THE DEATH WARRANT
The warrant for the execution of the Queen of Scots was still
unsigned, and Elizabeth remained a prey to indecision. Throughout
the country every kind of possible and impossible rumour was afloat.
Philip of Spain, it was said, was preparing a vast armament at Lisbon
for the invasion of England. The Prince of Parma was expected to
rescue the Queen of Scots, and even to carry off Elizabeth herself.
The Duke of Guise was reported to have actually landed in Sussex, and
the Scotch, it was declared, had marched across the Border. These and
many other wild stories served to inflame public opinion. At last
one report, more credible than the rest, averred that Paulet had put
Mary to death. "God grant this is true," writes one of Walsingham's
agents, "for she has lived too long; good Protestants blame the Queen
for waiting so long, for God commanded that rulers should govern
with great severity."[90]
[Footnote 90: Brit. Mus. Harley MS., 290, No. 104.]
What Paulet's views were of the agitation in general, and of this
story, we learn by the following letter to Davison under date of 30th
January:--
You may perceive by these letters enclosed, with mine
answer to the same, that the report of the Scottish Queen's
escape, or her taking away, as it is now termed, carrieth
such credit in these parts, as it is followed with hue and
cry. And although, considering my late letters to like
effect, I did not think needful to advertise you thereof
with speed, yet I would not hide it from you, and therefore
do send it by one of my servants repairing to London about
his own business, not doubting but that the same will come
as speedily to your hands as if it had been sent by post.
These seditious rumours are not to be neglected, in my
simple opinion, and, indeed, there is not a more ready way
to levy forces to the achieving of that which these lewd
reporters pretend to fear. I cannot let[91] them to flatter
themselves with vain hope; but by the grace of God I will
not lose this lady, my charge, without the loss of my life;
neither shall it be possible for any force to take her out
of my hands alive. And thus, etc.[92]
[Footnote 91: Hinder.]
[Footnote 92: _Letter Books_, p. 356.]
Burleigh and Walsingham took every opportunity of making capital out
of the reports which they had themselves set going, and terrified
their mistress with gloomy prophecies. Elizabeth, who still hesitated
between desire for her cousin's death, which she regarded as her only
safety, and fear of the results to herself of such a crime, became
more and more gloomy and irresolute. She sought solitude in order
to give herself more completely to her dark and troubled thoughts,
and was often heard to murmur to herself, "_Aut fer, aut feri; ne
feriare, feri_"--"Either suffer or strike; not to be struck, strike."
In Elizabeth's mysterious phrases and half-revealed wishes, her
ministers understood that their mistress desired that the Queen of
Scots[93] should be put to death in some secret manner, in which
she herself should not be implicated, and without her signing the
warrant of execution. She even gave them to understand that the oath
of association taken by them for the protection of her person, in a
manner bound them to some such act. This interpretation of their oath
utterly amazed and alarmed them, not from any special horror of such
a crime, but on account of their intimate knowledge of Elizabeth's
character. It was evident to them that her wish was to escape from
the responsibility of such an act, and that in the event of the crime
being committed, on them alone would fall the penalty.
[Footnote 93: See Appendix, p. 265--"The Queen of Scots."]
The unsigned warrant remained meanwhile in Davison's charge.
On the 1st of February, the Court being then at Greenwich, Lord
Howard (Lord High Admiral) sent for Davison by order of the
Queen. The latter arrived in haste, and after a few words with
the Admiral, returned to fetch the warrant, which he brought to
the Queen placed, as if by accident, with other papers. Elizabeth
commenced by speaking of indifferent matters, such as the beauty of
the weather, and then demanded what he held in his hand. Davison
replied that he had brought some documents which required the Queen's
signature, and among them a certain paper which he had fetched by
order of Lord Howard. Elizabeth signed the papers one after the
other, including the warrant, which she feigned not to perceive, and
threw it carelessly on the table with the rest. Her first intention,
apparently, had been to pretend that she had signed the warrant by
inadvertence, but suddenly changing her mind, she turned to Davison
and told him that she had only delayed so long in order to show her
extreme reluctance to sign the warrant. "Are you not distressed to
see me do this?" she said. To this curious question Davison replied
that he preferred the death of a guilty person to that of an innocent
one, and that he could not regret that Her Majesty had taken the only
means of protecting herself from the designs of her enemies.
