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.
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.