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.
After Queen Mary's pathetic letters to the French and Spanish
Ambassadors at the end of July (see pp. 304-5) no further
communications of hers are to be found for four months. On 23rd
November she received official notice of her death sentence, and on
that overwhelming occasion she wrote to the Pope, to Henry _III._, to
the Duke of Guise and the Archbishop of Glasgow, informing them of
the appalling event. What happened to her during these four months is
so far recorded by Bourgoyne. It was a painful and exciting period
for her and her household. The State Paper Office as regards Mary is
practically silent for the time, but Elizabeth and her court were in a
state of great activity.
In order to understand the situation, it will be necessary to make
a brief reference to the events of these four months. The time was
mainly occupied with schemes of Walsingham for getting the Scottish
Queen involved in the so-called Babington Conspiracy. These plots
were conceived and developed with all the skill and audacity of men
educated for the work. Walsingham and Phillips the spy occupied the
chess-board, and their object was to “checkmate the Queen.” A startling
move took place on 2nd August, when Phillips desired Walsingham to
order Babington's arrest; and on the following day Francis Myles wrote
Walsingham recommending Ballard's apprehension, while Phillips asked
a warrant to do so. Same day Babington announced to Queen Mary the
treachery of one of his companions (Maude), and begged her not to
falter, as it was an honourable enterprise (his plot for her release):
“What they could and would they would perform or die.” This letter has
been copied three times by Walsingham's spies who intercepted Mary's
letters, and this shows how important these men regarded it as a weapon
against herself. Their actions were prompt. Then came the kidnapping
plot, when the Scottish Queen was taken she knew not where. There is
also recorded the so-called confessions of Savage as to the Babington
Plot and his knowledge of those who practised against Elizabeth. This
paper is in the handwriting of Phillips, which suggests forgery. A few
days later, namely, on 20th August, Courcelles wrote Pinart that forces
were being levied in Scotland to aid Elizabeth, and that they were
under the command of the Master of Gray. On 4th September Walsingham
wrote Phillips that Curle admits receipt of Babington's letters and the
Queen of Scots' answer; Phillips to see Elizabeth and get her orders as
to granting her favour to Curle in the hope of drawing information out
of him. On the same day Walsingham acquainted Paulet with Elizabeth's
orders as to Mary's treatment: “They are in consultation about having
her brought to the Tower and proceeded against according to statute
made in last Parliament.” On the same day are recorded Nau and Curle's
confessions about Mary's letter to Babington (in the handwriting of
Phillips). On 10th September Nau wrote Elizabeth that he knew nothing
whatever of the enterprise more than is contained in the enclosed,
which protests that Queen Mary had no connection whatever with the
design of Babington and others. There is a vacancy of seventeen days on
the Record, and on 27th September it is recorded that Burghley ordered
Walsingham to send Phillips for certain letters which would be wanted
at the meeting of the lords next morning.
After a fatiguing journey of four days under much privation and
suffering, Queen Mary arrived at Fotheringay on Sunday, 25th September.
The journey is fully described by Bourgoyne. For a week after her
arrival there are no entries in the _Journal_, from which we infer
that she was for that period undisturbed by her persecutors. But on
the following Saturday, 1st October, the dark shadow of Elizabeth was
felt at Fotheringay. Paulet, in his usual insolent manner, communicated
to Mary one of Elizabeth's characteristic messages: “That she had
sufficient proof to contradict what Mary had said to Gorges” (see
Bourgoyne, p. 189). She was careful, however, never to produce that
proof. These words were doubtless an invention for the purpose of
enabling her to convey what really was the message: “That the Queen
of England was to send some lords and counsellors to speak to her,”
_e.g._ Mary's trial and condemnation. Elizabeth at this date had
evidently resolved on Mary's execution and how she was to accomplish
it. On the same day Paulet again had an interview with Queen Mary in
order to torture her a little more about the bogus conspiracy against
Elizabeth's life. He desired her to ask pardon of Elizabeth and confess
her fault. Mary's elastic spirit got the better of her, and she said
ironically that “his proposal reminded her of what one would say to
children when one wanted them to confess.” Paulet, who was destitute
of humour, remained silent as if struck dumb. His importunity to get
Mary to “confess something,” as he put it, was a trick to inveigle her,
but it failed. This must have been a great disappointment to Elizabeth,
for she had no evidence to prove her case. Elizabeth nominated the
commissioners for Queen Mary's trial.