Elizabeth smiled, and presently told Davison to take the warrant
to the Lord Chancellor that he might attach the great seal to it,
and transmit it to those designed to preside at its execution. The
Queen added that this must be done as secretly as possible, as,
if the matter were known before the day of execution, it might be
dangerous for her. "On the road," she added, with a sinister smile,
"you will visit Walsingham to show him the warrant. Ill as he is, I
fear the pain it will cause him will kill him outright." After this
bitter jest the Queen told Davison that the execution could not be
in public; it must not be even in the courtyard at Fotheringay, she
said, but must take place in the great hall on the ground-floor,
and added that she would be troubled no more about the matter. She
desired to hear nothing more till all was over. "For my part," added
Elizabeth, "I have done all that can be required of me by law or
reason."[94] While, however, Davison was collecting the papers before
retiring, the Queen spoke again, and for the first time disclosed
in full her real wishes. After complaining of the want of zeal of
Paulet and her other advisers, she thus continued: "Ought they not
better to understand the spirit of the association of which they are
members, and so relieve me of this enormous responsibility? Would
it not be better for me to risk personal danger than to take the
life of a relation? But if a loyal subject were to save me from the
embarrassment by dealing the blow, the resentment of France and
Scotland might be disarmed. Sir Amyas Paulet and Drury are members of
the association; cannot they so arrange that no blame shall attach to
me, if you and Walsingham come to an understanding and write to them
conjointly to sound their dispositions on the subject?"
[Footnote 94: Hosack, ii. 453. Chantelauze, pp. 368-371. Davison's
defence. _Life of Davison_, by Sir Henry Nicolas, etc.]
"It would be time lost," replied Davison; "it is certain that they
would refuse, as the statute only protects them so long as they act
under a formal order from your Majesty."
Elizabeth still insisted, and in a firm voice bade Davison see that
this matter was settled secretly, and promptly, as her own life was
being continually threatened with the greatest dangers.
Seeing that the Queen's mind was made up, Davison, after consulting
with Burleigh and Walsingham, composed the following letter, which
was sent the same day by a special messenger to Fotheringay:--
LETTER TO SIR AMYAS PAULET.[95]
[Footnote 95: Paulet's _Letter Books_, p. 359.]
After our hearty commendations, we find by speech lately
uttered by Her Majesty that she doth note in you both a
lack of that care and zeal of her service that she looketh
for at your hands, in that you have not in all this time
of yourselves (without other provocation) found out some
way to shorten the life of that Queen, considering the
great peril she [Elizabeth] is subject unto hourly, so
long as the said Queen shall live. Wherein, besides a kind
of lack of love towards her, she noteth greatly that you
have not that care of your own particular safeties, or
rather of the preservation of religion and the public good
and prosperity of your country, that reason and policy
commandeth, especially having so good a warrant and ground
for the satisfaction of your consciences towards God and
the discharge of your credit and reputation towards the
world, as the oath of association which you both have
so solemnly taken and vowed, and especially the matter
wherewith she [Mary] standeth charged being so clearly
and manifestly proved against her. And therefore she
[Elizabeth] taketh it most unkindly towards her, that
men professing that love towards her that you do, should
in any kind of sort, for lack of the discharge of your
duties, cast the burthen upon her, knowing as you do her
indisposition to shed blood, especially of one of that
sex and quality, and so near to her in blood as the said
Queen is. These respects we find do greatly trouble her
Majesty, who, we assure you, has sundry times protested
that if the regard of the danger of her good subjects and
faithful servants did not more move her than her own peril,
she would never be drawn to assent to the shedding of her
blood. We thought it very meet to acquaint you with these
speeches lately passed from Her Majesty, referring the
same to your good judgments. And so we commit you to the
protection of the Almighty.--Your most assured friends,
FRANCIS WALSINGHAM.
