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.
“_Thursday, 22nd September 1586._—Her Majesty prepared to resume her
journey. Being in great uneasiness, she sent to ask Gorges what he had
to tell her: which was that Elizabeth thought it very strange, and
would never have thought that she would have been accessory to those
things which had been discovered against her, she being a relation and
of the same rank. To think of laying hands on a consecrated Queen,
Gorges said his mistress was never so astonished. She was so angry
with what had happened that she knew well if she had sent Her Majesty
into Scotland she would not have been safe and her subjects would
have been against her. To have sent her to France, of which there was
no intention, they would have thought her a fool. Her Majesty answered
that she had never undertaken nor thought of undertaking anything
against the Queen of England or her kingdom, and that she had not so
little prudence as to wish to conspire against Elizabeth or put her
hands upon a consecrated Queen. She knew not if Elizabeth had done
like Saul. In place of thinking such a thing, she had cautioned her
repeatedly of what she knew would be hurtful to her interests. But
there were many people who had different schemes, so that if she would
communicate with her, together they could put things in order, and by
those means she would be assured. In this she had never been listened
to but rather despised and ill-treated, not like a prisoner of her rank
but like as if taken in war or even worse, as if they had the power
of life and death or a right to torment and afflict her, taking away
from her all the conveniences of life, so that she was without power
to communicate with friends or relations, nobody whatever. She was
shut up, kept under the order of a man without whose will she could do
nothing. That he had been as strict with her as he could, not only as
to her liberty and captivity, but concerning her eating and drinking,
for herself and household. During her captivity the Queen of England
had maintained, sustained, and aided her rebel subjects, alienated
her son from her, taken away what she possessed, and even now had
made a league with him separating her from him; and in this league
she was forsaken and rejected like an abject and abandoned person,
without comfort or hope and deprived of all her means. From then till
now she had therefore not been able to communicate with anyone. If
all the Christian primates her relations, friends, and allies, moved
with pity and compassion for her ill fortune, had thought it their
duty to compassionate her misery, she could not have done less than
throw herself into their arms and put herself at their mercy. She knew
none of their designs, what were their schemes, or what they intended
to do. She did not mix herself up with these and had in no way mixed
herself up in the world. And whatever they had done or intended to do,
it was for them to answer, not her. That the Queen of England knew well
that she had warned her to pay attention to her and her counsel, as
perhaps the foreign kings and princes would undertake something for her
benefit. Upon the whole the Queen of England answered her that it was
all right as to foreigners and subjects, and she had only to do with
her. There was no reply, except that Gorges answered that he prayed
God that it might be so. Afterwards they only spoke twice on the way,
Paulet doing his best to accommodate her on the road for lodging and
commodities required on the journey. Having set out from Burton at 11
a.m. on Thursday, 22nd September, we arrived at Hill Hall Castle,
Abbots Bromley, belonging to the Earl of Huntingdon, seven miles from
Burton, where we remained for the night. Next day, 23rd September, we
set out at 10 a.m. and arrived at Leicester, fifteen miles distant,
where Her Majesty lodged at a hotel in the suburbs called 'the Angel.'
“The Corporation made Paulet a present of wine, but a feeling so
hostile to him and his coadjutors was manifested by the people of
Leicester that it was found necessary to hire three men to watch his
coach lest it should be destroyed or carried off during the night.[18]
“On 24th September we set out about the same hour, and arrived pretty
late in Rutlandshire at the house of Roger Smith.
“On Sunday, 25th September, we arrived at Fotheringay. Her Majesty on
arrival, and next day, complained of the want of proper accommodation
for herself and servants. It seemed as if Paulet wished to please her
by giving her more room. He caused the private doors to be built up
because he was afraid for her safety. One day we had a dispute. The
Queen complained much of Paulet in the presence of Stallenge, who
remained in the castle, Gorges having left for London. The complaint
was about her lodging, as she saw so many beautiful rooms uninhabited.
He replied that the lords of the Council were coming to occupy these
rooms. She suspected they were coming to interrogate her. This gave
her no trouble, but rather seemed to raise her spirits and rejoice her
heart more than usual.
