On leaving the Queen's presence, Davison, very anxious in mind, hurried to acquaint Burleigh and Sir Christopher Hatton with his suspicions. Burleigh was detained at home by the gout, but he sent at once for all the members of the council. He was now determined to act on his own responsibility; he had the warrant duly signed by Elizabeth in his possession, yet he well remembered that she had before twice signed and twice cancelled the warrant for the Duke of Norfolk's execution. Burleigh was also well aware, as we know, of the correspondence going on with Paulet, but he probably anticipated Paulet's refusal; in any case he resolved to act without waiting for his reply. When therefore his colleagues were assembled,[98] he laid the signed warrant before them, informed them that their mistress had now done all that the law required of her, and suggested that it was now their duty to obey her without troubling her further. He also suggested that in a matter of so grave importance it would be well that all the members of the council should unite in sharing the responsibility of the act, in case any question should arise later regarding it. Burleigh's proposals were carried unanimously, and it was determined that the warrant should be given to Beale, the clerk of council, to be conveyed by him to the Earls of Kent and Shrewsbury, who were appointed to see to its execution. Burleigh told Beale that the matter required great speed and secrecy, as if known, "H.M.'s life would be in hazard."[99]
Paulet's letter reached London on 4th February, but it was not communicated to Elizabeth till the next day, Sunday. That morning the Queen sent for Davison, on whom, owing to Walsingham's illness, fell the unpleasing task of showing her the letter. At first the Queen made no allusion to the subject. She related to him that she had dreamed the previous night that she was punishing him for being the cause of the death of the Queen of Scots, adding with a smile that she had been so possessed by this dream that if she had had a sword at hand she would have pierced him through with it. Davison, justly alarmed at the Queen's sinister tone and ambiguous words, once more asked her if she had decided to have the Queen of Scots executed or not.
"Yes," cried she impetuously, but, she continued, "I do not like the legal method, as upon me alone will fall all the responsibility;" and as Davison repeated his objections to any other method, Elizabeth shrugged her shoulders, and looking at him contemptuously, remarked that "wiser men than he held a different opinion." Then suddenly changing the subject, the Queen inquired if there had been any reply from Paulet. When Davison, in fear and trembling, had presented the letter, she read it with extreme indignation. Pacing the room uneasily, she gave way to violent anger and disappointment, and abused Paulet in no measured terms. He was no longer her "loving Amyas," but one of those "dainty and precise" fellows who would promise everything and perform nothing. Nay, more, he was a perjurer; for had he not subscribed the bond of association, by which he obliged himself, at the hazard of his life, to save his Queen? "But," added Elizabeth, "I can do without him; I have Wingfield, who will not draw back."
For the next few days Elizabeth made no further sign. She maintained an absolute reserve on the subject which was torturing her till the morning of the day of execution, when, throwing off the mask, she told Davison that it was time this ended, adding with a terrible oath that it was a shame for her ministers that the affair was not yet terminated. Her ministers had indeed ended all, as she was soon to learn.[100]
As soon as Beale had received the warrant he started for Fotheringay.[101] Yet the question of the manner of Mary's death was even still undecided, as we learn by the following curious facts now first brought to light: "When R.B. (Robert Beale) was come to Fotheringay, he understood from Sir A. Paulet and Sir Drue Drury that they had been dealt with by a letter if they could have been induced to suffer her to have been violently smothered by some that should have been appointed for that purpose. But they disliked that course as dishonourable and dangerous, and so did R.B., and therefore thought it convenient to have it done by law in such sort as they might justify their doings by law."[102] And here Beale adds in his own hand the following: "One Wingfield (as it was thought) should have been appointed for this deed, and it seemed that H.M. would have had it done so rather than otherwise, pretending that Archibald Douglas, the Sco. Ambassador, had so advised her. Of all her councillors it is thought that the Earl of Leicestre did most exhort her unto this course, but both the secretaries misliked thereof, and so did Sir Amis Paulet and Sir Drue Drury. H.M. would fain have had it so, alledging the association whereby men seemed bound to such a thing and promising pardon. But the matter being in consideration at R.B. being at Fotheringay by the example of Edward II. and Richard II., it was not thought convenient or safe to proceed covertly but openly, according to the statute."[103]
Walsingham had taken upon himself all the arrangements with the executioner, telling Beale "that he would take order to send down the hangman (Bull) and his instrument by George Digby, his servant.... He was hired by one Anthony Hall, a Londoner, servant under the sd. Mr. Secretary, and then dwelling without Bishops Gate, who afterwards reported unto the said R.B. (Robert Beale) and others, that he agreed with him for £10 for his labour." Walsingham sent Digby first to Sir Walter Mildmay, begging him to lodge the executioner at his house Apthorpe, distant but two miles from Fotheringay. But Sir Walter,—and we are not surprised to learn it,—"misliked therof," and he was eventually lodged "in an inn at Fotheringay, kept secretly until the day."[104] Walsingham had announced Bull's arrival to Paulet in these terms: "I send down the executioner by a trusty servant of mine, who will be at Fotheringay upon Sunday at night. His instrument is put in a trunk, and he passeth as a serving-man. There is great care taken to have the matter pass in secresy"[105] (signed London, 3rd February).
After informing the Earl of Kent of his duty on the way, Beale had reached Fotheringay on Sunday evening, 5th February, where he showed his commission to Paulet and Drury, and the next day he hastened to communicate it to the Earl of Shrewsbury, who was staying in the neighbourhood. That same evening Beale returned to the castle to dine with Paulet, accompanied by several persons who were to be present at the execution—among them was Dr. Fletcher, Dean of Peterborough. And here let us pause on the eve of the day which brought the fatal tidings to Queen Mary. If Elizabeth was troubled in mind, and haunted with remorse, Mary, on the contrary, awaited in absolute calm and resignation the end of her life of sorrows.[106]