The commission was issued on 5th October to forty-six persons, and
included peers, privy councillors, the Lord Chancellor, five judges,
and the Crown lawyers, constituting them a court to inquire into and
determine all offences committed by the Scottish Queen against the
statute of the 27th year of Elizabeth. Shrewsbury and ten others
declined to serve on this commission. The commissioners arrived at
Fotheringay on 11th October, and Bromley and Burghley were appointed to
conduct the trial. Elizabeth could not take the life of the Scottish
Queen without the formality of a trial, and she therefore made her
arrangements for an imposing function, so as to satisfy the public
mind that she was doing her duty and that the trial was of the utmost
importance, being no less than to determine a conspiracy against her
own life and an invasion of England. In an age when the people were
grossly ignorant and probably superstitious, a charge like this, on
its becoming publicly known, was bound to set the people against the
Scottish Queen.
[Illustration: MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS.
_From the Collection of_ LORD ELPHINSTONE, _at Carberry Tower_.]
After the arrival of the commissioners we have the solemn farce of
“preaching and prayers” at the chapel of Fotheringay, which Sir
Walter Mildmay and others attended as a prelude to the trial. When we
consider that these men came there (_a_) to try an innocent person,
(_b_) that they had no proof, (_c_) that they had their Sovereign's
command to condemn her with or without proof, this service was a
mockery. It was not a Catholic service, consequently Mary had nothing
to do with it. And in anticipation of what was coming, we have
Elizabeth's really first insolent letter to Mary as referred to by
Bourgoyne, in which she addresses her as “Madam” and appends simply her
signature “Elizabeth.” No one can realise how keenly Mary felt this
insult, while Bourgoyne passes it over as evidently too painful to be
recorded.
The impatience of the English Queen to have the captive tried and
executed is manifest from the following paper, which conveys her
instructions on the subject. Burghley and Walsingham were to use their
discretion respecting the manner of first communicating with Mary,
in respect of any private interview, if she should desire one, and
likewise as to the expediency of admitting the public.
Commission from Queen Elizabeth to Lord Burghley and Walsingham, 7th
October 1586:—
“Whereas in the course of your proceedings at Fotheringay it has not
yet been considered what form is to be kept by you and others of the
commissioners in acquainting the Scottish Queen with our pleasure and
the delivering of our letters (a matter notwithstanding fit to have
been thought on), or whether to send some two or three of the nobility
and council to her to that effect, or to commit the same only to the
charge of Sir Amias Paulet, in whose custody she presently remaineth.
We have thought good to put you in mind thereof, and in case any
scruple arise expressly to authorise you to proceed as in your judgment
is most conformable to our honour and service.
“It may be that she may desire to have private conference with some of
you, with whom she may offer to deal more frankly than before the whole
number, wherein you may happen to make some difficulty without special
warrant and direction from us. We authorise you, in case any such
request be made, and that you find it expedient to make choice of two,
three, or four of the nobility and council there, besides yourself,
to repair privately to her to hear what she has to say and deliver to
you without prejudice, notwithstanding that commission and warrant we
have already given for your guidance, and where also we are informed
that many private persons, as well as strangers as of our own subjects
(amongst whom we hear are many ill-affected), are already gone down
to the place of your meeting, to observe and hearken after the doings
there.
“Forasmuch as under this cloak there may resort thither some bad and
dangerous men, whose conduct at such a time may penetrate to the heart
of our service, we think it should be well considered whether it be
expedient to have the proceedings against her so public that every man
may hear, or such only as by the commissioners shall be admitted; as
also, whether in case she desire to hear her servants, Nau, Curle, and
Parker, personally to testify those things they have confessed against
her, it shall be necessary to have them there, or to proceed otherwise
without them, which points we have thought meet be presented to you.”