“_Saturday, 1st October._—Paulet sent a message that he would like
to say a few words to her. He was accustomed to use this language
when he had anything disagreeable to tell her. Having come into her
presence, he said that Elizabeth, having had the report from Gorges,
was much surprised that Her Majesty had had such a conversation with
him, seeing she (Elizabeth) could show the contrary, having sufficient
proof to contradict what she said; that she was to send some lords
and councillors to speak to her, the which, in order that she might
not be surprised, he gave her due notice of; that it would be better
for her to ask pardon of Elizabeth and confess her fault than to be
declared guilty, and that he would advise her to do this, and he would
report it, being ready to write her answer such as it was. Her Majesty,
smiling ironically at this proposal, said to him his speech suggested
what one was accustomed to say to children when they wished them to
confess. She knew she had offended her Creator in many things, and she
asked pardon of Him, but that she was a sovereign Queen, and recognised
no offence or fault that she had to confess to anyone; that as she
could not commit any fault she could not ask any pardon, and did not
wish to receive any; and ironically she said they would not go very
far; she thought they took much pains for very little, and would not
advance their cause very much. Paulet interrupted her and said that he
could not confirm what she had written and therefore she had better
confess, for the thing was notorious, and that he would send on her
answer. Whereupon, having begged Her Majesty to listen, he repeated her
response in order that he might write correctly, asking if this was her
meaning; to which she assented. The same day Paulet wrote to the court.
Before leaving he told her that if she wished to have Melville, her
_maître d'hôtel_, with her he would come, as he (Paulet) had to go to
London in order to discharge Bagot, who gave him trouble and expense.
“_Thursday, 6th October._—I with Marie Page at the door informed the
Queen that Melville had come with Paulet's daughter, if she would
receive her. Much astonished, Her Majesty agreed.
“_Sunday, 9th October._—Paulet discharged Roger, Sharp, Laurence,
Barlae and Jackson, having first informed her. She ordered Sharp to be
paid seventy pounds besides his wages, twenty crowns, and one horse as
a gift; to Jackson his wages of ten crowns and forty shillings, with
one horse; to Laurence his wages; and as for Aroburn, it was agreed
that he could remain to tend the rest of the horses; forty sols (sous)
to him. And that he might better serve Sharp, she gave him the little
mare in charge until she foaled, that the two might be disposed of as
pleased her.
“_Tuesday, 11th October._—The Lords arrived. Most of them slept in the
village, the others at Monde, Mardelemat, at Nayde and Fotheringay, and
numbered about fifty. Forty-two of these were chosen by commission.
There were only forty-eight in the memorandum given to Her Majesty,
of whom nine were absent. There arrived a man named Phal (perhaps Dr.
Ford), an emissary of Walsingham, who translated French into English;
one named Barker, who wrote his answers and gave the papers to a notary
or clerk of court; another who seemed to be an usher or master of
ceremonies.
“_Wednesday, 12th October._—They came to the castle and attended
preaching and prayers at the chapel, and sent Sir Walter Mildmay and
Barker and Stallenge the usher, who presented a letter to the Queen
from Elizabeth without any title such as Madam—simply signed at the
end 'Elizabeth' without 'your sister,' and sealed with the Great Seal.
Above the superscription 'To the Scotch,' as speaking to the people.
She said that after the opinion which she held, having dared to deny
being guilty of what they could prove, not wishing to receive any
arbiter it seemed good to send her lords and councillors, lawyers,
skilful in the practice of the laws of her kingdom, who she had
authorised and empowered to proceed as they thought best, and that the
Queen of Scots, being under her protection and in her kingdom, was
subject to the laws of the same.”
This letter is of considerable importance, and as Bourgoyne does not
give it, we have found what we think is the same letter in the State
Paper Office. It is in the following terms:—
“Whereas we are given to understand that you, to our great and
inestimable grief (as one void of all remorse of conscience), pretend
with great protestations not to be in any sort privy or assenting to
any attempt either against our state or person, forasmuch as we find
by most clear and evident proof that the contrary will be verified
and maintained against you; we have found it therefore expedient to
send to you divers of our chief and most ancient noblemen of this our
realm, together with certain of our Privy Council, as also some of our
principal judges, to charge you both with the privity and assent to
that most horrible and unnatural attempt. And to the end you may have
no just cause, living as you do within our protection, and thereby
subject to the laws of our realm, and to such trial as by us shall be
thought most agreeable to our laws, to take exception to the manner
of our proceedings; we have made special choice of these honourable
persons to be used in this service, having for that purpose authorised
them by commission under our Great Seal to proceed therein; and
therefore do both advise and require you to give credit and make answer
to that which these honourable persons authorised by us shall from time
to time during their abode there deliver unto you in our name as if it
were to ourselves. Given at our castle of Windsor, 6th October 1586.”
