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.
On the 16th August, what may be called the kidnapping of the Queen took
place, and reference is made to Bourgoyne, pp. 160-70, for details.
It will be observed how adroitly Gorges, a subaltern of Elizabeth's,
suddenly stopped the Queen and delivered one of Elizabeth's insolent
messages, charging her with the violation of an agreement which never
existed and with a conspiracy against Elizabeth's life in which
Elizabeth herself was known to be involved. This was her pretext for
her treatment of the Scottish Queen, and ordering her servants to
be seized and separated from her. Mary indignantly replied, “Far
from having conspired against the Queen, I have never even had such
a thought.” This availed nothing, and her followers were thereupon
apprehended. The “Stag-hunt” manœuvre was successful in enticing
her away from Chartley, and affording Paulet and his satellites
an opportunity of carrying out the kidnapping plot and afterwards
breaking into her private apartments in her absence, forcing open
her cabinets, and carrying away her papers, letters, and all private
documents. Bourgoyne tells the story at considerable length, and a
pitiable story it is. Then when she discovered they were not returning
to Chartley, that she was in fact being kidnapped, she sat down on the
road and refused to remount her horse till she knew where she was being
taken. Her offering up prayer under an adjoining tree, supported by
Bourgoyne and Elizabeth Curle, is one of the most pathetic incidents
of her life, and we are indebted to Bourgoyne for the narrative and
for the words of the prayer which he has given from memory. We cannot
realise at this distance of time the overwhelming agony of the poor
captive bereft of her friends and attendants, held prisoner by a
tyrant; being kidnapped and taken she knew not where, alike ignorant
whether life or death awaited her. No one need be surprised that in
such circumstances she appealed to the Almighty. Bourgoyne stood by
her and rendered her noble support. He immediately discussed the
situation with Paulet, and evidently made some impression on the heart
of that heartless individual. It drew from Paulet the expression that
the Queen would experience no harm. Paulet in an arbitrary manner
took her confidential and devoted attendants from her: Nau and Curle,
Melville and Bourgoyne. These were arrested and not allowed any more to
accompany her; in short, Nau and Curle never saw her again. There is
an important discovery brought to light here, namely, that the Queen
had at this date lost all confidence in her secretary Nau because he
had become unfaithful and disloyal to her. His conduct after he was
taken to London was not only that of a traitor, but he actually made to
Walsingham the most unfounded accusations against her.
After the kidnapping of the Queen, one of Elizabeth's attendants named
Nicasino Yetsweirt wrote Walsingham on 21st August informing him that
Elizabeth approved the order taken for the safe custody of Nau and
Curle, and the things that Gorges and Wade had charge of, besides
caskets with writings:—
“Her Majesty was anxious to have those caskets safely brought, and she
was informed that a discreet person was despatched to assist Gorges and
Wade in their charge. She was not satisfied with that, and would have
you to provide yet better herein, and specially that the caskets might
be brought under sure conduct and by sure persons, for Her Highness
attaches more importance to them and their contents than to Nau and
Curle. Little she esteemeth them in comparison with the caskets.
[Illustration: MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS.
_From the Painting in Edinburgh Castle._
(By permission of FRANK C. INGLIS.)]
“The French Ambassador and Monsieur Deshcool, who is come out of
Scotland, had audience today, and Her Majesty said she never saw a man
more perplexed than the Ambassador when he was about to speak. Every
joint in his body did shake and his countenance changed, and specially
when this intended enterprise was mentioned by her. Whereupon, seeming
to take more heart to himself, he said, 'I would have moved some suite
unto you, but I see your Majesty is somewhat troubled with these
_jeunes follastres_ (young fools) that are apprehended.' 'Yea,' said
Her Majesty, 'they are such _jeunes follastres_ as some of them may
spend ten and twenty thousand francs of Rentes and it may be that there
are some who may spend more.' Her Majesty seemeth afraid that this
Ambassador might devise some mischievous means to disturb the quiet and
sure bringing up of these men, and the things just rescued, whereupon
she desired me to warn you that special care be taken thereof.”