Queen Elizabeth to Lord Burghley and Walsingham, 8th October 1586:—
“Whereas the Scottish Queen may probably desire a conference with some
of you our commissioners during your abode at Fotheringay, as yet you
have not been authorised to assent by any special directions from us,
our pleasure is, in case any such request be made, that you two with
other two, three, or four of our council there, do resort to her to
hear what she shall have to say to you, and thereafter, if you find
cause, to advise us. And these our letters shall be to you, and the
rest of our council whom you shall think meet to join you, sufficient
warrant and discharge in this behalf.”
The following is an important letter in judging of the policy and
conduct of Elizabeth. It was written before the trial took place, and
its date would be between the 1st and 14th October:
“Upon the examination and trial of the cause, you shall by verdict find
the said Queen guilty of the crime wherewith she standeth charged.”
These are momentous words. The trial at Fotheringay was therefore a
mockery of justice, as Queen Mary's fate was sealed long before by
the irrevocable edict of the English Queen. Lord Burghley and others
of the commissioners, Walsingham excepted, must have felt themselves
in a position of great difficulty and responsibility in convicting
the Scottish Queen contrary to the general consensus of opinion, and
without being able to produce any _bonâ fide_ proof. They, however,
could not help themselves. They must obey the edict or take the
consequences. This was the greatest blunder the English Queen ever
committed, and this fact dawned upon her the morning after Queen Mary's
death. During the remaining years of her life she was tortured day by
day by an evil conscience, and died a miserable death:—
Queen Elizabeth to Lord Burghley:
“Whereas by your letter received we find that the Scottish Queen
absolutely refuses to submit herself to trial or make any answer to
such things as by you and the rest of our commissioners she is to be
charged with; and that notwithstanding you are determined to proceed
to sentence against her, according to our commission given you, we
have thought good to let you understand that upon the examination and
trial of the cause you shall by verdict find the said Queen guilty
of the crimes wherewith she stands charged; and that you accordingly
proceed to the sentence against her. Yet do we find it meet, and such
is our pleasure, that you nevertheless forbear the pronouncing thereof
until you have made your personal return to our presence and reported
to us your proceedings and opinions, unless you find it may prejudice
your principal commission or hinder our service to advise us and abide
our further answer. And this shall be to you and the rest of the
commissioners sufficient warrant and discharge.”[6]
This is a letter that has not been sufficiently brought to the front
by historians of Queen Mary. It practically settles the question of
the Babington Conspiracy, and stamps that plot, so far as the life of
Elizabeth is concerned, as a purely bogus transaction. If the Queen of
England could have proved her case or identified the Scottish Queen
with it she would never have written this letter. In the face of
this communication, which condemned Queen Mary before she was heard,
the conclusion is inevitable that the Babington Conspiracy against
Elizabeth was a huge fraud, unknown to the Scottish Queen, fabricated
by Walsingham and Phillips, proclaimed to the world in all sincerity by
Lord Burghley, and having its inspiration directly from the Queen of
England. In all this the character of Elizabeth is quite intelligible,
her ideas of the eternal principles of justice such as no one can
misapprehend, while students of history must form their own opinion,
after perusing this letter, how far she was responsible for the
deliberate murder of the Queen of Scots, whom she had tortured nineteen
years in captivity.
An important interview took place on 12th October between Queen Mary
and Sir Walter Mildmay, Edward Barker, and Paulet, when they delivered
to her a letter from Elizabeth. The object of the interview was to
persuade Mary to stand her trial. After she had read Elizabeth's letter
she said she was sorry that the English Queen was so ill-disposed to
her; that after so many promises made on her behalf she found she
was neglected, and though she had forewarned things dangerous to her
and the State, she was not believed but contemned. And the Act of
Parliament lately passed _gave her sufficient understanding what was
intended against her_.
In the afternoon of the same day a second interview took place, the
deputation waiting to know if she adhered to her former answers. She
asked them to be read over and she would consider them. That being
done, she said they were all right. She had omitted in the morning to
reply to Elizabeth's remark that “because she (Mary) had enjoyed and
was under the protection of her laws, therefore she was subject to
be tried by them.” Her answer was that she came into this realm for
safety, and ever since had been kept a prisoner, so that she enjoyed
no protection from the laws of this realm and no benefit therefrom;
neither was it lawful for her to take notice of the laws from any man.
This she wished to add to her former answers.