“Her Majesty said that this letter was a mandate and written as to
a subject; that she was Queen and a born daughter of a Queen, a
foreigner, and the nearest relation of the Queen of England; that
she had come to England on the promise that had been made to her to
give her help against her enemies and subjects, and was thereupon
made prisoner, the which she had been for eighteen years, ill-treated
always and afflicted and troubled by their continued persecution. She
had several times suggested suitable conditions; she had many times
asked to speak with Elizabeth, was ever willing to serve and do her
pleasure, but she had been always influenced by enemies; that she, as
a free Queen, could not accept commands, nor respond to laws, without
hurting herself, the King her son, and all other sovereign princes.
That she was of the same estate, majesty, and dignity, and would not
submit, neither she, her heirs, or her country, as a valet had done
(referring to Moray); she would rather die. She challenged her judges
as being contrary to her religion; she did not recognise the laws of
England, did not know them, did not understand them, and many times had
made this protest. She demanded that former protests be taken account
of; that she was alone, without counsel; that her servants had been
taken away, also those who knew and had managed her affairs and had
cognisance of laws and formalities; that there was no criminal so poor
who might not have someone to speak for him. They had taken away her
papers, memoranda, evidences of her past experience, so that she was
destitute of all aid, taken by surprise, and ordered to obey and answer
people who had been instructed for a long time. The greater part of
them were evil disposed to her and only sought her ruin.”
The State Paper Office contains a rather different version of this
interview, which it will be interesting to compare with that of
Bourgoyne. It is as follows:—
“Relation of an interview between Sir Walter Mildmay, Sir Amias Paulet,
and Edward Barker, and the Queen of Scots:—
“Upon the repair of Sir Walter Mildmay, Sir Amias Paulet, and Edward
Barker to the Scottish Queen, and the delivery of Elizabeth's letters,
the Scottish Queen read the same and thereupon said she was very sorry
that the Queen her good sister was so evil informed of her after so
many offers made on her behalf. Notwithstanding any assurance given
to Elizabeth by her and her friends, she found she was neglected, and
that though she had forewarned things dangerous to Her Majesty and the
State, she was not believed but contemned. This grieved her much, she
being Her Majesty's nearest kinswoman, saying that the association made
here and the Act thereupon passed in Parliament gave her sufficient
understanding what was intended against her. She added that she saw
well whatever danger should happen to Her Majesty, either through the
instrumentality of foreign princes, the discontent of private persons,
or matters of religion, it would all be laid upon her, for she had
many enemies. After some other words to the same effect, and a recital
of a long-endured captivity and of some supposed unkindnesses offered
to her, she said that a league had been made between Her Majesty and
the King her son without her consent or knowledge. For answer to Her
Majesty's letter she said she found it very strange that Her Majesty
wrote in such sort, for it was in the nature of a command and that she
should answer as a subject; but for her part she was born a Queen,
and she would not prejudice her rank and state, nor the blood whereof
she was descended, nor her son who was to follow her, nor would give
so prejudicial a precedent to foreign princes, as to answer according
to the desire of those letters. For her heart could not yield to any
compulsion. She referred to the protestation which she had already made
to the Lord Chancellor, the Lord de la Warr, and others, adding that
she was ignorant of the laws and statutes of the realm, that she was
destitute of counsel and knew not who were her competent peers, also
that her papers were taken from her and that nobody dared or would
speak on her behalf. After this she solemnly protested that she was
innocent and had not procured or encouraged any hurt against Elizabeth,
and that she was not to be charged but by her word or writing, as she
was sure that neither the one nor the other could be shown against her,
confessing notwithstanding, that after so many offers made by herself
and not accepted by Elizabeth, she remitted herself and her cause to
foreign princes.”