This letter forms a link in the chain of the kidnapping outrage and
shows the hand of Elizabeth as presumably the head of it. Nau and Curle
were sent under a guard to London (Westminster Palace Prison). From
that prison they witnessed on 20th September the cruel execution of
Babington and one-half of his companions in Palace Yard, including
Savage and Ballard; the other half were executed the following day at
Tyburn. They admitted ciphering three letters to Babington from minutes
alleged to have been written by Queen Mary. On Phillips' decipherment
of the one dated 17th July, they said it was the same or like it, and
signed an attestation to that effect. Nau, however, privily wrote
a narrative of Mary's proceedings in the matter, fully exonerating
himself and her from ever practising against Elizabeth's life. This
he succeeded in getting delivered into Elizabeth's own hands, to
the surprise and displeasure of Burghley, to whom it was shown by
her. Burghley endorsed the narrative (contemptuously), “Nau's long
declaration of things of no importance, sent privately to the Queen's
Majesty.” In another endorsement suspicion is expressed as to how Nau
got this letter put into Elizabeth's hands. Surprise should rather
have been expressed that Elizabeth, having received such a letter,
should have proceeded with the execution of her royal captive. Nau,
from his influential position of private secretary to Queen Mary, was
able to speak with authority on this point, and it was the first duty
of the English Queen after receiving such a letter to make a searching
investigation into the circumstances and find out the truth. If Mary
was innocent, she ought to have been released on the spot. Nothing
evidently would induce Elizabeth to liberate her. This letter was
disregarded and the bogus indictment against Mary was proceeded with as
if no such letter had been written.
On 24th August 1586 Paulet wrote Walsingham touching on the outrage
of 16th August, desiring instructions as to the disposal of Nau and
Curle's servants and the removal of Mary to Chartley. This letter is of
no moment save as forming part of the record of that event:—
“Forasmuch as you required me by order from Elizabeth to acquaint
her of what hath passed between this lady (Queen Mary) and me in the
execution of the late charge, as also how she hath behaved herself
since the apprehension of her secretaries, I have considered that the
sooner I performed this duty the better it would be, and therefore I
send to you enclosed my letter to Her Highness (Elizabeth). You will
consider what shall be done with Nau's servant, who is of this country
and came to his service from Pierrepont, and with Curle's servant, who
is a Scot, they both being now unnecessary.
“Touching the residue of the Scottish family, I will send you a note of
their names and charges, so that you may consider as to removing as you
shall think proper.
“It is intended that this lady (Queen Mary) shall remove to Chartley
to-morrow, where this household can have no long continuance without
imminent danger and extreme charge to Her Majesty in many things this
winter, as provision has not been made beforehand. I hear of traitors
that are carried towards you every day—God be thanked for it.
“From Tixall, 24th August 1586.”
Walsingham's letter to Paulet under date 5th September was in the
following terms:—
“Her Majesty continues her firm resolution to have that lady's money
seized and her servants divided from her, as you may perceive by the
enclosed extract of a letter I received this morning from Mr. Wade; and
therefore, her pleasure being thus, I do not see why you should any
longer forbear the putting of the same into execution. If afterwards
inconveniences happen therefor, Her Majesty can blame none but herself.
“I am now absent from court by reason of inflammation in my leg grown
of the pain of a boil, and therefore I cannot debate the matter with
Her Majesty as I would. This afternoon the Lord Chancellor, the Lord
Treasurer, and the Vice-Chamberlain meet at London. You shall be
advised of the resolution that will be taken either for the removing of
that lady to Fotheringay or bringing her directly hither to the Tower.”
Enclosure accompanying the foregoing letter:—
“Points to be considered in the proceedings against the Queen of Scots:
“Whether any tho ... ys ought to be on publication of the commission.
“Whether the accusation shall be by writing or _ore tenne_, and by whom.
