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.
MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS.
From the Collection of Lord Elphinstone, at Carberry Tower.
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.