Mary's sentiments having been communicated to Elizabeth, she wrote Mary
as follows:—
“You have in various ways and manners attempted to take my life and
bring my kingdom to destruction by bloodshed. I have never proceeded
harshly against you, but, on the contrary, protected and maintained
you like myself. These treasons will be proved to you and will be made
manifest. Yet it is my will that you answer the nobles and peers of the
kingdom as if I myself were present. I therefore require, charge, and
command you, that you make answer, for I have been well informed of
your arrogance. Act candidly, and you will receive the greater favour
of me.”[19]
“Sir Walter Mildmay repeated her conversation and then went and
reported it to the Council, which was assembled in a chamber adjoining.
This finished, all separated, and went to their places of abode.
Paulet, Barker, and Stallenge came to the Queen from the Council, who
having heard Her Majesty's answer to Elizabeth's letter found it good
to have it written and communicated to her that she might verify it.
Therefore Barker on his knees read it to her, rewritten in a good
style without anything forgotten except that she wished to speak to
Elizabeth. She verbally approved it without any signature.
“_Thursday, 13th October._—Paulet, Barker, and Stallenge came to her
about ten o'clock in order to ask if it would please her to hear the
commissioners, who wished to speak to her. Being willing, they entered
her chamber each in their order with great ceremony, one marching
before the other bearing seals or the arms of the Chancellor. Then the
Chancellor, speaking first, said he came by command of the Queen of
England, she being informed that the Queen of Scots was charged with
some plot or enterprise against her person or estate, with authority to
examine her on certain charges, and upon her answer to proceed as the
Council were disposed. She told them that she had seen the letter of
the Queen of England, and that she had replied to it the day before.
She said this with tears, moving everyone to pity. Burghley, a very
vehement man, speaking for the others, said that the Council had seen
the answer and he had taken the advice of the law doctors who were
versed in civil and canonical law, who after deliberation had found
that, notwithstanding her answer, he must proceed with the examination,
and therefore the lords had come to examine her; that she might say
whether she would hear them or not, because if she refused they would
proceed according to their commission. Her Majesty remonstrated about
her rank and that she was not a subject, to which they replied that
Elizabeth recognised no Queen in her kingdom but herself. As to them,
they would not speak to her as to a subject; they knew well her origin
and rank; that their commission was not to give way to this, only to
examine her upon international and civil and canonical laws. After
some conversation touching her bad treatment and the severity she
had endured, the commissioners, seeing she would not consent to be
examined because she was not a subject, went away. After dinner she
made some memorandums with her own hand to refresh her memory when
the commissioners returned, as she could not remember everything. Her
heart swelled with affliction; her spirits seemed to awaken and become
stronger, so that she was able to debate the cause when she was rudely
assailed by the commissioners, and said more than she had written.
These returned after dinner, when she demanded the indictment of the
Queen; what she meant by the word 'protection'; why she (the Queen of
Scots) had come into England, and with what intention. Burghley, who
always did the speaking, was irritated, and said that he had seen the
letter, and what had been written had explained itself. It would be
presumptuous to undertake to interpret the letters of his mistress.
That did not belong to them. The Queen said he was not so ignorant of
the mind of Elizabeth as not to know her will and intention. If he
had power to interpret to the Council he had also power and authority
to interpret the Queen's letter to her. Burghley denying that he had
power to do so, said he knew well the Queen's intention, namely, that
everyone in her kingdom should be subject to the laws, and what he
wished to know was whether she would listen to the commissioners or
not, or that they might proceed without her. She said she knew this
letter was the invention of Walsingham, who had confessed to being her
enemy; that she had suspected him as such, and he knew well what he had
done against her and her son. Thereupon they debated among themselves
if Walsingham was in London when the letter was written, but they came
to no decision.
“This same afternoon they sent Paulet before the commissioners came,
with an attorney and Bagot and Stallenge, saying that Her Majesty
had desired the duplicate of the commission or the principal points
of it, and that this had been granted. The Council sent her the roll
of the commissioners, explaining the points and the subject of the
commission, which was founded by two Acts of Parliament passed two
years before, namely, that they must not talk of the succession of
the Scottish Queen during the life of Elizabeth, nor of anyone of any
station, rank, or dignity whatsoever outside or inside the kingdom.