“If she will not answer.
“If she will require counsel.
“If she will require time to answer.
“If she will require to come to the Parliament House.
“If she will require to hear the accusers.
“Whether it shall be convenient to admit the accusers to maintain the
accusation upon their voluntary oath, being partakers in the accusation
being criminal.
“Whether the commission may not be adjourned to any place to finish the
sentence.
“Whether any entry or record shall be made of the proceedings, and
whether in Latin or English.
“Whether she shall be dealt with by the name of Mary, late Queen of
Scots, or by what name.
“Whether the sentence must be given there or upon an adjournment to any
other place.”
The kidnapping having been carried out and completed, Elizabeth before
the end of August sent the following fulsome expression of gratitude
to Paulet for the manner in which he had done his duty. The text of
this curious letter is evidently founded on the material introduced by
Walsingham into Mary's letter to Babington of 17th July. Elizabeth,
there is reason to believe, knew about this and was responsible along
with Walsingham for the consequences. No such language was ever before
or since applied to the Queen of Scots:—
“Amias, my most faithful and careful servant, God reward thee
treblefold in three double, for thy most troublesome charge so well
discharged; if you knew (my Amias) how kindly besides dutifully my
grateful heart accepteth and praiseth your spotless action, your wise
orders, and safe regards, performed in so dangerous and crafty a
charge, it would ease your travails and rejoice your heart; in which I
charge you to carry this most just thought, that I cannot balance in
any weight of my judgment the value that I prize you at, and suppose
no treasure to countervail such a faith, and shall condemn myself in
that fault which yet I never committed if I reward not such deserts,
yea let me lack when I most need if I acknowledge not such a merit
with a reward. _Non omnibus est datum._ Let your wicked murderess know
how with hearty sorrow her vile deserts compel these orders, and bid
her from me ask God's forgiveness for her treacherous dealings towards
the saver of her life, many a year, to the intolerable peril of her
own; and yet not contented with so many forgivenesses, must fall again
so horrible, far passing a woman's thought much less a Princess. And
instead of excusing (whereof not one can serve, it being so plainly
confessed by the author of my innocent death) let repentance take
place, and let the fiend possess her, so as her better part be lost,
which I pray for with hands lifted up to Him that may both save and
spill.—With my most loving adieu and prayers for thy long life, your
most assured and loving Sovereign,
“ELIZABETH R.”
This letter, which is a further development of Elizabeth's policy, was
immediately followed by one from Walsingham to Paulet dated 25th August
intimating the Queen's great commendation of him and approving the
proposal of removing the Scottish Queen back to Chartley, but she is
to be treated as a prisoner. It will be noticed in all this that Lord
Burghley is conspicuous by his absence, Elizabeth and Walsingham being
solely responsible for Mary's treatment at this period:—
“Gorges and Wade came safely to London on Sunday at night with their
several charges, and Her Majesty is marvellously well satisfied with
the care and endeavours that you have exercised in the search of the
house (Chartley). She approves of removing your charge to Chartley for
the reasons you give of the strength of the house and the easing the
country of their continual watches. But upon report made by Wade of
the unsoundness of the country, Her Majesty meaneth that your charge
(the Queen of Scots) shall be shortly conveyed to some other place,
and not there remain with so much liberty as she enjoyeth, but in the
state of a prisoner attended only with few persons, such as she must
have of necessity. Therefore Her Majesty would have you to consider
to what number the said persons may be restricted. I mean to know Her
Majesty's pleasure touching the priest whom in the meanwhile you have
done well to detain in Gresley's house. And you shall also know what
is to be done with young Pierrepont and Melville. For young Pasquier,
Her Majesty would have you send him here under sure guard such as to
you shall seem convenient, because it is supposed he was privy to the
writing of those letters that were in cypher.”
During Mary's captivity Elizabeth committed a series of crimes or
cruelties against her, but these pale into insignificance as against
the kidnapping outrage and the final scene at Fotheringay. In all
the circumstances, what is there to excuse or explain this policy?
