“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.”