WILLIAM DAVISON.
_At_ LONDON, _1st February 1586._
A few hours after the despatch of this letter, Davison, who trembled
lest it should ever be made public, sent the following postscript by
a fresh messenger: "I pray you let this and the enclosed be committed
to the fire, which measure shall be likewise mete to your answer
after it hath been communicated to Her Majesty for her satisfaction."
And on the 3rd of February Davison sent another anxious reminder: "I
entreated you in my last to burn my letters sent unto you for the
argument sake, which, by your answer to Mr. Secretary (which I have
seen), appeareth not to have been done. I pray you let me entreat you
to make heretics of the one and the other, as I mean to use yours,
after Her Majesty hath seen it." This second urgent note was written
before Davison was aware how little "satisfaction" Paulet's answer
was likely to give his mistress. In fact the letter had been received
with horror and indignation by Paulet and his colleague.
Although we know by Paulet's own extravagant expressions of his
evident wishes for Mary's death, and while we may conclude with Mr.
Hosack that he sought his own safety in refusing the assassin's part
proposed to him, he apparently retained enough honourable feeling to
feel keenly the degradation implied in such a proposal, and sent at
once a manly and energetic refusal.
A. PAULET--D. DRURY.[96]
[Footnote 96: Paulet's _Letter Books_, p. 361.]
(A copy of a letter to Sir Francis Walsingham, of the 2nd
of February 1586, at six in the afternoon, being the answer
to a letter from him, the said Sir Francis, of the 1st
of February 1586, received at Fotheringay the 2nd day of
February, at five in the afternoon.)
Your letters of yesterday coming to my hands this present
day at five in the afternoon, I would not fail, according
to your directions, to return my answer with all possible
speed, which (_sic_) shall deliver unto you with great
grief and bitterness of mind, in that I am so unhappy to
have lived to see this unhappy day, in the which I am
required by direction from my most gracious sovereign
to do an act which God and the law forbiddeth. My good
livings and life are at Her Majesty's disposition, and
am ready to so lose them this next morrow if it shall so
please her, acknowledging that I hold them as of her mere
and most gracious favour, and do not desire them to enjoy
them, but with her Highness's good liking. But God forbid
that I should make so foul a shipwreck of my conscience,
or leave so great a blot to my poor posterity, to shed
blood without law or warrant. Trusting that Her Majesty, of
her accustomed clemency, will take this my dutiful answer
in good part (and the rather by your good mediation),
as proceeding from one who will never be inferior to
any Christian subject living in duty, honour, love, and
obedience towards his sovereign. And thus I commit you to
the mercy of the Almighty.--Your most assured poor friends,
A. PAULET.
D. DRURY.
_From_ FOTHERINGAY, _2nd February 1586._
Your letters coming in the plural number seem to be meant
as to Sir Drue Drury as to myself, and yet because he is
not named in them, neither the letter directed unto him, he
forbeareth to make any particular answer, but subscribeth
in heart to my opinion.
On the morning of 3rd February Elizabeth summoned Davison again to
her presence, and inquired sharply whether he had taken the warrant
of execution to the Chancellor. On his replying that he had done so,
the Queen, in a brusque and severe tone, asked why he had been in
such a hurry.
"I obeyed your Majesty's orders," timidly replied Davison, "and I
thought there should be no delay in an affair of so much importance."
"It is true," returned Elizabeth, "but it seems to me that there may
be a better and a surer way of ending the matter."
To which Davison answered, that as the execution was to take place,
the most honourable way was also the most sure.[97]
[Footnote 97: "2 Feb. Davison sent word to R.B. (Robert Beale) at 11
o'clock at night to meet him at Walsin'm's house next morning.
"3 R.B. went, and W'm. shewed him the Com. signed, and that he had
been appointed to carry it down. At a later time R.B. said unto Sir
Ch. Hatton and Sec. Davison that he doubted not but that H.M. was
resolved that the execution should be done, and the answer was that
he needed not to doubt thereof, seeing the commission under her hand
and the great seal of Eng., but that she would rather be therewith
well pleased."--Yelverton MSS., f. 224--Report by Mr. Henry Talbot,
third son of Earl of Shrewsbury.]