In vain will the student of history investigate the matter, for
explanation there is none. Elizabeth resolved that the time had
come when the Scottish Queen should be removed to the place of her
destruction—Fotheringay. Lord Burghley, who now appears on the scene,
and Walsingham, were intrusted with the management and execution of the
scheme which was to become the greatest tragedy in English history.
These men on 26th August instructed Paulet as follows:—
“The Queen's Majesty, on information given to her by Wade, has
resolved to have the Queen your charge removed to some other place
of more safety, and for that purpose hath thought upon Fotheringay
Castle in Northamptonshire, and asks us to consider of such things as
are necessary for the removal. We have directed Sir Walter Mildmay
to inspect the said castle and certify us of the state thereof, and
how the household may be furnished with necessary provisions and wood
and coal, and with a suitable quantity of beer from some brewer in
the town of Fotheringay or otherwise. You will likewise send either
Darell or some other apt person thither, accompanied with one of the
wardrobe, to consider in what sort the stuffs and hangings that are
now with you may furnish some convenient lodging for the Queen. It is
not meant that she shall henceforth have that scope and liberty that
heretofore she has enjoyed, but remain in the state of a prisoner, with
some regard nevertheless to her degree and quality. Other particulars
wherein we desire to be informed we have set down in the enclosed
articles, wherein we pray you that you will reply immediately. What
number of servants both of men and women will be sufficient to attend
upon the Queen of Scots' person being kept as a prisoner, and how many
of those that she hath attendant now upon her may be spared? The names
and quality as well of such as shall attend as of such as are to be
dismissed to be set down.
“How she is furnished of coach and litters for the removal both of
herself and those who shall attend upon her.
“In how many days the removal from Chartley to Fotheringay may be
performed (it is thought here that the readiest way is by Leicester),
having regard to the sickly state of her body.
“What well-affected gentlemen there are between Chartley and
Fotheringay who have convenient houses to lodge the said Queen, wherein
Sir Walter Mildmay's advice shall be used.
“Whether it shall not be convenient for her to stay two or three days
in Leicestershire or in some convenient place in Northamptonshire until
the said house may be put in readiness, wherein Sir Walter's advice is
also to be used, by sending some discreet person from you to him.
“Under what guard she should be conveyed until she comes into
Leicestershire, where the country being sound you shall need the less
assistance.
“If you are furnished with money for this removal, and if not what sum
you will require. There is now orders given for your man to receive
£600 or £700 here at London. You are to decide how soon she should be
removed.”
In continuation of this correspondence we have the following
communication dated the succeeding day from Paulet to Walsingham
referring to the removal of the Queen from Sir Walter Aston's house at
Tixall to Chartley conducted by Sir Walter, Mr. Gresley, Mr. Chetwynd,
and others; the Queen's visit to Curle's wife and baptizing Curle's
child:—
“This lady was removed hither on the 25th of this month by Sir Walter
Aston, Mr. Bagott, Mr. Gresley, Mr. Littleton, Mr. Chetwynd, and
others to the number of one hundred and forty horses at the least. At
the coming out of Sir Walter Aston's gate she said with a low voice,
weeping, to some poor folks who were there assembled, 'I have nothing
for you; I am a beggar as well as you; all is taken from me,' and when
she came to the gentlemen she said, weeping, 'Good gentlemen, I am not
witting or privy to anything intended against the Queen.' She visited
Curle's wife (who was delivered of child in her absence) before she
went to her own chamber, bidding her to be of good comfort, and that
she would answer for her husband in all things that might be objected
against him. Curle's child remaining unchristened, and the priest
removed before the arrival of this lady, she desired that my minister
might baptize the child with such godfathers and godmothers as I would
procure, so as the child might bear her name. This being refused, she
came shortly after into Curle's wife's chamber, and laying the child on
her knee, she took water out of the basin, and casting it upon the face
of the child said, 'Mary, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost,' calling the child by her own name Mary. This
may not be found strange in her who maketh no conscience to break the
laws of God and man.
