The History of England, Volume IV Elizabeth Resolution to try the queen of Scots
by David Hume
It was resolved to try Mary, not by the common statute of treasons, but by the act which had passed the former year, with a view to this very event; and the queen, in terms of that act, appointed a commission, consisting of forty noblemen and privy-counsellors, and empowered them to examine and pass sentence on Mary, whom she denominated the late queen of Scots, and heir to James V. of Scotland. The commissioners came to Fotheringay castle, and sent to her Sir Walter Mildmay, Sir Amias Paulet, and Edward Barker, who delivered her a letter from Elizabeth, informing her of the commission, and of the approaching trial. Mary received the intelligence without emotion or astonishment. She said, however, that it seemed strange to her, that the queen should command her, as a subject, to submit to a trial and examination before subjects: That she was an absolute independant princess, and would yield to nothing, which might derogate either from her royal majesty, from the state of sovereign princes, or from the dignity and rank of her son: That, however oppressed by misfortunes, she was not yet so much broken in spirit, as her enemies flattered themselves; nor would she, on any account; be accessary to her own degradation and dishonour: That she was ignorant of the laws and statutes of England; was utterly destitute of council; and could not conceive who were entitled to be called her peers, or could legally sit as judges on her trial: That though she had lived in England for many years, she had lived in captivity; and not having received the protection of the laws, she could not, merely by her involuntary residence in the country, be supposed to have subjected herself to their jurisdiction: That, notwithstanding the superiority of her rank, she was willing to give an account of her conduct before an English parliament; but could not view these commissioners in any other light, than as men appointed to justify, by some colour of legal proceeding, her condemnation and execution: And that she warned them to look to their conscience and their character, in trying an innocent person; and to reflect, that these transactions would somewhere be subject to revisal, and that the theatre of the whole world was much wider than the kingdom of England.
[The commissioners prevail on her to submit to the trial.] In return, the commissioners sent a new deputation, informing her, that her plea, either from her royal dignity or from her imprisonment, could not be admitted; and that they were empowered to proceed to her trial, even though she should refuse to answer before them. Burleigh, the treasurer, and Bromley, the chancellor, employed much reasoning to make her submit; but the person, whose arguments had the chief influence, was Sir Christopher Hatton, vice-chamberlain. His speech was to this purpose. "You are accused, Madam," said he, "but not condemned, of having conspired the destruction of our lady and queen anointed. You say, you are a queen: But, in such a crime as this, and such a situation as yours, the royal dignity itself, neither by the civil or canon law, nor by the law of nature or of nations, is exempt from judgment. If you be innocent, you wrong your reputation in avoiding a trial. We have been present at your protestations of innocence: But queen Elizabeth thinks otherwise; and is heartily sorry for the appearances, which lie against you. To examine, therefore, your cause, she has appointed commissioners; honourable persons, prudent and upright men, who are ready to hear you with equity, and even with favour, and will rejoice if you can clear yourself of the imputations, which have been thrown upon you. Believe me, madam, the queen herself will rejoice, who affirmed to me at my departure, that nothing, which ever befel her, had given her so much uneasiness, as that you should be suspected of a concurrence in these criminal enterprizes. Laying aside, therefore, the fruitless claim of privilege from your royal dignity, which can now avail you nothing, trust to the better defence of your innocence, make it appear in open trial, and leave not upon your memory that stain of infamy, which must attend your obstinate silence on this occasion."p
By this artful speech, Mary was persuaded to answer before the court; and thereby gave an appearance of legal procedure to the trial, and prevented those difficulties, which the commissioners must have fallen into, had she persevered in maintaining so specious a plea as that of her sovereign and independant character. Her conduct in this particular must be regarded as the more imprudent; because formerly, when Elizabeth’s commissioners pretended not to exercise any jurisdiction over her, and only entered into her cause by her own consent and approbation, she declined justifying herself, when her honour, which ought to have been dearer to her than life, seemed absolutely to require it.
[The trial.] On her first appearance before the commissioners, Mary, either sensible of her imprudence, or still unwilling to degrade herself by submitting to a trial, renewed her protestation against the authority of her judges: The chancellor answered her by pleading the supreme authonty of the English laws over every one who resided in England: And the commissioners accommodated matters, by ordering both her protestation and his answer to be recorded.
