Mary was evidently not aware that, by an Act passed fifteen years before, witnesses in trials for high treason were required to be confronted with the accused, and not one of her six-and-thirty judges had the courage to inform her of this important fact. All remained deaf to her appeals; her secretaries were not examined and her notes were not produced. Nothing could have been more utterly worthless than the evidence produced against her. The letters were alleged to be copies of cyphers, but by whom the cyphers were deciphered, and by whom the copies were made, the commissioners were not informed, nor did they ask a question on the subject. [7]
On the second day neither the attorney-general nor the solicitor-general nor the Queen's sergeant took any part in the proceedings. Whether he was dissatisfied with the mode in which they had conducted the case, or whether he was desirous of displaying his erudition and his animosity against the Scottish Queen, Burghley took upon himself the whole management of the trial. Such conduct on the part of a judge was neither dignified nor decent, nor do we find in any other of the State trials of this reign so marked a departure from established usage. It may perhaps be taken as a proof of his declining powers that he had even the vanity to boast of the skill and success with which he had encountered and defeated the “Queen of the Castle,” as he facetiously termed the woman against whose life and reputation he had plotted incessantly for more than twenty years. [8]
On the 25th October the commissioners met in the Star Chamber, Westminster. With one exception, they found Mary guilty, not of the various matters laid to her charge by Burghley, but of having compassed and imagined since 1st June divers matters “tending to the hurt, death, and destruction of the Queen of England.” Lord Zouch alone had the spirit to dissent from the sentence, declaring that he was not satisfied that she had done so. Thus ended the most disgraceful of all the judicial iniquities which disgrace the history of England. No witnesses were examined, and of the various documents produced against her not one was original. They were not even copies of written papers; they were only alleged to be copies of cyphers, on the credit of men who were not confronted with the accused, and whose signatures attached to their alleged confessions were either obtained through fear of torture or forged by Phillips. [9] It is evident that the utmost exertions and the strictest search on the part of Mary's enemies, directed by all the skill and vigour of Walsingham and carried into effect by the unscrupulous artifices and ingenuity of Phillips, had not been able to find the smallest scrap of evidence under Mary's hand which could connect her with the plot against Elizabeth's life. The whole case has been examined and carefully weighed, and the result is a confirmation of Mary's innocence. [10]
That devoted friend of the Queen of Scots, Marie Seton, one of the four Maries, now living in the convent of Rheims in France, had evidently heard of the overwhelming calamity which had befallen her old mistress, and writing a private letter to Courcelles, the French Ambassador in Scotland, sent by Henry III. to urge Queen Mary's cause before Elizabeth, under date 21st October 1586, said:—
“If she had not had a long experience of his courtesy she would complain of lack of news, as she only heard yesterday of his going to Scotland, in a letter from Paris on the return of M. d'Epinart's son. Begs to recall herself to his memory. It is nearly twenty years since Marie Seton left Scotland, and almost all her relatives and friends had died during that period: still there must be some who would let her know any news that he might be kind enough to tell her. She apologises for a short letter, but has to write in great haste. She only adds that she is in great trouble and anxiety over the news which the talk in France has of fresh troubles to the Queen her mistress, and commends M. de Courcelles to God, praying to God that he may be happier than she is,” etc.
The espionage of the Scottish Queen continued with unabated energy. Paulet was careful not to name her in his correspondence with his august mistress, but used the expression “this Queen.” This pleased Elizabeth, and Paulet had her instructions to report daily everything that passed even to the minutest particular. The following letter, Paulet to Walsingham, 24th October 1586, enables us to understand the sort of material Elizabeth desired and relished. This illiterate individual instructing the Queen of Scots what books to read is highly ludicrous. Mary's sarcasm would doubtless be exercised on such a tempting opportunity, but Paulet takes care not to record it:—
“I took occasion yesterday, accompanied with Stallenge, to visit this Queen, who hath been troubled these two days past with a defluxion in one of her shoulders. I see no change in her from her former quietness and security certified in my last letter, careful to have her chambers put in good order, desirous to have divers things provided for her own necessary use, expecting to have her money shortly restored, taking pleasure in trifling toys, and in the whole course of her speech free from grief of mind to all outward appearance. I tarried with her one hour and a half at the least, which I did on purpose to feel her disposition, and moving no new matter myself, suffered her to go from subject to subject at her pleasure. She had a long conversation with Lady Shrewsbury of the Lord of Abergavenny, and of some other things not worthy of notice. This only I thought good to signify to you, that failing in the talk of the late assembly here, and having glanced at Lord Zouch for his speech in her chamber, and also of Lord Morley for some things delivered by him to the lords sitting next to him, which she said she overheard and told him so in the open assembly. She was curious to be informed of the names of those sitting in such a place, and of others sitting in other places, saying that one had said little, another somewhat more, and others very much. I told her that I might easily perceive by her reference to the lords which she had named that she was much inclined to think ill of all of those who spoke, and that I would forbear to name any to her, praying her to think honourably of the whole assembly, and to think that those who spoke and the rest who were silent were of one mind, to hear her cause with all impartiality. She added that the histories made mention that the realm was used to blood. I answered that if she would peruse the Chronicles of Scotland, France, Spain, and Italy, she would find that this realm was far behind any other Christian nation in shedding of blood, although the same was often very necessary where dangerous offences arose. She was not willing to go further into this matter, and indeed it was easy to see that she had no meaning in this speech to reach her own cause, but spoke by way of observation, after her usual manner. Thus you see that I am bold to trouble you with trifles, as one willing to be blamed rather for lack of good manners than for want of diligence.”
It would appear that on 11th November Walsingham received an anonymous letter, evidently from a Catholic writer, informing him that Elizabeth dared not put the Queen of Scots to death for fear of the consequences. This threat, however, was not followed by any movement to support it. The indifference of the Scottish people to the persecution and imprisonment of their Sovereign cannot be explained unless their loyalty to James VI., her son, stood in the way, and they could not face a rebellion.