“At the coming hither Mr. Darell delivered the keys as well of her
chamber as of her coffers to Bastian, which he refused by direction
from his mistress, who required Mr. Darell to open her chamber door,
which he did; and then this lady, finding that her papers were taken
away, said in great choler that two things could not be taken from
her: her English blood and her Catholic religion, which both she would
keep until her death, adding further these words: 'Some of you will be
sorry for it,' meaning the taking away of her papers. I was not present
when these words were spoken, but no doubt they reached me, in what
sense she only knoweth. I may be sorry for others, but I know there is
nothing in her papers that can give me cause to be sorry for myself.
I am deceived also that she is not hasty to see me or speak with me,
only she sent to know if I would convey her letter to Her Majesty,
which I refused, saying that no letters should pass out of this house
without orders from above. She made the like request at Sir Walter
Aston's house, which I also refused and desired your direction thereon.
I received yours of the 25th, by which you continue to increase my joy
by your report of Her Majesty's gracious acceptance of my unworthy
services. God be thanked that so many of the principal conspirators are
apprehended, and God make us thankful for his singular mercies.”
It is possible Paulet did not know of the interpolations on Queen
Mary's letters. He was evidently outside the select circle which
carried them out. The close of this letter would indicate that he,
being outside of it, was convinced of the complicity of Mary in the
Babington Plot. He never for a moment suspected the sincerity of
Elizabeth.
When Mary reached Chartley from Tixall on 25th August she found her
coffers and desks rifled and all her papers and jewels taken away.
One cabinet in her bedroom, strange to say, had been overlooked, and
it contained her money. Paulet wrote immediately to Walsingham, the
result being that Paulet and Richard Bagot, a magistrate, on receipt
of Walsingham's reply, rudely entered the presence of Mary, intimating
that they were commanded to take her money, and advised her to deliver
it up quietly. Mary emphatically refused to comply, and declared she
would not give up the key. Paulet called his servants and told them to
bring bars to break open the door. Seeing the uselessness of further
resistance, she submitted, and saw him seize five rolls of canvas,
containing five thousand French crowns, two leather bags, one having
£104 in gold and the other £3 in silver; the silver he left with her.
In Nau's chamber he found two bags, one with £900 and the other with
£286, and a chain valued at £100. In Curle's chamber he found two
canvas rolls each containing one thousand crowns; they were Queen
Mary's gift to Mrs. Curle on her marriage. Paulet sealed and took
possession of them in Elizabeth's name, and delivered them into Bagot's
charge.[5]
This was another of the disreputable transactions carried out by
Elizabeth's orders. The question may very naturally be asked, What
right had she to break into lockfast places and seize the money and
jewels, etc., of the Scottish Queen? If a subject behaved in this
manner he would be immediately arrested and punished.
It is important at this crisis to know what letters passed between
Paulet and Walsingham. We are in possession of only some of these, and
the information they convey is that a gigantic scheme was progressing
for the murder of the Scottish Queen, and that these men were the
puppets of Elizabeth for accomplishing her design. What is obvious
is that Paulet's letters were written with profound caution—almost
terror—lest he should offend his mistress. His letters and his
treatment of the Queen show that to her he was both cunning and false,
alike destitute of the honour of a gentleman and of those feelings
of humanity which are essential to a man intrusted with the delicate
duty of custodian of a Queen. Only once did he show that he realised
his responsibility, when in a letter to Walsingham of 30th August he
desired to be relieved of his onerous duty. The letters were in the
following terms:—
Paulet to Walsingham:
“It may please your Honour to be advised that, receiving your letters
of the 26th and 28th of the month, I have, according to your direction,
despatched Mr. Darell this morning towards Fotheringay for the views of
the lodgings there, which no doubt will be furnished with the hangings
belonging to this house, whereof there is a good store of all sorts of
length and breadth. I send herewith my opinion touching your article
addressed unto me, and have sent the copy as well of the articles as
of my postills to Sir Walter Mildmay, so that he may supply all the
defects by his better judgment and knowledge of these countries. I
think myself happy for many causes to be removed out of this country,
and now I should think myself twice happy if this Queen with the change
of lodgings might also change her keeper; and indeed a gentleman of
that country might supply this place with less expense to Her Majesty
and better surety of his charge, having his servants, tenants, and good
neighbours at hand.
