresaw that
should she persist in her refusal to answer their interrogations,
the Commissioners would assert her silence to be proof of her guilt,
and would pronounce sentence against her, and declare "as an assured
fact that in her conscience she knew herself to be guilty." Towards
morning the Queen determined to send word to the lords that she
desired to say a few words to them before they assembled.
On the morning of the 14th, accordingly, the Commissioners delegated
some of their number to wait upon the Queen. Among these was
Walsingham, whom Mary now saw for the first time. We subjoin the
dignified address made by the Queen on this occasion. It seems
evident that Bourgoing wrote down this speech either from Mary's
dictation, or from notes supplied by herself, as, unlike the other
speeches recorded by him, it is given throughout in the first
person:--
"When I remember that I am a queen by birth," said Mary, "a stranger
and a near relation of the Queen, my good sister, I cannot but be
offended at the manner in which I have been treated, and could do
nothing other than refuse to attend your assembly and object to
your mode of procedure. I am not subject either to your laws or
your Queen, and to them I cannot answer without prejudice to myself
and other kings and princes of the same quality. Now, as always
heretofore, I will not spare my life in defence of my honour; and
rather than do injury to other princes and my son, I am prepared to
die, should the Queen, my good sister, have such an evil opinion of
me as to believe that I have attempted aught against her person. In
order to prove my goodwill towards her, and to show that I do not
refuse to answer to the charges of which I am accused, I am prepared
to answer to that accusation only, which touches on the life of Queen
Elizabeth, of which I swear and protest that I am innocent. I say
nothing upon any other matter whatsoever as to any friendship or
treaty with any other foreign princes. And making this protestation,
I demand an act in writing."[29]
[Footnote 29: Chantelauze, p. 512.]
The Commissioners, "very happy to have brought the Queen to this
point,"[30] assured her that their only desire was to ascertain
whether she was guilty or not, and thus to satisfy their mistress,
who would be well content to see her innocence proved. Mary then
once more inquired if it was necessary for her to appear in the
hall of council. They replied that it must be so; repeating that
the apartment had been prepared expressly for the purpose, and
that they would there hear her as if she were in the presence of
Elizabeth herself, in order that they might address their report to
their sovereign in due form. The delegates then withdrew to consult
together over Mary's last protestation. Shortly afterwards they sent
word that they had committed it to writing, and once again summoned
her to appear before them. This the Queen consented to do "as soon as
she had broken her fast by taking a little wine, as she felt weak
and ill."[31]
[Footnote 30: _Ibid._]
[Footnote 31: Chantelauze, p. 513.]
* * * * *
The die was now cast. To us the Queen's decision seems a fatal error.
Had she persisted in claiming her royal prerogative of inviolability,
the trial would have lost that semblance of legal justice which
her present assent--though made under protest--lent to it; and her
accusers would have been unable to extricate themselves from the
difficulty. It is, however, very questionable whether Mary's life
would have been saved in any case. Had she refused to be tried, other
means would have been found. Private assassination was the one and
only form of death which was dreaded by the Queen. She knew that were
she to die without witnesses, every effort would be made to blacken
her fame and, if possible, to throw doubt on her fidelity to her
faith. It is to this fear that we may probably attribute Mary's final
decision to face her judges.