The third interview took place the following day, 13th October, when
Bromley and Burghley spoke with her. They said, in a very harsh manner,
that the statements of the two previous interviews were insufficient;
that neither her pretended captivity nor her claim of privilege of
being born a queen could exempt her from answering in this realm to
such a crime as she was charged with. They wanted a definite reply
whether she meant to continue in her refusal of appearing before the
commissioners to answer the charge; and though they might justly
proceed to trial without her presence, or any further notice of
her, yet in honour, and because of Elizabeth's good disposition to
justice, they desired her to alter her answer and to hear what should
be produced and proved against her. They wished to convince her that
in this manner of proceeding nothing was offered or intended against
her but what was conform to the laws of the realm and to justice. They
required her immediate answer, and gave her to understand that if
she refused the commissioners were to proceed with the trial without
further information.
To this arrogant speech the Queen replied that she was no subject of
the realm of England, and would rather die than become one. She was
prepared to affirm on oath that she never did evil to the Queen or the
State of England, and was not to be proceeded against, as she was no
criminal; therefore she adhered to her former answer and protestation.
She might answer before a free Parliament, but she knew not _what
obligation or promises some of the commissioners had come under before
seeing her. She thought all their procedure merely formal, as she
believed she was already condemned by those who should try her._
It is necessary to observe at this point that Elizabeth wrote Burghley
on 12th October that as the Scottish Queen refuses to submit to be
tried, she requests that, “in case they proceed and find her guilty,
they are to defer passing sentence until they return to her and report
proceedings.”
The question naturally arises, how did Elizabeth know on 12th October
that Mary refused to submit to be tried, when it was on that same day
that Mary made the announcement? The one Queen was at Windsor, the
other at Fotheringay, and the transmission of letters at that period
was slow. Elizabeth did not and could not know on the 12th October
what happened at Fotheringay on the same date; she could not but be
aware that the Scottish Queen would protest against any such proposal
as being tried, and the letter to Burghley was simply a part of her
policy to have Mary executed notwithstanding any trial.
On the morning of 14th October the trial began, when Bromley opened the
proceedings charging Mary with the Babington Conspiracy. The Queen,
notwithstanding the interview of the previous day, defended herself
with great eloquence. It was the crowning effort of her life, in spite
of the exertions of Bromley and Burghley to crush her. In asserting her
innocence she “protested before the living God that she loved the Queen
of England,” and in her concluding sentence she “appealed to Almighty
God, her Church, and all Christian princes, and the Estates of the
kingdom, she was ready and prepared to sustain and defend her honour as
an innocent person.” She charged Walsingham as being her enemy. Whether
she knew of his interpolations on her letters is not clear, but she
undoubtedly suspected him.
Walsingham's reply was significant and cunning: “He bore no ill will
to anyone; he had never attempted anyone's life (yet he was plotting
against Queen Mary's life at the time he was speaking), and protested
that he was a gentleman, and a faithful servant of his mistress.” No
one will doubt the last remark, and no one will believe the words that
go before. Mary had charged him with being in communication with
Ballard, one of the conspirators. If she had followed up this line of
argument she would have defeated her accusers, but she was not allowed
to produce a single witness nor to refer to her letters, and therefore
could only say what she imperfectly remembered.
Petit's version of the Walsingham incident varies from this. She said,
addressing him haughtily, “Do you think, Master Secretary, that I
am not aware of the artifices you use against me with such knavish
cruelty? Your spies beset me on all sides; but you perhaps do not know
that many of those spies have made false depositions, and have warned
me of what you are about. And if he has so acted, my lords, how shall I
be assured that he has not forged my cyphers to put me to death, when I
know he has conspired against my child's life and mine?”
Those withering words, falling suddenly and without warning on the
head of the guilty Walsingham, called forth a quick reply: “God is my
witness,” exclaimed he, “that in private I have done nothing but what
an honest man ought to have done, and in public I have done nothing
unworthy of my office. I have carefully sifted the conspiracies against
Elizabeth, and had Ballard tendered me his services I should have
accepted them.”
Queen Mary: “Give no more heed to the words of those who slander me
than I do to the statements of those who betray you. No value is to be
attached to the testimony of those spies or agents whose words always
give the lie to their hearts. Do not believe that I have been vain
enough to wish that harm should be done to Elizabeth. No; I shall never
seek her ruin at the cost of my honour, my conscience, or my salvation.
