“Her Majesty said that this letter was a mandate and written as to a subject; that she was Queen and a born daughter of a Queen, a foreigner, and the nearest relation of the Queen of England; that she had come to England on the promise that had been made to her to give her help against her enemies and subjects, and was thereupon made prisoner, the which she had been for eighteen years, ill-treated always and afflicted and troubled by their continued persecution. She had several times suggested suitable conditions; she had many times asked to speak with Elizabeth, was ever willing to serve and do her pleasure, but she had been always influenced by enemies; that she, as a free Queen, could not accept commands, nor respond to laws, without hurting herself, the King her son, and all other sovereign princes. That she was of the same estate, majesty, and dignity, and would not submit, neither she, her heirs, or her country, as a valet had done (referring to Moray); she would rather die. She challenged her judges as being contrary to her religion; she did not recognise the laws of England, did not know them, did not understand them, and many times had made this protest. She demanded that former protests be taken account of; that she was alone, without counsel; that her servants had been taken away, also those who knew and had managed her affairs and had cognisance of laws and formalities; that there was no criminal so poor who might not have someone to speak for him. They had taken away her papers, memoranda, evidences of her past experience, so that she was destitute of all aid, taken by surprise, and ordered to obey and answer people who had been instructed for a long time. The greater part of them were evil disposed to her and only sought her ruin.”
The State Paper Office contains a rather different version of this interview, which it will be interesting to compare with that of Bourgoyne. It is as follows:—
“Relation of an interview between Sir Walter Mildmay, Sir Amias Paulet, and Edward Barker, and the Queen of Scots:—
“Upon the repair of Sir Walter Mildmay, Sir Amias Paulet, and Edward Barker to the Scottish Queen, and the delivery of Elizabeth's letters, the Scottish Queen read the same and thereupon said she was very sorry that the Queen her good sister was so evil informed of her after so many offers made on her behalf. Notwithstanding any assurance given to Elizabeth by her and her friends, she found she was neglected, and that though she had forewarned things dangerous to Her Majesty and the State, she was not believed but contemned. This grieved her much, she being Her Majesty's nearest kinswoman, saying that the association made here and the Act thereupon passed in Parliament gave her sufficient understanding what was intended against her. She added that she saw well whatever danger should happen to Her Majesty, either through the instrumentality of foreign princes, the discontent of private persons, or matters of religion, it would all be laid upon her, for she had many enemies. After some other words to the same effect, and a recital of a long-endured captivity and of some supposed unkindnesses offered to her, she said that a league had been made between Her Majesty and the King her son without her consent or knowledge. For answer to Her Majesty's letter she said she found it very strange that Her Majesty wrote in such sort, for it was in the nature of a command and that she should answer as a subject; but for her part she was born a Queen, and she would not prejudice her rank and state, nor the blood whereof she was descended, nor her son who was to follow her, nor would give so prejudicial a precedent to foreign princes, as to answer according to the desire of those letters. For her heart could not yield to any compulsion. She referred to the protestation which she had already made to the Lord Chancellor, the Lord de la Warr, and others, adding that she was ignorant of the laws and statutes of the realm, that she was destitute of counsel and knew not who were her competent peers, also that her papers were taken from her and that nobody dared or would speak on her behalf. After this she solemnly protested that she was innocent and had not procured or encouraged any hurt against Elizabeth, and that she was not to be charged but by her word or writing, as she was sure that neither the one nor the other could be shown against her, confessing notwithstanding, that after so many offers made by herself and not accepted by Elizabeth, she remitted herself and her cause to foreign princes.”
Mary's sentiments having been communicated to Elizabeth, she wrote Mary as follows:—
“You have in various ways and manners attempted to take my life and bring my kingdom to destruction by bloodshed. I have never proceeded harshly against you, but, on the contrary, protected and maintained you like myself. These treasons will be proved to you and will be made manifest. Yet it is my will that you answer the nobles and peers of the kingdom as if I myself were present. I therefore require, charge, and command you, that you make answer, for I have been well informed of your arrogance. Act candidly, and you will receive the greater favour of me.” [19]
“Sir Walter Mildmay repeated her conversation and then went and reported it to the Council, which was assembled in a chamber adjoining. This finished, all separated, and went to their places of abode. Paulet, Barker, and Stallenge came to the Queen from the Council, who having heard Her Majesty's answer to Elizabeth's letter found it good to have it written and communicated to her that she might verify it. Therefore Barker on his knees read it to her, rewritten in a good style without anything forgotten except that she wished to speak to Elizabeth. She verbally approved it without any signature.
