THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE QUEEN OF SCOTS.
Replying to the accusations brought against her, Mary did not deny that,
having given up hope of being liberated by Elizabeth, she had treated
with foreign powers for her deliverance; but she protested that she had
never consented to the assassination of Elizabeth, and that she would
rather remain all her life in prison than stain her conscience with that
crime. Nor can I see that any evidence had been produced to prove that
she did. Her intercepted letter in reply to Babington, in which she was
said to have sanctioned the projected murder of Elizabeth, was not
exhibited at the trial. Here we find the same shuffling as in the case
of the Casket Letters. If her accusers had decisive proof of her guilt,
why did they not give her a fair trial, and employ those means which
would make her guilt evident? Babington, instead of being kept as a
witness, was put to death. Her two secretaries, who had been terrified
into testifying to something,--what exactly they did testify we cannot
be certain,--were kept out of the way, and never confronted with their
mistress. Her letter on which the case depended had been written in
cipher; yet the original in cipher was shown neither to her secretaries
nor to herself, but only what was passed off as a translation of it into
French. But what need of this traffic in second-hand documents, if the
original, which would settle all dispute, could be safely exposed to the
light of investigation? Neither the strained dialectics of a Hume, nor
the brilliant rhetoric of a Froude, can avail against the force of
argument springing from Walsingham's determination not to exhibit the
original documents. Mary had been charged with being party to a plot
for the murder of Elizabeth, and her correspondence with Babington was
made the basis of evidence against her. Hence common justice demanded
that the correspondence should be taken, as far as possible, at first
hand. Yet, Walsingham and Philipps, although they had in their
possession, at least, a minute in Mary's own hand of her last answer to
Babington and the same cast into the form of a letter in French by Nau,
made use of what they alleged was a copy of that incriminating answer.
Mary denied that she had ever dictated the words of Philipps' decipher
in reference to the murder of Elizabeth. Philipps, the associate of
Walsingham, and the bitter enemy of Mary, went sponsor for the
correctness of the decipher. The trial therefore was reduced to a
contest between the veracity of Mary and the veracity of Philipps. It
is hardly to be doubted that, guilty or not guilty, Mary would have
disowned the authorship of the compromising clauses. But if her denial
was worthless as evidence of her innocence, the assertion of a forger in
the employ of her enemies was likewise worthless as evidence of her
guilt. Why, then, were not the original papers laid before the
commissioners, that she might be reduced to silence by the evidence of
her own and of her secretary's handwriting? Shall we be asked to believe
that Walsingham, if he had all he needed in the original, would have had
recourse to a copy? Indeed, Mary's letter, as it has reached us through
Philipps and Walsingham, presents an incoherence of parts which, even if
every other reason were wanting, would render its genuineness extremely
doubtful. The argument founded on this incoherence has been frequently
used, but its strength remains unimpaired. Mary orders that nothing
shall be done towards releasing her from prison until Elizabeth is
murdered. Four horsemen are to be kept in readiness to immediately
inform her that this has been accomplished. Then she is to be set at
liberty, but care must be taken that the army prepared to receive her,
or the stronghold destined to shelter her, be such as will render her
person secure, for (she writes) "it were sufficient excuse given to that
queen in catching me again, to enclose me in some hold, out of which I
should never escape, if she did use me no worse." This precaution
against the revenge of Elizabeth is quite natural, and just what we
should expect from Mary in her letter to Babington; but it would be
inconceivable and absurd if Mary had already made provision that
Elizabeth should first of all be murdered. Had Philipps forged the
entire letter, he would not have committed this blunder, but even an
expert may reveal his identity when he attempts to interpolate a lengthy
document.
It will avail but little to insist that there remains what Froude calls
the "positive proof of two very credible witnesses" in support of the
charge against the Scottish queen. These "very credible witnesses" were
Mary's secretaries, Nau and Curle; and the "positive proof" was their
subscription to a "copy"--that ever recurring "copy"--of Mary's
deciphered answer to Babington's last letter, which had been wrung from
them in circumstances little calculated to enhance its value.
Since their forced separation from Mary at Chartley, they had been
carefully guarded and accurately learned the nature of the evidence
which they were expected to give. On the 20th. September, Babington and
six of his associates were made a ghastly and terrifying spectacle to
every weak-hearted friend of Mary's. "They were all hanged but for a
moment, according to the letter of the sentence, taken down while the
susceptibility of agony was unimpaired, and cut in pieces afterwards,
with due precautions for the protraction of pain."[#]
[#] Froude, "History of England," Vol. XII., Chap. 69.
The third day following, while this ominous lesson of vengeance was
fresh in every mind, the two secretaries were forced to ratify by their
oath the testimony which they had already given (Sept. 5th) to the
correctness of the "copy." The testimony which they now ratified had
been appended to the copy in these words:--"_Telle ou semblable me
semble avoir este la reponse escripte en francoys par monsieur Nau,
laquelle J'ay traduict et mis en chiffre.--Gilbert Curle._" "_Je pense
de vray que c'est la lettre escripte par sa Majeste a Babington, come il
me souvient.--Nau._" "This letter or one like it appears to me to have
been the answer written in French by monsieur Nau, which I translated
and put into cipher.--Gilbert Curle."
"I think in truth that this is the letter written by Her Majesty to
Babington, _as far as I can remember_.--Nau."
These equivocal testimonies contain the force of all the evidence
produced against Mary. It is unnecessary to point out the impossibility
of resting a conviction upon them. That is clear to every intelligent
reader acquainted with the circumstances in which they were obtained and
with the history of the prosecution as already summarily indicated, up
to this point. The phrases "_this or one like it,_" "_as well as I can
remember,_" insignificant as they might seem if employed in the absence
of compulsion, will in their present connection strike every reflecting
mind as the feeble devices of men striving to hold a safe course between
the Scylla and the Charibdis of perjury and the rack.
Whether Mary would or would not accept an offer of deliverance that
involved the life of Elizabeth, is a purely speculative question, which
does not affect the nature of the evidence produced against her. This,
however, may be observed, that nearly four years earlier, when a
conspiracy similar to the Babington plot against the life of Elizabeth
was being organized by some of her friends on the Continent, she, on
being acquainted of it, "refused," (so wrote the Papal Nuncio at Paris
to the Cardinal of Como), "to listen to it." But, when hope in
Elizabeth's good intentions completely failed, and increased rigour
deepened the misery of her prison-life, reasons which had hitherto
seemed inadequate might now convince her that she was not obliged to
live with the axe of the executioner or the dagger of the assassin,
raised over her head because liberty could be brought to her only
through the blood of her jailer.