Your proceedings are unjust: passages are taken from my letters, and
their real meaning twisted; the originals were taken from me; neither
the religion I profess nor my sacred character as a queen respected. My
lords, if my personal feelings can make one sympathetic chord vibrate
in your bosoms, think of the royal majesty insulted in my person; think
of the example which you set; think of your own Queen, who was, like
me, wrongly mixed up in a conspiracy. I am accused of having written to
Christian princes in the interest of my freedom. I confess I have done
so, and I should do so again. What human creature, O good God, would
not do the same to escape from a captivity such as mine! You lay to my
charge my letters to Babington. Well, be it so, I deny them not; _only
show me a single word in them about Elizabeth, and then I shall allow
your right to prosecute me_.”
That Mary was so persistently attacked and importuned about this,
first by Gorges, then by Paulet, Bromley, and Burghley, without proof,
indicates pretty clearly:—
1. That she was ignorant of the so-called assassination plot.
2. That the interpolations on her letter to Babington were the work of
Walsingham.
3. That the importunity of Elizabeth's ministers was by Elizabeth's
express command, and was part of a deliberate plan to incriminate Mary,
in order to justify her execution.
4. That this course was considered the most politic in order to defend
their action before the crowned heads of Europe.
To the unlearned in those times a charge of this kind instituted by the
Queen of England would, as already stated, be calculated to raise great
suspicions against the Queen of Scots.
There is some similarity between the murderers of Darnley meeting
solemnly at the Privy Council and resolving to prosecute and punish
the murderers, and this trial at Fotheringay, when Elizabeth, who was
responsible for the conspiracy against her own life, resolved to punish
the authors of that conspiracy. In view of this, the speech of the
Lord Chancellor in opening the case is an extraordinary exhibition of
the corrupt morality of the period. The scheme to incriminate Mary was
not a secret one. Its execution by Walsingham and others would make it
universally known at the English court. Of the conduct of Elizabeth's
ministers in this matter there is only one explanation, and that
was their fear of death. They were presumably terrified by such a
bloodthirsty woman, and were glad to do anything rather than irritate
her. Mary told them that Babington's plot was simply to release her,
and she demanded to see any letter of hers referring to a conspiracy
against Elizabeth. But no such letter could be produced; only copies,
and these interpolated.
It would appear from Bourgoyne that during the trial the manner of the
prosecutors was “to keep reading or speaking, in order to persuade the
lords that she was guilty.” All this was doubtless prearranged. When
the Queen returned to her chamber she said to Bourgoyne that the trial
put her in mind of that of Jesus Christ. They did to her in her place
as the Jews did to Him: “Away with Him, crucify Him.” She saw that
she was practically condemned, and that nothing could save her. She
appealed to Almighty God as the judge of her innocence, and demanded a
public trial. This they refused, and this must be regarded as a proof
of the weakness of their case.
The trial at Fotheringay was private and limited to Elizabeth's
commissioners and a very few others. Burghley at the close of the
Queen's speech tried to make a point against her by charging her with
wearing the arms of England. To charge the captive queen with that
when she had been nineteen years in captivity was an inexcusable and
heartless proceeding, and shows how little better he was than his
mistress. In regard to Nau and Curle, Queen Mary said she could
not answer for them what they had written about this enterprise
(conspiracy); that they had done it of themselves without her
knowledge. Nau had been a traitor for about a year before this, and
there is no doubt that anything he said against her, though void of
truth, would be greedily devoured by Elizabeth's ministers. Mary said
that she and Nau had many quarrels because she would not give in to his
ideas and would not instruct him. He did her great harm, and to save
themselves they had accused her.
When Elizabeth gave sentence of death Bourgoyne says there was great
excitement in Parliament over it. We do not doubt this, for every
member of Parliament outside of Elizabeth's ministers could not but
be impressed with Mary's eloquent words and with her innocence, and
with Elizabeth's tyrannical conduct. The treatment of Mary by her
tormentors was still further illustrated. All her last requests were
refused by Paulet, and eventually she was not allowed to write a letter
without showing it to him and allowing him to read it. Had the Crown of
Scotland ever reached a lower depth?