They imagined or consented to the death of the Queen. A certain number
(I think eighty) elected and assembled could judge. Therefore she who
they called Mary Stuart had consented to the horrible deed of the
destruction of her person and the invasion of her kingdom. She would
be interrogated by the commissioners upon this point, and they would
judge her as they found good. To a great part of this which was read
Her Majesty took exception, such as she did to the assembled lords
later, and upon their report demanded them to come and speak to her,
which they did. She again referred to her not being subject to the
laws. They said that if she was reigning peaceably in her kingdom and
someone, were it the greatest king on earth, were to conspire against
her, she would not recognise him as a king but would proceed against
him. She said she would never act in such a fashion, and that she saw
quite well they had already condemned her. What they were doing was
only a formality, but what she did was not for the sake of her life.
She was fighting for her honour, for those belonging to her, and for
the Church. Then she attacked what they said in the morning about the
civil and canonical law; that it had been made by the Romish Church,
who did not follow them; that they only bound those in this kingdom who
could make use of them, since they neither approved nor received the
authority of him who had the right by succession. Burghley answered
that as to them they made a common use of the canonical law in many
matters, such as marriages, etc., the authority of the Pope excepted.
She replied wisely that he could not in consequence approve the right
of him when he disapproved the authority, he being the sole interpreter
of those in the same Church. She knew nobody in England to whom he had
delegated this authority. After this observation they were obliged to
change the subject, seeing that they were not able to answer without
doing wrong to their religion and government. Her Majesty said that
the civil laws made by ancient Catholic emperors, or at least received
and approved by them, could only be used by those who approved their
actions; and as they were difficult to understand and put in force,
each wished to interpret them according to his fancy, therefore they
had founded universities in France, Italy, and Spain to teach them.
Those who had none could not have the true version, but interpreted
them at their own will. If they wished to judge her according to these
laws, she would like to have people from these universities, so as
not to be judged by lawyers who served the laws of England. She told
them that she saw quite well they rejected the civil and canonical
law and wished to subject her to the laws of the country. She did not
know these laws; it was not her profession, and they had taken away
her means of learning them. Kings and princes had people near them
versed in these, she had none; they had taken them away, therefore she
desired to be informed how they were in the habit of acting toward
those similarly situated. They said if she pleased she might hear the
judges and lawyers who had come; she could then learn what was the
law on this point. At first she was content until she perceived by
Burghley's proposal that they meant her to understand that she had a
bad case, that she was subject to the laws, and that they had a right
to cause her to be judged by them. She, seeing that she could not
remonstrate with them without humiliating herself, refused to hear
them further. They proposed the reading of the other commission. She
refused the request, suspecting that they were making laws expressly
to convict her, and that they wished to dispossess her of her right of
succession to the kingdom. She was answered that they were indeed new
laws, and that they were as just and equitable as any others before
God and justice; that she knew well it was necessary from time to time
to abrogate some and to make others. She replied that the new laws
could not affect her, being a stranger and not subject to them. She
confessed to being a Catholic, and for that religion she wished to die
and shed the last drop of her blood; that she was ready, and would
esteem herself happy if God would give her grace to die in this cause.
They, astonished at the firmness of her attitude, pressed her no longer
and reserved their answer. She asked for the protest she had made at
Sheffield. The Chancellor and the Treasurer read the duplicate as they
had promised in the morning at her request when they had presented the
original, but would not leave it with her as they had no authority to
do so. They confessed that the Chancellor took it, being one of the
deputies at Sheffield in the cause of the Duke of Norfolk. He had taken
charge of her and represented her, but it had never been received nor
approved, and she would not make use of it. The Queen of England had
a right in her kingdom over everyone who plotted against her without
respect of quality or dignity; at the same time one could see how
honourably the Queen had proceeded, having chosen such an honourable
company of lords and nobles of the kingdom, commissioners to proceed in
this matter, assuring her that nothing had been done against her; they
were not judges, only examiners.