“Although I am bold to write as I wish, yet I will never desire it, but
as it may stand with Her Majesty's good pleasure as one that embraceth
all Her Highness's commands with all willing obedience.
“From Chartley, 30th August 1586.”
And again, on 15th September, Paulet said:
“I find by your letter of the 12th, received last night at midnight,
that you were not acquainted with my Lord Treasurer's first and second
letters to me of the 8th, the contents whereof may appear unto you
by my answer of the same sent to his Lordship. I find this lady very
willing to remove so as to hear often from the French Ambassador, by
reason that her lodging is within thirty miles of London; and now
twenty carts are appointed to be laden here this next morrow, and I
think we shall remove from hence about the middle of this next week,
if we be not stayed by contrary news, whereof I thought good to advise
you. Since my last letters to you I have found in a casket in Nau's
chamber £5, 10s. in gold and £1, 7s. 3d. in white money, and among the
same the silver piece enclosed, by which you may easily judge of his
malicious, cankered, and traitorous heart towards Her Majesty. All this
Queen's seals were in this casket, which are in great numbers, and two
serve for privy packets and all other purposes.”
This letter was immediately followed by one of considerable importance
from Queen Mary to the Duke of Guise, September 1586:—
“My good cousin, if God do not help you to find means of aiding your
poor cousin, it is all over this time. The bearer will tell you how
they treat me and my two secretaries. For God's sake help and save them
if you can. We are accused of having wished to disturb the State, and
of having practised against the life of the Queen or consented to it;
but I have asserted what is true, that I know nothing of it. It is said
that some letters have been seized in the possession of one Babington,
one Charles Paget, and his brother, which testify to the conspiracy,
and that Nau and Curle have confessed it. I maintain that they could
not do so unless more than they know were forced out of them by means
of torture.”
(This confession was the result of the rack.)
Pasquier or de Pasquier, a literary friend and follower of Mary, was
apprehended along with Nau and Curle for no reason whatever, and very
shortly after that event he was brought before the Lord Chancellor to
see what secret information about Mary they could possibly draw out of
him. As he was in reality a member of Mary's household, Elizabeth's
ministers were sanguine that they would get important information. In
that, however, they were disappointed, as Pasquier was able to keep
his own counsel. On 2nd September 1586 he appeared before the Lord
Chancellor, when the following interrogatories were put to him, but we
have no answers recorded. These cunning questions were in the interest
of Elizabeth, and constitute a mean attempt on the part of Bromley to
drag the Scottish Queen into trouble:—
“Whether he has been at any time acquainted with the practice for the
setting of the Scottish Queen at liberty?
“Whether he has not been made acquainted with some practice within the
realm of disposing the hearts of Catholics to join with such foreign
forces as should invade the realm?
“Whether he has not within these four or five months written letters
to certain persons in foreign parts to show how the Catholics of this
realm stood affected with them?
“What practice he has been made acquainted with in these three months
prejudicial to Her Majesty's State or person?
“How he knoweth that the Queen of Scots has had her secret letters
carried or brought to her?”
In the midst of these negotiations Walsingham appears to have had
another subject on hand: this was the relations between Mary and her
son.