On the evening of the second day of the trial, 15th October, Burghley
appears to have written the following letter to Davison, one of
Elizabeth's secretaries. As Davison would put the letter before his
mistress, and Burghley knew that, that would account for the wording of
it. The letter is not creditable to Burghley. It was a dish prepared
to suit the palate of Elizabeth. “I did so encounter her (Mary) with
the reasons, etc., as she had not the advantage she looked for.” Why
was Queen Mary there at all?
Burghley, from his position, could not but be aware of the tampering
with her letters; that he could produce no authentic proof against
her; that before the trial he had Elizabeth's order to condemn her;
and this letter to Davison was therefore a discreditable communication
from the first minister of the Crown:—“This Queen of the Castle (Mary
at Fotheringay) was content to appear again before us in public to be
heard, but in truth not to be heard for her defence, for she could say
nothing but negatively that the points of the letters that concerned
the practice against the Queen's person (Elizabeth) were never by her
written, nor of her knowledge; the rest for invasion, for escaping by
force, she would neither deny nor affirm. But her intention was by
long, artificial speeches to move pity, to lay all the blame on the
Queen's Majesty, or rather on the Privy Council, stating that all the
troubles of the past did ensue because of her reasonable offers and our
refusals; and in these her speeches I did so encounter her with reasons
out of my knowledge and experience as she had not that advantage she
looked for; as I am sure the auditory did find her case not pitiable,
her allegations untrue, by which means great debate fell yesternight
very long, and this day renewed with great vigour. And we find all
persons in the commission fully satisfied, as by Her Majesty's order
judgment will be given at our next meeting; but the record will not
be provided in five or six days, and that was our reason why, if we
had proceeded to judgment, we should have tarried five or six days
more. And surely the country could not bear it by the waste of bread,
specially our company being there, and within six miles above two
thousand horsemen, but by reason of Her Majesty's letter we of her
Privy Council, that is, the Lord Chancellor, Mr. Rich, the Secretary,
and myself, only did procure this prorogation for the other two causes.”
Mary was evidently not aware that, by an Act passed fifteen years
before, witnesses in trials for high treason were required to be
confronted with the accused, and not one of her six-and-thirty judges
had the courage to inform her of this important fact. All remained deaf
to her appeals; her secretaries were not examined and her notes were
not produced. Nothing could have been more utterly worthless than the
evidence produced against her. The letters were alleged to be copies
of cyphers, but by whom the cyphers were deciphered, and by whom the
copies were made, the commissioners were not informed, nor did they ask
a question on the subject.[7]
On the second day neither the attorney-general nor the
solicitor-general nor the Queen's sergeant took any part in the
proceedings. Whether he was dissatisfied with the mode in which they
had conducted the case, or whether he was desirous of displaying his
erudition and his animosity against the Scottish Queen, Burghley took
upon himself the whole management of the trial. Such conduct on the
part of a judge was neither dignified nor decent, nor do we find in
any other of the State trials of this reign so marked a departure from
established usage. It may perhaps be taken as a proof of his declining
powers that he had even the vanity to boast of the skill and success
with which he had encountered and defeated the “Queen of the Castle,”
as he facetiously termed the woman against whose life and reputation he
had plotted incessantly for more than twenty years.[8]
On the 25th October the commissioners met in the Star Chamber,
Westminster. With one exception, they found Mary guilty, not of the
various matters laid to her charge by Burghley, but of having compassed
and imagined since 1st June divers matters “tending to the hurt,
death, and destruction of the Queen of England.” Lord Zouch alone had
the spirit to dissent from the sentence, declaring that he was not
satisfied that she had done so. Thus ended the most disgraceful of
all the judicial iniquities which disgrace the history of England.