The lawyers of the crown then opened the charge against the queen of Scots. They proved, by intercepted letters, that she had allowed cardinal Allen and others to treat her as queen of England; and that she had kept a correspondence with lord Paget and Charles Paget, in view of engaging the Spaniards to invade the kingdom. Mary seemed not anxious to clear herself from either of these imputations. She only said, that she could not hinder others from using what style they pleased in writing to her; and that she might lawfully try every expedient for the recovery of her liberty.
An intercepted letter of her’s to Mendoza was next produced; in which she promised to transfer to Philip her right to the kingdom of England, if her son should refuse to be converted to the catholic faith; an event, she there said, of which there was no expectation, while he remained in the hands of his Scottish subjects.q Even this part of the charge, she took no pains to deny, or rather she seemed to acknowledge it. She said, that she had no kingdoms to dispose of; yet was it lawful for her to give at her pleasure what was her own, and she was not accountable to any for her actions. She added, that she had formerly rejected that proposal from Spain; but now, since all her hopes in England were gone, she was fully determined not to refuse foreign assistance. There was also produced evidence to prove, that Allen and Parsons were at that very time negociating by her orders at Rome the conditions of transferring her English crown to the king of Spain, and of disinheriting her heretical son.NOTE [T]
It is remarkable, that Mary’s prejudices against her son were, at this time, carried so far, that she had even entered into a conspiracy against him, had appointed lord Claud Hamilton regent of Scotland, and had instigated her adherents to seize James’s person and deliver him into the hands of the pope or the king of Spain; whence he was never to be delivered but on condition of his becoming catholic.NOTE [U]
The only part of the charge, which Mary positively denied, was her concurrence in the design of assassinating Elizabeth. This article indeed was the most heavy, and the only one, that could fully justify the queen in proceeding to extremities against her. In order to prove the accusation, there were produced the following evidence: Copies taken in secretary Walsingham’s office of the intercepted letters between her and Babington, in which her approbation of the murder was clearly expressed; the evidence of her two secretaries, Nau and Curle, who had confessed, without being put to any torture, both that she received these letters from Babington, and that they had written the answers, by her order; the confession of Babington, that he had written the letters and received the answers,t and the confession of Ballard and Savage, that Babington had showed them these letters of Mary written in the cypher, which had been settled between them.
It is evident, that this complication of evidence, though every circumstance corroborates the general conclusion, resolves itself finally into the testimony of the two secretaries, who alone were certainly acquainted with their mistress’s concurrence in Babington’s conspiracy, but who knew themselves exposed to all the rigours of imprisonment, torture, and death, if they refused to give any evidence, which might be required of them. In the case of an ordinary criminal, this proof, with all its disadvantages, would be esteemed legal, and even satisfactory, if not opposed by some other circumstances, which shake the credit of the witnesses: But on the present trial, where the absolute power of the prosecutor concurred with such important interests and such a violent inclination to have the princess condemned; the testimony of two witnesses, even though men of character, ought to be supported by strong probabilities, in order to remove all suspicion of tyranny and injustice. The proof against Mary, it must be confessed, is not destitute of this advantage; and it is difficult, if not impossible, to account for Babington’s receiving an answer, written in her name, and in the cypher concerted between them, without allowing, that the matter had been communicated to that princess. Such is the light in which this matter appears, even after time has discovered every thing, which could guide our judgment with regard to it: No wonder, therefore, that the queen of Scots, unassisted by counsel, and confounded by so extraordinary a trial, found herself incapable of making a satisfactory defence before the commissioners. Her reply consisted chiefly in her own denial: Whatever force may be in that denial was much weakened, by her positively affirming, that she never had had any correspondence of any kind with Babington; a fact, however, of which there remains not the least question.NOTE [V] She asserted, that, as Nau and Curle had taken an oath of secrecy and fidelity to her, their evidence against her ought not to be credited. She confessed, however, that Nau had been in the service of her uncle, the cardinal of Lorraine, and had been recommended to her by the king of France, as a man in whom she might safely confide. She also acknowledged Curle to be a very honest man, but simple, and easily imposed on by Nau. If these two men had received any letters, or had written any answers, without her knowledge; the imputation, she said, could never lie on her. And she was the more inclined, she added, to entertain this suspicion against them, because Nau had, in other instances, been guilty of a like temerity, and had ventured to transact business in her name, without communicating the matter to her.NOTE [W]
