(_For the Mirror_.)
The ensuing letter, though very short, discloses one or two instances
connected with a subject of unfading interest--the death of Mary Queen
of Scots. It need hardly be stated, says an able writer on this subject,
that Queen Elizabeth's conduct with respect to the execution of Mary was
a mixture of unrelenting cruelty, despicable cowardice, and flagitious
hypocrisy; that whilst it was the dearest wish of her heart to deprive
her kinswoman of her existence, she attempted to remove the odium of the
act from herself, by endeavouring to induce those to whose custody she
was intrusted to assassinate their prisoner; that when she found she
could not succeed, she commanded the warrant to be forwarded; and that
when she knew it was too late to recall it, asserted that she never
intended it should be carried into execution, threw herself into a
paroxysm of affected rage and grief, upbraided her counsellors, and
first imprisoned and then sacrificed the fortunes of her poor secretary,
Davison, one of her most virtuous servants, as a victim to her own fame,
and the resentment of the King of Scots. These damning facts in the
character of Elizabeth are too well known to require to be dilated on;
they have eclipsed the few noble actions of her life, and remain
indelible spots on her reputation as a woman and a sovereign. But we
learn from this letter the humiliating effects made by her ministers
to appease her fury, and her implacable resolution to overwhelm the
unfortunate Davison with the effect of her assumed, or perhaps real
repentance. In his apology, that statesman informs us, that on the
Friday after Mary's execution, namely, on the 10th of February, arriving
at the court he learnt the manner in which the queen had expressed
herself relative to the event; but being advised to "_absent himself for
a day or two_," and being, moreover, extremely ill, he left the court,
and returned to London. Woolley's communication being dated on _Sunday_,
(the manuscript is so excessively badly written as to be almost
illegible,) shows that Elizabeth did not summon her council, and evince
her displeasure at their conduct, until Saturday, the 13th of February,
two days after she was informed of Mary's fate. Davison had been
attacked with a stroke of the palsy shortly before, and all he says of
his committal is, that he was not sent to the Tower until Tuesday the
14th, on account of his illness; though some days previous (probably on
Saturday the 10th) the queen assembled her council.
This letter also exhibits a specimen of Leicester's characteristic
meanness; for notwithstanding that he was a party to the act of
forwarding the warrant for Mary's death, as his name occurs among those
of the council who signed the letters to the Earl of Shrewsbury, the earl
marshal, and to the Earl of Kent, both of which were dated on the 3rd of
February, 1586-7, commanding them to cause it to be put into execution,
he took care to withdraw from court before Elizabeth performed the roll,
which has so justly excited the scorn of posterity. It may be also
remarked, as another example of the official duplicity of the period,
that Sir Francis Walsingham likewise affected not to have been concerned
in the affair of dispatching the warrant, as in his letter to Lord
Thulstone, the secretary to King James, dated at Greenwich, on the 4th of
March, 1586-7, less than a month afterwards, he says, "_Being absent from
court_ when the late execution of the queen, your sovereign mother,
happened," though we find that he signed both the letters just mentioned.