THE LAST DAYS OF MARY STUART
[Illustration: _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
CHAPTER I
PAGE
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 1
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 28
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 56
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 82
CHAPTER V
Queen Mary's letter to Mendoza the Spanish Ambassador informing
him of the sentence of death, her submission to it, and her
references to Paulet's treatment of her—Her letter to Mendoza,
21st May 1586—Her remarkable letter to the Archbishop of
Glasgow asserting her innocence of every charge against her,
and her rebuke to the commissioners “that she would die a
Queen in spite of them”—Her letter to Elizabeth with her
requests regarding her death and interment—The Commendator of
Pittenweem and King James—Letter of Bellievre, Chancellor of
France, to Mary, 14th December 1586—The graphic interview of
Bellievre and Chateauneuf with Elizabeth, when they demanded
of her with a threat to spare Mary's life, or take the
consequences—Elizabeth loses her temper 106
CHAPTER VI
Proclamation by the Queen of England announcing Queen Mary's
death—Elizabeth instructs Paulet to deliver Queen Mary to
the Sheriff of Northampton—Memorial from Walsingham with
instructions for the execution and interment—Unfinished paper
by Lord Burghley on Mary's execution—Letter from King James to
Elizabeth requesting her to spare his mother's life—Sir Robert
Melville and the Master of Gray wait on her and petition for
Mary's life—Extraordinary commission by Elizabeth to the Earls
of Shrewsbury and Kent to execute the Scottish Queen—Letter by
Queen Mary to Henry III.; being the last letter she ever wrote 132
CHAPTER VII
BOURGOYNE'S JOURNAL
The sham Stag Hunt—The Queen starts in gleeful spirits, fully
equipped and attended by her household—The shadow of Elizabeth
suddenly appears, and the Stag Hunt is no more—Seizure of Queen
Mary's personal attendants—Mary demands to know where they
are taking her—She dismounts, and refuses to proceed—Paulet's
insolence—Bourgoyne induces her to obey Paulet and proceed—She
retires and offers up prayer—Bourgoyne helps her to remount—She
is taken to Tixall—Refused pen, ink, and paper by Paulet—Her
papers and cabinets seized at Chartley—She is brought back
to Chartley—Paulet and Bagot in her bedchamber without
leave—Paulet seizes her money and reopens the Babington Plot—He
removes her from Chartley to Fotheringay—The remarkable
procession and arrival at Burton 159
CHAPTER VIII
Gorges again attacks Mary about Elizabeth's life—Mary's
sharp response, and Gorges silenced—Procession sets out
from Burton and reaches Hill Hall Castle; next day it
reaches Leicester—People there hostile to Paulet—Arrival
at Fotheringay—Mary's dissatisfaction with it—Interview
with Paulet—Paulet and Elizabeth's insolence—Arrival of
the commissioners—They attend prayers—Elizabeth's insolent
letter to Mary—Mary's interview with Mildmay, Paulet, and
others, official report—Elizabeth's reply—Lord Chancellor
and commissioners visit Mary in her chamber—Burghley's
overbearing attitude and speech—She refuses to recognise their
authority—The second interview, when she is too many for
them—Third interview, when Mary delivers an eloquent speech in
her defence and exposes the duplicity and false character of
Elizabeth 185
CHAPTER IX
The Queen and the Commissioners at Fotheringay—Letter Babington
to Queen Mary, July 1586—Letter Queen Mary to Babington, 17th
July 1586 212
CHAPTER X
Paulet and the Queen discuss the situation—Arrival of Lord
Buckhurst—Buckhurst, Paulet, Drury, and Beale have an audience
of the Queen—Elizabeth's insolent message—Mary's vigorous
reply—Debate between the Queen and Beale—Text of Mary's
famous letter to Elizabeth, 19th December 1586—The Drury and
Melville interview—Mary demands delivery of her papers—Paulet's
duplicity—Mary's opinion of Nau—Melville, Bourgoyne, and Prean
separated finally from her in spite of remonstrance 241
CHAPTER XI
Mary prohibited from writing Elizabeth—She surrenders her
life to God, and is willing to die—Paulet still insolent—The
Queen remonstrates with him—She thinks they will murder her
secretly—Denied the use of a priest—Paulet resents secret
murder—Mary's dignities—The daïs and rod discontinued—Paulet
and Melville quarrel—Arrival of the Sheriff and the
Earls of Kent and Shrewsbury—She receives them in her
bedchamber—Shrewsbury announces sentence of death; to take
place next morning—Mary's calm and pathetic reply—Takes leave
of her servants: gives them her blessing and distributes
presents to them—She writes her will—Names of those to be
present at her death—Her last words and the scene of execution
as recorded by Bourgoyne—Author's summing up and conclusion 265
CHAPTER XII
APPENDIX
Description of Queen Mary's first Parliament—Queen Mary's
Proclamation anent religion—Her second Proclamation anent
religion—Her third Proclamation anent religion—Declaration
as to religion by Mary and Darnley—Text of her fabricated
abdication—Procuratory signed compulsorily—Plots for her
liberation—Text of letters in handwriting of Phillips:—
Queen Mary to Charles Paget, 20th May 1586
Charles Paget to Queen Mary, 29th May "
Queen Mary to Charles Paget, 27th July "
Queen Mary to Mendoza, 27th July "
Queen Mary's mottoes and devices, with translations
Queen Mary's Will 287
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS _Frontispiece_
From a Painting in possession of the Earl of Morton.
MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS page 17
Watson Gordon Portrait.
MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS 31
From the Painting in Edinburgh Castle (by permission
of Frank C. Inglis).
MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS 60
From the collection of Lord Elphinstone, at Carberry Tower.
SIR FRANCIS WALSINGHAM, SECRETARY TO QUEEN ELIZABETH 90
BELLIEVRE, THE FRENCH AMBASSADOR WHO SILENCED QUEEN ELIZABETH 126
By permission of Braun, Clément & Cie.
MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS 151
From the collection of Mrs. Fraser-Tytler, at Woodhouselee.
MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS 180
From the collection of Sir James Drummond, at Hawthornden.
WILLIAM CECIL, LORD BURGHLEY 211
From the Hatfield collection.
MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS 240
From the collection of Randolph Wemyss, Esq., of Wemyss Castle.
GEORGE TALBOT, SIXTH EARL OF SHREWSBURY 271
From the collection of the present Earl.
MARY BETON, ONE OF THE QUEEN'S MARIES 300
From the collection of Major Bethune, of Balfour.
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.”
[Illustration: 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.