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.