“Thursday, 13th October.—Paulet, Barker, and Stallenge came to her about ten o'clock in order to ask if it would please her to hear the commissioners, who wished to speak to her. Being willing, they entered her chamber each in their order with great ceremony, one marching before the other bearing seals or the arms of the Chancellor. Then the Chancellor, speaking first, said he came by command of the Queen of England, she being informed that the Queen of Scots was charged with some plot or enterprise against her person or estate, with authority to examine her on certain charges, and upon her answer to proceed as the Council were disposed. She told them that she had seen the letter of the Queen of England, and that she had replied to it the day before. She said this with tears, moving everyone to pity. Burghley, a very vehement man, speaking for the others, said that the Council had seen the answer and he had taken the advice of the law doctors who were versed in civil and canonical law, who after deliberation had found that, notwithstanding her answer, he must proceed with the examination, and therefore the lords had come to examine her; that she might say whether she would hear them or not, because if she refused they would proceed according to their commission. Her Majesty remonstrated about her rank and that she was not a subject, to which they replied that Elizabeth recognised no Queen in her kingdom but herself. As to them, they would not speak to her as to a subject; they knew well her origin and rank; that their commission was not to give way to this, only to examine her upon international and civil and canonical laws. After some conversation touching her bad treatment and the severity she had endured, the commissioners, seeing she would not consent to be examined because she was not a subject, went away. After dinner she made some memorandums with her own hand to refresh her memory when the commissioners returned, as she could not remember everything. Her heart swelled with affliction; her spirits seemed to awaken and become stronger, so that she was able to debate the cause when she was rudely assailed by the commissioners, and said more than she had written. These returned after dinner, when she demanded the indictment of the Queen; what she meant by the word 'protection'; why she (the Queen of Scots) had come into England, and with what intention. Burghley, who always did the speaking, was irritated, and said that he had seen the letter, and what had been written had explained itself. It would be presumptuous to undertake to interpret the letters of his mistress. That did not belong to them. The Queen said he was not so ignorant of the mind of Elizabeth as not to know her will and intention. If he had power to interpret to the Council he had also power and authority to interpret the Queen's letter to her. Burghley denying that he had power to do so, said he knew well the Queen's intention, namely, that everyone in her kingdom should be subject to the laws, and what he wished to know was whether she would listen to the commissioners or not, or that they might proceed without her. She said she knew this letter was the invention of Walsingham, who had confessed to being her enemy; that she had suspected him as such, and he knew well what he had done against her and her son. Thereupon they debated among themselves if Walsingham was in London when the letter was written, but they came to no decision.
“This same afternoon they sent Paulet before the commissioners came, with an attorney and Bagot and Stallenge, saying that Her Majesty had desired the duplicate of the commission or the principal points of it, and that this had been granted. The Council sent her the roll of the commissioners, explaining the points and the subject of the commission, which was founded by two Acts of Parliament passed two years before, namely, that they must not talk of the succession of the Scottish Queen during the life of Elizabeth, nor of anyone of any station, rank, or dignity whatsoever outside or inside the kingdom. They imagined or consented to the death of the Queen. A certain number (I think eighty) elected and assembled could judge. Therefore she who they called Mary Stuart had consented to the horrible deed of the destruction of her person and the invasion of her kingdom. She would be interrogated by the commissioners upon this point, and they would judge her as they found good. To a great part of this which was read Her Majesty took exception, such as she did to the assembled lords later, and upon their report demanded them to come and speak to her, which they did. She again referred to her not being subject to the laws. They said that if she was reigning peaceably in her kingdom and someone, were it the greatest king on earth, were to conspire against her, she would not recognise him as a king but would proceed against him. She said she would never act in such a fashion, and that she saw quite well they had already condemned her. What they were doing was only a formality, but what she did was not for the sake of her life. She was fighting for her honour, for those belonging to her, and for the Church. Then she attacked what they said in the morning about the civil and canonical law; that it had been made by the Romish Church, who did not follow them; that they only bound those in this kingdom who could make use of them, since they neither approved nor received the authority of him who had the right by succession. Burghley answered that as to them they made a common use of the canonical law in many matters, such as marriages, etc., the authority of the Pope excepted. She replied wisely that he could not in consequence approve the right of him when he disapproved the authority, he being the sole interpreter of those in the same Church. She knew nobody in England to whom he had delegated this authority. After this observation they were obliged to change the subject, seeing that they were not able to answer without doing wrong to their religion and government. Her Majesty said that the civil laws made by ancient Catholic emperors, or at least received and approved by them, could only be used by those who approved their actions; and as they were difficult to understand and put in force, each wished to interpret them according to his fancy, therefore they had founded universities in France, Italy, and Spain to teach them. Those who had none could not have the true version, but interpreted them at their own will. If they wished to judge her according to these laws, she would like to have people from these universities, so as not to be judged by lawyers who served the laws of England. She told them that she saw quite well they rejected the civil and canonical law and wished to subject her to the laws of the country. She did not know these laws; it was not her profession, and they had taken away her means of learning them. Kings and princes had people near them versed in these, she had none; they had taken them away, therefore she desired to be informed how they were in the habit of acting toward those similarly situated. They said if she pleased she might hear the judges and lawyers who had come; she could then learn what was the law on this point. At first she was content until she perceived by Burghley's proposal that they meant her to understand that she had a bad case, that she was subject to the laws, and that they had a right to cause her to be judged by them. She, seeing that she could not remonstrate with them without humiliating herself, refused to hear them further. They proposed the reading of the other commission. She refused the request, suspecting that they were making laws expressly to convict her, and that they wished to dispossess her of her right of succession to the kingdom. She was answered that they were indeed new laws, and that they were as just and equitable as any others before God and justice; that she knew well it was necessary from time to time to abrogate some and to make others. She replied that the new laws could not affect her, being a stranger and not subject to them. She confessed to being a Catholic, and for that religion she wished to die and shed the last drop of her blood; that she was ready, and would esteem herself happy if God would give her grace to die in this cause. They, astonished at the firmness of her attitude, pressed her no longer and reserved their answer. She asked for the protest she had made at Sheffield. The Chancellor and the Treasurer read the duplicate as they had promised in the morning at her request when they had presented the original, but would not leave it with her as they had no authority to do so. They confessed that the Chancellor took it, being one of the deputies at Sheffield in the cause of the Duke of Norfolk. He had taken charge of her and represented her, but it had never been received nor approved, and she would not make use of it. The Queen of England had a right in her kingdom over everyone who plotted against her without respect of quality or dignity; at the same time one could see how honourably the Queen had proceeded, having chosen such an honourable company of lords and nobles of the kingdom, commissioners to proceed in this matter, assuring her that nothing had been done against her; they were not judges, only examiners.