"The said Bourgoing then returned to Her Majesty, and surprised her very much, and also the others, with his tidings, which caused many thoughts and imaginings without any conclusion being arrived at, as there seemed no apparent reason for these proceedings.
"The next day the Queen sent Bourgoing to Paulet to say that after his report she would have sent him to inquire the previous day had it not been too late, and that she wished to think over what she had heard. I think (adds Bourgoing) that the chief reason was that she feared I would be kept away from her like the others." Bourgoing and Paulet had a long discussion; the former represented to Paulet how strange it appeared to his mistress that she had received no answer to her letter, and that she could not even feel assured that it had reached Queen Elizabeth, and not only that, but that in this doubt she had prepared another letter, and had not yet heard from Sir Amyas whether she might send it or not. To this Paulet replied that Mary's letter had certainly reached Queen Elizabeth, but that no answer had come. He was not the person to keep a letter back from the Queen of Scots, and that as regards the second letter which she had written to his mistress, his judgment told him that because he had permission to send one, this did not mean he could forward more.
Being pressed upon the latter point, Paulet repeated that he had not permission to forward letters. Bourgoing thus continues: "It was told him in the second place that she (Mary) was in great distress to know the cause of her attendants being taken from her, saying that the Queen of England had, at her request, sent her priest that she might have the consolation of his presence and his assistance in preparing for death, and that now when he was most necessary to her, he was taken away. There was no one so criminal, she said, but he was allowed a minister of his religion to conduct him to execution, to console and minister to him, and that the only consolations that she still had in her misery and captivity were those of her religion. She regretted infinitely (continued Bourgoing) not to be able to perform her devotions as she would wish, to assist at Mass, and do her duty as a good Christian. Queen Elizabeth had promised her not to interfere with her in her religion, and yet it was for her religion only that she was persecuted. Her priest was in no one's way; he interfered with nothing, devoting himself to his prayers. It would have been better not to have allowed him to return than now to remove him in her greatest need, and she now plainly perceived that they would not be content with afflicting the body but would proceed, were it possible, to destroy not only the body and life itself, but also the soul, which, however, could never be, as she had entire hope in God, that He would be with her in this last trial as He had ever been. She saw that their intention was to take her servants from her one by one, and to remove herself secretly from here to make her die when they wished, or to murder her secretly.
"To the first point Paulet replied that he did not doubt that the Queen (Mary) desired to have the priest near her, nor that she was vexed at his absence, but she might assure herself that he was not far off. He was neither in France nor in Scotland, nor indeed out of the house, and that he saw no cause for thinking that, when it should be necessary as the Queen thought, she should not have him. For the rest, continued he, she was peradventure not so near death as she imagined, and for the present she must be satisfied. When Paulet heard, however, of the fear entertained by Mary that she would be murdered, or secretly put to death, he fell into a rage, protesting that there was no greater danger of her being thus insulted than there was for Bourgoing himself, who had no reason to fear that anything should be attempted against him. The latter then pressing the question as to whether there was really no plot of the kind against his mistress, Paulet said 'that there was no more danger for Her Majesty that such a thing should be done to her, than there was for his own wife, his children, or himself, and of this he would dare to swear. That as for him, he was not the man to do, or make others do, such a thing, feeling indeed hurt to be thus suspected; he was a man of honour and a gentleman, and he would not wish so to dishonour himself as to wish to exercise such cruelty or to conduct himself as a Turk! People must not think such things of him. When it was suggested to him that the Queen did not so much fear him as others who were her enemies, and who would not be unwilling to do her a bad turn if it were to their own advantage, Paulet replied that he alone would be responsible for all, and that she might assure herself that nothing of the kind would occur.' In this protest Paulet did himself no less than justice, as his after conduct proved; much as he hated his prisoner, she was safe in his hands from assassination.
"Bourgoing before leaving Paulet anxiously inquired for Mary, why Melville had likewise been separated from her and for what reason. To which Paulet's reply was that Mr. Melville was an honest gentleman, that he was separated from her for no offence against Queen Elizabeth or for anything in particular, but there were certain reasons which made it necessary.
"Bourgoing then told Paulet that in future his mistress would be afraid to send any one to speak to him, in the fear that he would detain them, one after the other. But Paulet assured him that she need have no such fear, and that all her servants were in the house."[83]
Paulet's real sentiments on this occasion may be gathered from a letter to Mr. Secretary Davison, written two days before.[84] Although written from a bed of sickness, he evinces no sympathy for the Queen's chronic ill-health, nor does it seem to occur to him that Chartley was as unwholesome for his delicate prisoner as for himself, the "naughty waters" there having contributed to aggravate the Queen's rheumatism and other ailments.
On the Monday (23rd January) Melville had an interview with Paulet—the first since he had been separated from the others—and spoke in the same sense as his mistress of his separation from her. Sir Amyas replied very courteously, but declined to give any reason for this decision. He likewise declined to give M. de Préau and Melville a separate allowance of food, saying that as when they were with the others there was sufficient for all, nothing extra was now needed. All this created much surmise and anxiety among the Queen's people, but that same evening a clue was given to the mystery. About five o'clock the Fotheringay porter, Newrins, came to forbid Jehan Landet, the Queen's butler, to carry the rod before the dishes of meat served to his mistress. (This office had belonged to Melville, as master of the household, and had only been exercised by Landet since his absence.)[85]
"At this," says Bourgoing, "Her Majesty was greatly astonished, and wished at once to send to Sir Amyas to learn the reason, but he would receive no one, saying that it was too late and that they could speak to him next day, and if it was about the rod being forbidden, it was no use, as if he had remembered when M. Melville was taken away, it would have been forbidden then. On the following day the Queen sent Bourgoing to Paulet with a message to say that although she had for a time felt relief from her fear of being secretly put to death, in consequence of the assurances she had received through Bourgoing of his good intentions in her regard, the same painful doubt now recurred to her mind. She saw in the new order he had given fresh cause to fear that the last vestiges of her royal dignity were taken from her only in order that such a crime might the more easily be committed. Her Majesty was surprised," continued Bourgoing, "that Paulet should take the trouble to forbid so small a thing, which could not possibly do good or harm. He could of course command his own servants, and if he wished, do nothing for her or to honour her, but Her Majesty was of opinion that he should not forbid her own attendants to do what was according to their duty and to their oath to her, their mistress.