On leaving the Queen's presence, Davison, very anxious in mind,
hurried to acquaint Burleigh and Sir Christopher Hatton with his
suspicions. Burleigh was detained at home by the gout, but he sent
at once for all the members of the council. He was now determined
to act on his own responsibility; he had the warrant duly signed by
Elizabeth in his possession, yet he well remembered that she had
before twice signed and twice cancelled the warrant for the Duke of
Norfolk's execution. Burleigh was also well aware, as we know, of
the correspondence going on with Paulet, but he probably anticipated
Paulet's refusal; in any case he resolved to act without waiting for
his reply. When therefore his colleagues were assembled,[98] he laid
the signed warrant before them, informed them that their mistress
had now done all that the law required of her, and suggested that
it was now their duty to obey her without troubling her further. He
also suggested that in a matter of so grave importance it would be
well that all the members of the council should unite in sharing the
responsibility of the act, in case any question should arise later
regarding it. Burleigh's proposals were carried unanimously, and
it was determined that the warrant should be given to Beale, the
clerk of council, to be conveyed by him to the Earls of Kent and
Shrewsbury, who were appointed to see to its execution. Burleigh told
Beale that the matter required great speed and secrecy, as if known,
"H.M.'s life would be in hazard."[99]
[Footnote 98: "Davison and R.B. on their arrival had a meeting with
these,--the Treasurer, E. of Derby, E. of Leicester, Lds. Cobham,
Hunsden, Chamberlain, Vice-chamberlain, and Wolley."--Yelverton MSS.,
f. 224--Talbot's Report.]
[Footnote 99: No officer of the Chancery knew of the sealing of the
commission save the Chancellor and Davison.--Yelverton MSS., f. 224.]
Paulet's letter reached London on 4th February, but it was not
communicated to Elizabeth till the next day, Sunday. That morning the
Queen sent for Davison, on whom, owing to Walsingham's illness, fell
the unpleasing task of showing her the letter. At first the Queen
made no allusion to the subject. She related to him that she had
dreamed the previous night that she was punishing him for being the
cause of the death of the Queen of Scots, adding with a smile that
she had been so possessed by this dream that if she had had a sword
at hand she would have pierced him through with it. Davison, justly
alarmed at the Queen's sinister tone and ambiguous words, once more
asked her if she had decided to have the Queen of Scots executed or
not.
"Yes," cried she impetuously, but, she continued, "I do not like the
legal method, as upon me alone will fall all the responsibility;" and
as Davison repeated his objections to any other method, Elizabeth
shrugged her shoulders, and looking at him contemptuously, remarked
that "wiser men than he held a different opinion." Then suddenly
changing the subject, the Queen inquired if there had been any reply
from Paulet. When Davison, in fear and trembling, had presented
the letter, she read it with extreme indignation. Pacing the room
uneasily, she gave way to violent anger and disappointment, and
abused Paulet in no measured terms. He was no longer her "loving
Amyas," but one of those "dainty and precise" fellows who would
promise everything and perform nothing. Nay, more, he was a perjurer;
for had he not subscribed the bond of association, by which he
obliged himself, at the hazard of his life, to save his Queen? "But,"
added Elizabeth, "I can do without him; I have Wingfield, who will
not draw back."
For the next few days Elizabeth made no further sign. She maintained
an absolute reserve on the subject which was torturing her till the
morning of the day of execution, when, throwing off the mask, she
told Davison that it was time this ended, adding with a terrible oath
that it was a shame for her ministers that the affair was not yet
terminated. Her ministers had indeed ended all, as she was soon to
learn.[100]
[Footnote 100: See Chantelauze, pp. 371-379.]