“The rest of the day passed in these agitated conversations until
night, when Hatton spoke saying they debated many things which did
not belong to their commission, and that they had only come because
the Queen their mistress was warned that Her Majesty had consented to
what had been undertaken against her person, her State, and the public
peace. It was a question whether she was guilty or not. It seemed to
him that Her Majesty ought not to refuse to be examined; answering
would make evident her innocence, which would be an honour to her and a
comfort to the Queen and all the lords, whether present or absent. It
was the last speech Her Majesty made to him, with tears; that nothing
had ever touched his heart or grieved him so much as to come here to
undertake such a case against her. Her Majesty asked what recompense
she would have when she had proved her innocence, and what reparation
would be made to her for having been in prison so long and accused.
They replied that no harm would happen, and she would be honoured, and
it would satisfy their mistress.
“She remained all night in perplexity, and at last resolved to intimate
to the commissioners that she wished to speak to them before they
assembled.
“_14th October 1586._—This day they came with other Lords, including
Walsingham, who had not attended the previous day. She thus addressed
them:—'Sirs, consider my rank, having been born a Queen, a foreigner,
a near relation to your Queen. It cannot surprise you that I should
be offended at the manner in which you proceed against me, nor that I
refuse to recognise your assembly and your mode of procedure as not
being obligatory; nor am I subject to your laws nor to your Queen. I
cannot answer without prejudicing my state, mine and the other kings
and princes of my rank. And at all times I am careful of my honour,
to defend which I would not spare my life. Rather than do wrong to
the other princes and to my son I am ready to die, if so be that the
Queen has a bad opinion of me. She has been wrongly informed if she
thinks I have plotted against her person. To show the goodwill I bear
her I have demonstrated many times in the offers I have submitted to
her, and by my behaviour. In order that you should not think I refuse
to answer because I am guilty, and that ambition has induced me to do
a reproachable act unworthy of my sacred person, I offer to answer
upon this point alone—the life of the Queen—of which I swear to you I
am entirely innocent. In making this protestation I demand a deed in
writing.' They were very glad to have brought her to this point, and
said that they would not trouble her with anything else. In order to
satisfy her and prove whether she was guilty or not, they would receive
her protestation and hoped she would prepare herself to come into the
Council. She promised to do so immediately after she had dined, with a
little wine, feeling herself feeble and ill.
They had erected at the east of the hall the daïs of the Queen, and on
the two sides along the partition below were seated the Lords named
in the commission; and in the middle along tables and benches were
seated the commissioners and Chief Justice in their order. Below they
had erected a barrier, one part of which could be raised in order to
pass out and in. Her Majesty entered with a veil, a mantle, with a
long train held by one of her ladies. Beauregard was seated in one of
the chairs of crimson velvet at the side of the daïs, under her feet a
square of the same material; assisted by Melville, Bourgoyne, Jervis,
Mowbray, and Beauregard, with Jane Kennedy and Alice Curle, maids,
behind her. None of the other servants were allowed to be present.
Paulet and Stallenge were seated behind her as guards. Bromley, the
Chancellor, opened the proceedings, and began to say that the Queen of
England had been informed, to her great regret, that the destruction
of her person and the overthrow of her kingdom had almost been
accomplished by the Queen of Scots. Notwithstanding her tolerance and
patience, the Queen of Scots continued these evil practices and had
become the disturber of religion and the public peace in her kingdom
and also in countries beyond the sea. The Queen of England because of
this had ordered this assembly to investigate the same without malice.
If the Queen of Scots were guilty of this deed, and if the Queen of
England were careless or so ill-advised as not to have it investigated,
she would have committed a great offence against God and would carry
the sword in vain. Therefore she had sent this commission, upon the
reading of which and hearing the things proposed by Council, the Queen
of Scots would be able to say what seemed good for her defence and the
declaring of her innocence.
“Addressing the Queen of Scots, Bromley said: 'Madam, you have heard
the reason why we are here; you have heard the indictment, and you
will be able to say what pleases you.' She then commenced boldly to
make a speech, the substance of which was that she had come into
England in the hope of succour and under the promise of aid against her
enemies; she protested that she was a sovereign and free princess, not
recognising any superior but God; that whatever she did in answering
the commissioners, who she believed were wrong and falsely informed
against her, she might do prejudice to herself, the princes her allies,
the King her son, or anyone who might succeed her. Which protestation
she made not in regard to her life or to prevent anything becoming
known, but for the preservation of her prerogative and honour and
dignity, not wishing because she appeared before the commissioners to
be compromised or declared a subject of the Queen of England; but that
she might show by her answers that she was not guilty of the crime
against the person of Elizabeth with which she was charged. And this
point alone and no other she would answer. She desired that each of
them would keep this in remembrance, and that her protest would be put
into a public act, and that all the Lords present and the nobility
might testify to it, all of whom she called to bear witness if some day
there should be need of it. And she protested before the living God
that she loved the Queen her dear friend and sister, and that she had
always borne goodwill to the kingdom.
