than of a court at the close of the sixteenth century with Queen Elizabeth and Lord Burghley at its head. It was a systematic course of torture, kept up daily and terminating with the disgraceful scene at the execution, when the feeble, and pitiable, and defenceless condition of the Queen might have aroused the compassion of her enemies, and spared her the outrage of Fletcher, the Dean of the Diocese, but it did not.
It is due to the Catholic party to say that every movement of Elizabeth was jealously and indignantly watched by them, while Mary's long captivity, coupled with the active reign of her son, seems to have materially toned down the enthusiasm so long felt for her in Scotland. From the businesslike way in which the official papers are now kalendered, we are able to give the text of documents which fifty years ago were not available, and to form a more accurate and intelligible estimate of the whole situation, around which so much controversy has arisen. To many readers these papers will be quite new. They are important as unfolding the intrigues of that turbulent age; the true, unvarnished character of the Queen of England, showing that her primary object was the destruction of the Queen of Scots, her part of the drama being to indicate the means by which that was to be brought about. Her disregard of truth, her duplicity, her indifference to cruelty and murder, and her strong resemblance in that respect to her father, Henry VIII., constituted her a notable member of the house of Tudor. Her treatment of the Queen of Scots is probably without a parallel in history; and it is a curious fact that during Mary's captivity neither her ministers nor her nobility, notwithstanding her unlawful conduct, could induce her to release, or modify the treatment of, the Scottish Queen. They experienced under her a “Reign of Terror,” but of a different kind from that of the unfortunate Mary.
Nor is any adequate reason given by her, certainly no bonâ fide reason, unless it were that Mary was the nearest heir to the Crown of England, and greatly her superior in every human accomplishment. A conspicuous element in this matter is the servility of her ministers. Burghley and Walsingham led the way as her lieutenants, while that poor creature, Sir Amias Paulet, was always ready and willing to torture the Queen of Scots and fall down and worship Elizabeth so long as he was paid to do so. These men were properly educated in the peculiar tactics and sentiments of their mistress. They knew her mind regarding Mary. They foresaw the end: that the latter was to be condemned, and that that was to be done, as afterwards appeared, by tampering with Mary's letters. Elizabeth's policy was absolute, disobedience to her commands being punishable with death.
Of the ability of Burghley there can be but one opinion, and it is extraordinary that he compromised himself with a scheme for the destruction of a defenceless and innocent woman for no other reason than to please Elizabeth. His attitude to Mary cannot be defended. Bourgoyne refers to him as a very vehement (very violent) man. That Burghley's private opinion was contrary to the attitude he was compelled to take up may, we think, be suggested. His conduct towards Mary was intelligible only as a stern command from his Sovereign. With Walsingham the case is different. He was a man evidently cast in a similar mould to that of his mistress, unscrupulous, unprincipled; and of all the villainy in connection with the Babington Conspiracy he may be said to have been the author: for in addition to intercepting and interpolating Queen Mary's letters by means of spies, and producing the material which accomplished her destruction, he executed in cold blood Anthony Babington and his eleven companions after a mock trial, or no trial at all, victims of a plot of his own creation, and because they were the only human beings who could prove Mary's innocence of this base and contemptible enterprise.
Walsingham's character is thus given by an eminent writer: [1] He was ambitious, cunning, heartless, and a liar. He also ruined more innocent persons than the whole of Elizabeth's Privy Council. It was he who overwhelmed the Earls of Arundel and Northumberland, destroyed the Howard family, covered the sea and the Continent with English exiles, and spread over Europe a leprous spying; while he encouraged, led on, and ruined Babington. And another writer [2] says of him: He completely deceived Charles IX. and the house of Austria, fomented the insurrection of the Huguenots in France and the wars of the Low Countries at the time that he was trusted by both reigning houses. It is said that he employed in foreign courts fifty-three secret agents and eighteen spies, and that he had the wonderful art of weaving plots in which many people got so entangled that they could not escape. He obtained evidence of the setting out of the Armada by a copy of a letter written by Philip King of Spain to the Pope, procured him by a priestly spy, who bribed a gentleman of the Pope's bedchamber to steal the key of his Holiness' cabinet, and while the Pope slept to transcribe the letter and return the key. This summary of Walsingham's character fully corroborates his conduct to the Scottish Queen.