No witnesses were examined, and of the various documents produced
against her not one was original. They were not even copies of written
papers; they were only alleged to be copies of cyphers, on the credit
of men who were not confronted with the accused, and whose signatures
attached to their alleged confessions were either obtained through fear
of torture or forged by Phillips.[9] It is evident that the utmost
exertions and the strictest search on the part of Mary's enemies,
directed by all the skill and vigour of Walsingham and carried into
effect by the unscrupulous artifices and ingenuity of Phillips, had
not been able to find the smallest scrap of evidence under Mary's hand
which could connect her with the plot against Elizabeth's life. The
whole case has been examined and carefully weighed, and the result is a
confirmation of Mary's innocence.[10]
That devoted friend of the Queen of Scots, Marie Seton, one of the four
Maries, now living in the convent of Rheims in France, had evidently
heard of the overwhelming calamity which had befallen her old mistress,
and writing a private letter to Courcelles, the French Ambassador
in Scotland, sent by Henry III. to urge Queen Mary's cause before
Elizabeth, under date 21st October 1586, said:—
“If she had not had a long experience of his courtesy she would
complain of lack of news, as she only heard yesterday of his going to
Scotland, in a letter from Paris on the return of M. d'Epinart's son.
Begs to recall herself to his memory. It is nearly twenty years since
Marie Seton left Scotland, and almost all her relatives and friends had
died during that period: still there must be some who would let her
know any news that he might be kind enough to tell her. She apologises
for a short letter, but has to write in great haste. She only adds that
she is in great trouble and anxiety over the news which the talk in
France has of fresh troubles to the Queen her mistress, and commends M.
de Courcelles to God, praying to God that he may be happier than she
is,” etc.
The espionage of the Scottish Queen continued with unabated energy.
Paulet was careful not to name her in his correspondence with his
august mistress, but used the expression “this Queen.” This pleased
Elizabeth, and Paulet had her instructions to report daily everything
that passed even to the minutest particular. The following letter,
Paulet to Walsingham, 24th October 1586, enables us to understand
the sort of material Elizabeth desired and relished. This illiterate
individual instructing the Queen of Scots what books to read is highly
ludicrous. Mary's sarcasm would doubtless be exercised on such a
tempting opportunity, but Paulet takes care not to record it:—
“I took occasion yesterday, accompanied with Stallenge, to visit this
Queen, who hath been troubled these two days past with a defluxion in
one of her shoulders. I see no change in her from her former quietness
and security certified in my last letter, careful to have her chambers
put in good order, desirous to have divers things provided for her own
necessary use, expecting to have her money shortly restored, taking
pleasure in trifling toys, and in the whole course of her speech free
from grief of mind to all outward appearance. I tarried with her one
hour and a half at the least, which I did on purpose to feel her
disposition, and moving no new matter myself, suffered her to go from
subject to subject at her pleasure. She had a long conversation with
Lady Shrewsbury of the Lord of Abergavenny, and of some other things
not worthy of notice. This only I thought good to signify to you, that
failing in the talk of the late assembly here, and having glanced at
Lord Zouch for his speech in her chamber, and also of Lord Morley for
some things delivered by him to the lords sitting next to him, which
she said she overheard and told him so in the open assembly. She was
curious to be informed of the names of those sitting in such a place,
and of others sitting in other places, saying that one had said little,
another somewhat more, and others very much. I told her that I might
easily perceive by her reference to the lords which she had named that
she was much inclined to think ill of all of those who spoke, and that
I would forbear to name any to her, praying her to think honourably of
the whole assembly, and to think that those who spoke and the rest who
were silent were of one mind, to hear her cause with all impartiality.
She added that the histories made mention that the realm was used to
blood. I answered that if she would peruse the Chronicles of Scotland,
France, Spain, and Italy, she would find that this realm was far behind
any other Christian nation in shedding of blood, although the same
was often very necessary where dangerous offences arose. She was not
willing to go further into this matter, and indeed it was easy to see
that she had no meaning in this speech to reach her own cause, but
spoke by way of observation, after her usual manner. Thus you see that
I am bold to trouble you with trifles, as one willing to be blamed
rather for lack of good manners than for want of diligence.”
It would appear that on 11th November Walsingham received an anonymous
letter, evidently from a Catholic writer, informing him that Elizabeth
dared not put the Queen of Scots to death for fear of the consequences.
This threat, however, was not followed by any movement to support
it. The indifference of the Scottish people to the persecution and
imprisonment of their Sovereign cannot be explained unless their
loyalty to James VI., her son, stood in the way, and they could not
face a rebellion.