It need not be the least surprising that Walsingham should have written
the following false and calumnious letter to the Master of Gray,
dated 15th September. If he could surreptitiously open, copy, and
interpolate Queen Mary's letters, he was quite capable of giving the
advice contained in this communication. This Master of Gray was one of
Mary's enemies, and was mainly instrumental in putting discord between
mother and son. No man knew better than Walsingham that Mary was
innocent of Darnley's murder, but to admit this would be to jeopardise
his scheme for her execution. Consequently her innocence could not be
entertained. Mary losing her Crown had nothing whatever to do with
the Darnley murder. She never voluntarily gave up the Crown, but it
was compulsorily taken from her by Lindsay and Ruthven when she was
confined in Loch Leven in 1567, in order that Moray might assume the
Regency:—
“I thank you for sounding the King's disposition, how he could be
content to have the Queen his mother proceeded against for the late
fact, but I suppose it will be in vain to move him any further, because
he may conceive it would be _contra bonos mores_, in respect of the
bond of nature between them, that he should make himself a party
against her. Nevertheless, you may with good reason persuade him that
he make no mediation for her, or oppose himself against the course that
is intended to be adopted with her, considering the hard treatment
that his father received at her hands, for which detestable deed she
was deprived of her Crown. It is meant that she shall be tried here
according to the Act made in the last Parliament, and that agreeably
to the contents of the said Act certain noblemen shall be appointed to
charge her, who assembled for that purpose the 27th of this month, and
shall be with her by the 4th of the next at Fotheringay Castle, seven
miles from Stamford, whither she is appointed to be brought. But the
matters whereof she is guilty are already so plain and manifest, being
also confessed by her two secretaries, as it is thought they shall
require no long debating. We suppose she will appeal and challenge the
privilege of her sovereignty, which in this case neither by the civil
law nor by the laws of this realm can be available.”
Bourgoyne's _Journal_ exposes the cruelty of Queen Mary's enemies
and their importunity about the Babington Conspiracy, and while
she protested that during her captivity “Elizabeth had maintained,
sustained, and aided her rebel subjects, alienated her son from her,
and taken away what she possessed,” and could prove this, they would
not listen to it, but wanted to squeeze out of her something that would
incriminate herself.
The following paper, which is in the handwriting of Phillips, one
of Walsingham's spies, is preserved in the Record Office under date
September 1586. It is reproduced not because it is of any value,
but rather to show the persistent and cunning efforts to entrap the
Scottish Queen. It concerns the Babington Conspiracy, and is a wholly
unauthenticated document. The papers Phillips refers to are from
Mary's cabinets, seized on the day she was kidnapped; and in order
to understand the object of the paper, we must keep in view that it
assumes the accuracy of Mary's interpolated letter of 17th July to
Babington. In short, it was Phillips, the writer of this paper, who was
the copyist of these interpolations.
Bereft of these, any plot against Elizabeth by Mary is the merest fable
and cannot be proved; and what remains is a series of enterprises for
the release _simpliciter_ of the Scottish Queen. Mary was connected
only with schemes for her own liberty, and for that she cannot be
blamed. This paper is a laboured and wicked attempt to induce posterity
to believe that she was hatching plots for Elizabeth's murder and an
invasion of England. There is no proof to defend this charge:—
“Memorial showing how the ten parcels of extracts and copies of the
Scottish Queen's intercepted letters delivered to Wotton are to be used.
“For declaration of the attempt against the Queen's person (Elizabeth),
invasion of the realm, and stirring rebellion within the land, proposed
and wrought by Charles Paget, Ballard, and Babington, as is contained
in the instructions with her acceptance and approbation of the whole.
“The extract of the letters sent by Charles Paget to the Scottish Queen
of the 29th May 1586 with her answer of the 27th July.
“The copies of the letters between the said Queen and Babington,
verified by Nau's confession, showing the manner of writing and making
up all her despatches, and particularly proving the letters of the
Queen to Babington have been penned by herself and taken out of a
minute by her own hand (Nau's confession was got by the rack). The
extract of the letters written from the Scottish Queen to Don Bernard
de Mendoza, the Bishop of Glasgow, Sir Francis Englefeld, and Lord
Paget, 27th July 1586, with sundry propositions.
