Marie R.”
The second letter was as follows:—
Queen Mary to Chateauneuf, 13th July 1586, Chartley:
“I do not know what determination has been taken for my change of residence and the passports of my servants; but my keeper for some days has shown himself much more vigorous and overbearing than ordinary, cutting off entirely all access round about this house from everyone whosoever, and intending to reduce the expenditure of my household as strictly as he can, contrary to the order settled and decided by the Queen of England and her Council. If this restriction continues it will be the means of making my servants more weary of this prison and altogether insupportable to them. I have heard a report, but uncertain, that my keeper is to be discharged at the end of this summer, and some suppose I am to be delivered to the Earl of Shrewsbury, which I can with very great difficulty bring myself to believe. He speaks also of removing from me all the English servants which I have in my household. But I dare not take notice of anything until my keeper gives me a hint of it. In truth I shall not be sorry to change my host, for he is one of the most whimsical and austere persons whom I have ever known, and in a word fitter for a gaol of criminals than for the custody of one of my rank and birth. Besides that, in the event of the death of the Queen of England, I should think my life very insecure in his hands, from his little rank, credit, influence, and power, and especially in this quarter, where he makes himself exceedingly hated and ill-liked. There would be no harm in your speaking of it to Lord Burghley, but it should only be by way of conversation and from yourself on the authority of some of my friends in this kingdom, without giving him any ground of suspicion that the wind blows from this quarter.”
MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS.
Watson Gordon Portrait
When Bourgoyne began this Journal the Queen would be fully eighteen years in captivity. It will be noticed that Paulet her gaoler appears to have had carte blanche from Elizabeth to treat her with every mark of cruelty. Every such act was communicated to her, and that she never disapproved of what Paulet did indicated her tacit consent to what was going on. Considering Mary's long captivity, and the weakness of her physical frame as the result of that captivity, it is almost impossible to conceive that Elizabeth or her ministers could authorise such treatment as is fully set out in these letters. It would appear from this Journal and from other documentary evidence that Mary's life was doomed before any trial ever took place at Fotheringay. Paulet's execution of Elizabeth's orders, no doubt well discussed at the Privy Council, was to lead up as it did to Mary's execution. Her first act towards that end as recorded by Bourgoyne was the bogus Stag Hunt at Chartley—the kidnapping incident. What could be more disgraceful than that proceeding?
It is briefly referred to by some historians as merely the removal of the Queen to Tixall, but Bourgoyne's Journal discloses the true nature of the transaction; and the full description given by him, which may be accepted as authentic, shows that this outrage was an act of kidnapping pure and simple. On 3rd August there was a conference to arrange the details, between Paulet and Wade, the latter one of Elizabeth's secretaries. The narrative of this private conference, which evidently was not intended to be made public, affords us a side-light into the machinations of the period, and identifies Elizabeth with this crafty and cunning plot. The composition of the narrative is evidently hers, and the plot was carried out to the letter. (See Bourgoyne, pp. 160-70.) At this conference Elizabeth's questions were put down accompanied by Paulet's answers.