Though free from dread of Scotland, Walsingham conceived and carried out the most treacherous and shameful plot recorded in history. He himself led the Catholics to conspire against Elizabeth. He managed to implicate the Queen of Scots, that he might be able to massacre with seeming justice the royal prisoner and her defenders. His spies filled the ports, towns, and even seminaries. He made use of Catholic conspirators to accuse and ruin Mary. His task was easy; for it was quite natural that a Queen held against all right a captive for many long years should give way to hope and encourage those who might try to release her. [3] There is reason to believe that the plots for Queen Mary's release during the nineteen years of her captivity were pretty numerous, as the activity of the Queen and the Catholics of England, France, and Spain was unabated. These plots are practically unrecorded, the inference being that they all broke down from one reason or another before arriving at maturity. There were also plots by Elizabeth to take the life of the Queen of Scots privately, such as the one to have her drowned and the other to have her poisoned or executed in private, but these also fell through. The last plot for Mary's liberation had the elements of success had it been managed with greater skill and judgment. All the arrangements were as good as completed when it was discovered by Walsingham. It has been the subject of much controversy arising from the extraordinary nature of its negotiation and development. When every plot for Mary's release had failed, and her friends were wearied out with her long captivity, an English Catholic named John Savage, who had served under the Prince of Parma in the Spanish army, had a conference on the subject of Mary's release with some of the priests at Rheims. At this conference Savage undertook the assassination of Elizabeth with his own hands. About the same time another plot was formed by Ballard, who had a conference with Charles Paget, Morgan, and Mendoza regarding an invasion of England and the deliverance of Mary. He arrived in London on 22nd May, when he met Babington. Babington had been a page on the staff of Lord Shrewsbury at Sheffield, but he was also connected with a good family in Derbyshire. Ballard, it is alleged, informed him of the proposed assassination, and that it would precede the invasion of England. Babington would not entertain the assassination, but he entered into a plot for the liberation of Mary—the Babington Plot. [4] These three men—Savage, Ballard, and Babington—were all executed for this plot. In Chapter XII. of this volume (appendix) we have reproduced some remarkable letters in connection with these plots for the Scottish Queen's release which throw additional light on the subject.
Before reproducing Bourgoyne's Journal it will be necessary for the reader's benefit to give a summary of the correspondence and political manœuvres of the period. The accompanying narrative will enable the reader to recognise Queen Mary's actual position and circumstances, and the unconquerable spirit she manifested to the very last in defending herself for nineteen years against the false and calumnious charges of her enemies. The people of Scotland appear to have been quite in the dark, and to have taken no part in the extraordinary proceedings that in her last days were going on.
One writer informs us that her death was not known in Scotland for a month after its occurrence, while the administration of the Crown of England for this period was almost wholly confined to her persecution and the creating of schemes by which her death might be accomplished.
When Mary abandoned all hope of getting satisfaction from Elizabeth, she addressed a communication on the subject to Chateauneuf, the French Ambassador in London, setting forth the nature of her grievances, and desired him to discuss the same with Elizabeth. This letter leaves us in no doubt regarding the sufferings of the writer. She speaks plainly of the cruelty of Elizabeth and of the “infirm and pitiable condition to which eighteen years of imprisonment have brought me”; that for four years she had endeavoured to please Elizabeth, and had sent her secretary with carte blanche to come to terms with her; but everything had failed. The Ambassador discussed it very seriously with Elizabeth, but made no impression. A few days after the despatch of this letter Mary wrote another to Chateauneuf, both of which we reproduce slightly condensed.
The letter to the French Ambassador speaks for itself, and gives us a better idea of her forlorn condition than any other paper we possess. It is painfully evident that she was reduced to the level of a criminal, and every comfort and every means of recreation denied her. Nobody was permitted even to approach the house where she was living without declaring their object, and no one was allowed to have access to her. “It is unreasonable,” as she says, “to make me suffer for that of which I am not the cause.” But that is not the most painful part of this pitiable letter. She adds, “And to speak still more freely, necessity making me, to my great regret, overcome shame, I began to be very ill attended to in my own person, and with no regard to my infirm state.” Even if Mary had been guilty of all that was laid to her charge, this treatment by the English Queen was infamous, and what is to be said if she was innocent? It was only a month after the date of this letter that the kidnapping of Mary took place by Elizabeth's command. The letter was in the following terms:—