The sole circumstance of her defence, which to us may appear to have some force, was her requiring that Nau and Curle should be confronted with her, and her affirming that they never would to her face persist in their evidence. But that demand, however equitable, was not then supported by law in trials of high-treason, and was often refused even in other trials, where the crown was prosecutor. The clause, contained in an act of the 13th of the queen, was a novelty; that the species of treason there enumerated must be proved by two witnesses, confronted with the criminal. But Mary was not tried upon that act; and the ministers and crown lawyers of this reign were always sure to refuse every indulgence beyond what the strict letter of the law and the settled practice of the courts of justice required of them. Not to mention, that these secretaries were not probably at Fotheringay-castle during the time of the trial, and could not, upon Mary’s demand, be produced before the commissioners.x
There passed two incidents in this trial, which may be worth observing. A letter between Mary and Babington was read, in which mention was made of the earl of Arundel and his brothers: On hearing their names she broke into a sigh. "Alas," said she, "what has the noble house of the Howards suffered for my sake!" She affirmed, with regard to the same letter, that it was easy to forge the hand-writing and cypher of another; she was afraid, that this was too familiar a practice with Walsingham, who, she also heard, had frequently practised both against her life and her son’s. Walsingham, who was one of the commissioners, rose up. He protested, that, in his private capacity, he had never acted any thing against the queen of Scots: In his public capacity, he owned, that his concern for his sovereign’s safety had made him very diligent in searching out, by every expedient, all designs against her sacred person or her authority. For attaining that end, he would not only make use of the assistance of Ballard or any other conspirator: He would also reward them for betraying their companions. But if he had tampered in any manner, unbefitting his character and office, why did none of the late criminals, either at their trial or execution, accuse him of such practices? Mary endeavoured to pacify him, by saying that she spoke from information; and she begged him to give thenceforth no more credit to such as slandered her, than she should to such as accused him. The great character indeed, which Sir Francis Walsingham bears for probity and honour, should remove from him all suspicion of such base arts as forgery and subornation; arts, which even the most corrupt ministers, in the most corrupt times, would scruple to employ.
[25th Octob.]Having finished the trial, the commissioners adjourned from Fotheringay-castle, and met in the Star Chamber at London; where, after taking the oaths of Mary’s two secretaries, who, voluntarily, without hope or reward, vouched the authenticity of those letters before produced, they pronounced sentence of death upon the queen of Scots, and confirmed it by their seals and subscriptions. [Sentence against Mary.] The same day, a declaration was published by the commissioners and the judges, "that the sentence did no-wise derogate from the title and honour of James, king of Scotland; but that he was in the same place, degree, and right, as if the sentence had never been pronounced."y
The queen had now brought affairs with Mary to that situation, which she had long ardently desired; and had found a plausible reason for executing vengeance on a competitor, whom, from the beginning of her reign, she had ever equally dreaded and hated. But she was restrained from instantly gratifying her resentment, by several important considerations. She foresaw the invidious colours, in which this example of uncommon jurisdiction would be represented by the numerous partizans of Mary, and the reproach, to which she herself might be exposed with all foreign princes, perhaps with all posterity. The rights of hospitality, of kindred, and of royal majesty, seemed, in one signal instance, to be all violated; and this sacrifice of generosity to interest, of clemency to revenge, might appear equally unbecoming a sovereign and a woman. Elizabeth, therefore, who was an excellent hypocrite, pretended the utmost reluctance to proceed to the execution of the sentence: affected the most tender sympathy with her prisoner; displayed all her scruples and difficulties; rejected the solicitation of her courtiers and ministers; and affirmed, that, were she not moved by the deepest concern for her people’s safety, she would not hesitate a moment in pardoning all the injuries, which she herself had received from the queen of Scots.
