2. That the interpolations on her letter to Babington were the work of Walsingham.
3. That the importunity of Elizabeth's ministers was by Elizabeth's express command, and was part of a deliberate plan to incriminate Mary, in order to justify her execution.
4. That this course was considered the most politic in order to defend their action before the crowned heads of Europe.
To the unlearned in those times a charge of this kind instituted by the Queen of England would, as already stated, be calculated to raise great suspicions against the Queen of Scots.
There is some similarity between the murderers of Darnley meeting solemnly at the Privy Council and resolving to prosecute and punish the murderers, and this trial at Fotheringay, when Elizabeth, who was responsible for the conspiracy against her own life, resolved to punish the authors of that conspiracy. In view of this, the speech of the Lord Chancellor in opening the case is an extraordinary exhibition of the corrupt morality of the period. The scheme to incriminate Mary was not a secret one. Its execution by Walsingham and others would make it universally known at the English court. Of the conduct of Elizabeth's ministers in this matter there is only one explanation, and that was their fear of death. They were presumably terrified by such a bloodthirsty woman, and were glad to do anything rather than irritate her. Mary told them that Babington's plot was simply to release her, and she demanded to see any letter of hers referring to a conspiracy against Elizabeth. But no such letter could be produced; only copies, and these interpolated.
It would appear from Bourgoyne that during the trial the manner of the prosecutors was “to keep reading or speaking, in order to persuade the lords that she was guilty.” All this was doubtless prearranged. When the Queen returned to her chamber she said to Bourgoyne that the trial put her in mind of that of Jesus Christ. They did to her in her place as the Jews did to Him: “Away with Him, crucify Him.” She saw that she was practically condemned, and that nothing could save her. She appealed to Almighty God as the judge of her innocence, and demanded a public trial. This they refused, and this must be regarded as a proof of the weakness of their case.
The trial at Fotheringay was private and limited to Elizabeth's commissioners and a very few others. Burghley at the close of the Queen's speech tried to make a point against her by charging her with wearing the arms of England. To charge the captive queen with that when she had been nineteen years in captivity was an inexcusable and heartless proceeding, and shows how little better he was than his mistress. In regard to Nau and Curle, Queen Mary said she could not answer for them what they had written about this enterprise (conspiracy); that they had done it of themselves without her knowledge. Nau had been a traitor for about a year before this, and there is no doubt that anything he said against her, though void of truth, would be greedily devoured by Elizabeth's ministers. Mary said that she and Nau had many quarrels because she would not give in to his ideas and would not instruct him. He did her great harm, and to save themselves they had accused her.
When Elizabeth gave sentence of death Bourgoyne says there was great excitement in Parliament over it. We do not doubt this, for every member of Parliament outside of Elizabeth's ministers could not but be impressed with Mary's eloquent words and with her innocence, and with Elizabeth's tyrannical conduct. The treatment of Mary by her tormentors was still further illustrated. All her last requests were refused by Paulet, and eventually she was not allowed to write a letter without showing it to him and allowing him to read it. Had the Crown of Scotland ever reached a lower depth?
On the evening of the second day of the trial, 15th October, Burghley appears to have written the following letter to Davison, one of Elizabeth's secretaries. As Davison would put the letter before his mistress, and Burghley knew that, that would account for the wording of it. The letter is not creditable to Burghley. It was a dish prepared to suit the palate of Elizabeth. “I did so encounter her (Mary) with the reasons, etc., as she had not the advantage she looked for.” Why was Queen Mary there at all?
Burghley, from his position, could not but be aware of the tampering with her letters; that he could produce no authentic proof against her; that before the trial he had Elizabeth's order to condemn her; and this letter to Davison was therefore a discreditable communication from the first minister of the Crown:—“This Queen of the Castle (Mary at Fotheringay) was content to appear again before us in public to be heard, but in truth not to be heard for her defence, for she could say nothing but negatively that the points of the letters that concerned the practice against the Queen's person (Elizabeth) were never by her written, nor of her knowledge; the rest for invasion, for escaping by force, she would neither deny nor affirm. But her intention was by long, artificial speeches to move pity, to lay all the blame on the Queen's Majesty, or rather on the Privy Council, stating that all the troubles of the past did ensue because of her reasonable offers and our refusals; and in these her speeches I did so encounter her with reasons out of my knowledge and experience as she had not that advantage she looked for; as I am sure the auditory did find her case not pitiable, her allegations untrue, by which means great debate fell yesternight very long, and this day renewed with great vigour. And we find all persons in the commission fully satisfied, as by Her Majesty's order judgment will be given at our next meeting; but the record will not be provided in five or six days, and that was our reason why, if we had proceeded to judgment, we should have tarried five or six days more. And surely the country could not bear it by the waste of bread, specially our company being there, and within six miles above two thousand horsemen, but by reason of Her Majesty's letter we of her Privy Council, that is, the Lord Chancellor, Mr. Rich, the Secretary, and myself, only did procure this prorogation for the other two causes.”