“That an overture had been made to her by the Catholics of England to
join with foreign forces for the execution of an enterprise to the
disturbance of the present State.
“That she allowed and embraced the same (this was a plan for her own
liberty).
“That she thereupon made them an ample despatch (which was the letter
to Babington), with directions for all things necessary for the
execution of what was proposed.
“That every one of them should give the best assistance they could for
effecting the enterprise.
“The Bishop of Glasgow to travel to Rome by all means to advance the
correspondence of the Pope with the King of Spain, and to try to set up
some new faction against that of England. In France to deal with the
Duke of Guise either to keep France occupied, or, peace being made, to
join with the King of Spain in this enterprise.
“Sir Francis Englefeld and Lord Paget to be earnest in Spain with the
King in her name for his full resolution upon the overtures to be made
him by Mendoza, and thereupon for his advice when and how his forces
shall march.
“To draw the French King's affection from the Scottish Queen and
incense him against her and her servants, and particularly for the
delivery of Morgan and Paget—
(1) By showing the said Queen and her servants' devotion to Spanish
causes to the prejudice of the Crown of France.
“The extract of her own despatch to Charles Paget and Mendoza of 20th
May 1586 concerning the delivery of her son into the King of Spain's
hands, and gift of this Crown unto the Spaniard by testament.” (This
was not the Crown of England, and her letters—21st May 1586—must be
referred to in order to understand the matter. See appendix.)
(2) “By the extract whereby Morgan is discovered to have had
intelligence and practised with Mendoza both against the Queen and the
French King even since his imprisonment.”
(3) “By proving Paget and Morgan to have been special dealers against
Elizabeth. For charging of Paget particularly by his own letter of 29th
May proposing the enterprise to the Scottish Queen.
(4) “For charging Morgan particularly by his own confession to have
been a principal instigator of the plot taken up with Creyton the
Jesuit with the Duke of Guise, the Archbishop of Glasgow, the Pope's
Nuncio, and Father Claude. That he was privy to Gifford's practices
in England, who set Savage at work to kill Elizabeth, and was to
have come over to effect the same (Phillips is founding on the
interpolations); that he was privy to Ballard coming into England and
the cause, Ballard also was a practiser against the Queen's person
(Elizabeth).
“Lastly, the furtherance of his delivery whereby may appear to the King
how both he and Her Majesty were abused in the perusal of Morgan's
papers when he was first demanded.”
“The papers were concealed and his proceedings disguised by Cherelles
and others more careful of the Queen of Scots and the Queen's rebels
than of their Master's honour and satisfaction.”
After reading this paper the reader will naturally suppose that the
Queen of Scots was a wicked person to get up an agitation among the
Catholics of France and Spain for the invasion of England and the
consequent removal of Elizabeth from the English Crown. That such were
the wishes of the Catholics will not be denied, but the connection of
Mary with such a revolutionary scheme was one of the cleverest acts of
Walsingham and Phillips the spy. We have printed six letters in the
appendix, which are of great importance in considering this complexion
of the matter. No. vi., which is a genuine letter of the Queen, should
be read first. In it, though dated so late as 27th July, there is no
reference to such a thing, and Mendoza was one of her most confidential
friends. The paper which we have just reproduced is evidently founded
on Nos. i. and v., Queen Mary to Charles Paget. These two letters are
in the State Paper Office in the handwriting of Phillips, and may
be set down as forgeries. We have no evidence save that of Phillips
that Queen Mary wrote these two letters, and until reliable proof is
produced they must be regarded as bogus productions. Whether Paget
wrote No. ii. it is impossible to determine.
In the investigation of this matter we have to bear in mind that the
Babington Conspiracy and the Babington Plot were two separate and
distinct schemes. The former was for the assassination of Elizabeth,
fabricated and tacked on by Walsingham to Babington's letter proposing
Mary's liberation; the latter was Babington's plot for Mary's
liberation only and for nothing else, which neither Babington nor Mary
ever denied.