As soon as Beale had received the warrant he started for
Fotheringay.[101] Yet the question of the manner of Mary's death
was even still undecided, as we learn by the following curious facts
now first brought to light: "When R.B. (Robert Beale) was come to
Fotheringay, he understood from Sir A. Paulet and Sir Drue Drury
that they had been dealt with by a letter if they could have been
induced to suffer her to have been violently smothered by some that
should have been appointed for that purpose. But they disliked that
course as dishonourable and dangerous, and so did R.B., and therefore
thought it convenient to have it done by law in such sort as they
might justify their doings by law."[102] And here Beale adds in his
own hand the following: "One Wingfield (as it was thought) should
have been appointed for this deed, and it seemed that H.M. would
have had it done so rather than otherwise, pretending that Archibald
Douglas, the Sco. Ambassador, had so advised her. Of all her
councillors it is thought that the Earl of Leicestre did most exhort
her unto this course, but both the secretaries misliked thereof, and
so did Sir Amis Paulet and Sir Drue Drury. H.M. would fain have had
it so, alledging the association whereby men seemed bound to such a
thing and promising pardon. But the matter being in consideration at
R.B. being at Fotheringay by the example of Edward II. and Richard
II., it was not thought convenient or safe to proceed covertly but
openly, according to the statute."[103]
[Footnote 101: "To divert attention from R.B. leaving London, a
commission was given to him to go into Herts, Bedf., etc., to hear
hues and cries."--Yelverton MSS., f. 224.]
[Footnote 102: Report sent up by Mr. Henry Talbot, third son of Earl
of Shrewsbury. Yelverton MSS., f. 31.]
[Footnote 103: Yelverton MSS. 31, f. 529. See Queen Mary's words at
chap. viii. p. 159.]
Walsingham had taken upon himself all the arrangements with the
executioner, telling Beale "that he would take order to send down the
hangman (Bull) and his instrument by George Digby, his servant....
He was hired by one Anthony Hall, a Londoner, servant under the sd.
Mr. Secretary, and then dwelling without Bishops Gate, who afterwards
reported unto the said R.B. (Robert Beale) and others, that he
agreed with him for £10 for his labour." Walsingham sent Digby first
to Sir Walter Mildmay, begging him to lodge the executioner at his
house Apthorpe, distant but two miles from Fotheringay. But Sir
Walter,--and we are not surprised to learn it,--"misliked therof,"
and he was eventually lodged "in an inn at Fotheringay, kept secretly
until the day."[104] Walsingham had announced Bull's arrival to
Paulet in these terms: "I send down the executioner by a trusty
servant of mine, who will be at Fotheringay upon Sunday at night. His
instrument is put in a trunk, and he passeth as a serving-man. There
is great care taken to have the matter pass in secresy"[105] (signed
London, 3rd February).
[Footnote 104: MSS. folio 525, Yelverton; Lord Calthorpe. Note in
Beale's hand.]
[Footnote 105: MSS. folio 533. Lord Walsingham to Paulet by Digby,
3rd February.]
After informing the Earl of Kent of his duty on the way, Beale had
reached Fotheringay on Sunday evening, 5th February, where he showed
his commission to Paulet and Drury, and the next day he hastened to
communicate it to the Earl of Shrewsbury, who was staying in the
neighbourhood. That same evening Beale returned to the castle to dine
with Paulet, accompanied by several persons who were to be present
at the execution--among them was Dr. Fletcher, Dean of Peterborough.
And here let us pause on the eve of the day which brought the fatal
tidings to Queen Mary. If Elizabeth was troubled in mind, and haunted
with remorse, Mary, on the contrary, awaited in absolute calm and
resignation the end of her life of sorrows.[106]
[Footnote 106: Beale's note continues thus: "Wherefore the speech
delivered to the Sc. Queen the day before her death was, that the
Earls had a message to deliver unto her from H. Mty., which she
should understand by the commission under H. Mty's. hand and great
seal openly shewed and read. And for that purpose the commission was
also openly read upon the scaffold, and divers gentlemen's hands
taken unto a declaration of the manner of her execution, the original
wherof remaineth with the E. of Shrewsbury."]