“The Chancellor in name of the commissioners not at all approving of
Mary's entering England under the promise of Elizabeth, but disavowing
it, said that these protests were of no importance inasmuch as the
Queen of Scots was in the kingdom and charged with such a crime
whatever rank or state she wears. She had become subject to the laws
notwithstanding the commissioners were content without any approval
or deliverance by them. In the name of all present he protested that
the protestation of the Queen of Scots was nothing and of no effect in
law, and was in no way prejudicial to the dignity and supreme power of
their Sovereign, the majesty of her kingdom, or the prerogative of her
crown. Which protestation he required to be registered and all present
to bear witness to it. In the meantime they were required to read the
commission, which was in Latin and contained the above.
“The Queen answered that she did not approve this commission nor its
constitution, being based on new laws or articles newly made expressly
against her. Hearing the reading of a point she gave her answer
without their asking whether it was true or not. Their manner was
only to keep reading or speaking in order to persuade the lords that
the Queen was guilty. Addressing always their speech to the lords was
confusing and without any order, nobody answering them a word, so that
the Queen told us when she returned to her chamber that it put her in
mind of the passion of Jesus Christ, and that it seemed to her, without
making any comparison, that they did to her in her place as the Jews
did to Christ who cried, 'Away with Him, crucify Him,' and that she was
certain there were those in the company who had pity on her and did not
say what they thought.
“Notwithstanding all this the Queen never lost heart, and the more
they warmed up to hinder her the firmer she grew; her heart, her
strength, her reason rose to the occasion. She remonstrated on the
wrong Elizabeth had done her in keeping her a prisoner. She had been
kept eighteen years in affliction, treated as the meanest subject would
not have been, having no reason for doing this and still less a right;
and because of these trials she had lost her health and the use of
her limbs, as they could see; that she could neither walk nor use her
arms, and almost always was in bed; had become aged and overwhelmed
with misery, and had lost the little gift of _esprit_ that God had
given her; also her memory to remember things she had seen and read,
which would have helped her in this place when she was all alone; also
the knowledge of business which she had learned for the management of
her affairs, the exercise of the state to which God had called her
and of which they had unjustly and traitorously deprived her, and so
hindered her from recovering her rights. Besides, not content with
this, her enemies by their ill-will had tried to ruin her. She appealed
to Almighty God, her Church, and all Christian princes, and to the
Estates of this kingdom lawfully assembled. She was ready and prepared
to sustain and defend her honour as an innocent person provided they
would give her a public trial and in presence of some princes or
foreign judges, even her own proper judges, and all without prejudice
to their mother Church, to the Kings, sovereign princes, and her
son; specially taking into consideration the right which the English
claimed, and pretended that it appeared in their chronicles, that they
were above the predecessors of Her Majesty, the kings of Scotland. This
right she denied and would not admit or strengthen by any act which she
could now do, being forced to maintain the honour of these princes,
and for want of this she would declare them traitors or rebels, and
rather than approve she was ready to die for God and her right. And in
this cause being innocent she would offer her life and give herself
up to their judgment, and thereby show that she was not ambitious and
would not undertake anything against the Queen of England, nor did
she desire to reign; she had left all that, and no longer cared for
anything for herself but simply to pass the rest of her life in peace
and tranquillity of mind; that her age and strength were not enough
for the burden of reigning, and she had no desire for any government
or public duty, seeing she was in such poor health and possibly having
only two or three years to live. Also considering how difficult it was
to conduct herself and do justice, and acquit herself with the dignity
of a Queen in these evil times filled with wickedness, the whole earth
being filled thereby.”
[Illustration: WILLIAM CECIL, LORD BURGHLEY.
_From the Hatfield Collection._]