[29th Octob.] That the voice of her people might be more audibly heard in the demand of justice upon Mary, she summoned a new parliament; and she knew, both from the usual dispositions of that assembly, and from the influence of her ministers over them, that she should not want the most earnest solicitation to consent to that measure, which was so agreeable to her secret inclinations. She did not open this assembly in person, but appointed for that purpose three commissioners, Bromley, the chancellor, Burleigh, the treasurer, and the earl of Derby. The reason assigned for this measure, was, that the queen foreseeing that the affair of the queen of Scots would be canvassed in parliament, found her tenderness and delicacy so much hurt by that melancholy incident, that she had not the courage to be present while it was under deliberation, but withdrew her eyes from what she could not behold without the utmost reluctance and uneasiness. She was also willing, that, by this unusual precaution, the people should see the danger, to which her person was hourly exposed; and should thence be more strongly incited to take vengeance on the criminal, whose restless intrigues and bloody conspiracies had so long exposed her to the most imminent perils.z
The parliament answered the queen’s expectations: The sentence against Mary was unanimously ratified by both houses; and an application was voted to obtain Elizabeth’s consent to its publication and execution.a She gave an answer ambiguous, embarrassed; full of real artifice, and seeming irresolution. She mentioned the extreme danger to which her life was continually exposed; she declared her willingness to die, did she not foresee the great calamities, which would thence fall upon the nation; she made professions of the greatest tenderness to her people; she displayed the clemency of her temper, and expressed her violent reluctance to execute the sentence against her unhappy kinswoman; she affirmed, that the late law, by which that princess was tried, so far from being made to ensnare her, was only intended to give her warning beforehand, not to engage in such attempts, as might expose her to the penalties, with which she was thus openly menaced; and she begged them to think once again, whether it were possible to find any expedient, besides the death of the queen of Scots, for securing the public tranquillity.b The parliament, in obedience to her commands, took the affair again under consideration; but could find no other possible expedient. They reiterated their solicitations, and entreaties, and arguments: They even remonstrated, that mercy to the queen of Scots was cruelty to them, her subjects and children: And they affirmed, that it were injustice to deny execution of the law to any individual; much more to the whole body of the people, now unanimously and earnestly suing for this pledge of her parental care and tenderness. This second address set the pretended doubts and scruples of Elizabeth anew in agitation: She complained of her own unfortunate situation; expressed her uneasiness from their importunity; renewed the professions of affection to her people; and dismissed the committee of parliament in an uncertainty, what, after all this deliberation, might be her final resolution.NOTE [X]
But though the queen affected reluctance to execute the sentence against Mary, she complied with the request of parliament in publishing it by proclamation; and this act seemed to be attended with the unanimous and hearty rejoicings of the people. Lord Buckhurst, and Beale, clerk of the council, were sent to the queen of Scots, and notified to her the sentence pronounced against her, its ratification by parliament, and the earnest applications made for its execution by that assembly, who thought, that their religion could never, while she was alive, attain a full settlement and security. Mary was nowise dismayed at this intelligence: On the contrary, she joyfully laid hold of the last circumstance mentioned to her; and insisted, that, since her death was demanded by the protestants for the establishment of their faith, she was really a martyr to her religion, and was entitled to all the merits attending that glorious character. She added, that the English had often embrued their hands in the blood of their sovereigns: No wonder, they exercised cruelty against her, who derived her descent from these monarchs.d Paulet, her keeper, received orders to take down her canopy, and to serve her no longer with the respect due to sovereign princes. He told her, that she was now to be considered as a dead person; and incapable of any dignity.e This harsh treatment produced not in her any seeming emotion. She only replied, that she received her royal character from the hands of the Almighty, and no earthly power was ever able to bereave her of it.
The queen of Scots wrote her last letter to Elizabeth; full of dignity, without departing from that spirit of meekness and of charity, which appeared suitable to this concluding scene of her unfortunate life. She preferred no petition for averting the fatal sentence: On the contrary, she expressed her gratitude to Heaven for thus bringing to a speedy period her sad and lamentable pilgrimage. She requested some favours of Elizabeth, and intreated her, that she might be beholden for them to her own goodness alone, without making applications to those ministers, who had discovered such an extreme malignity against her person and her religion. She desired, that, after her enemies should be satiated with her innocent blood, her body, which, it was determined, should never enjoy rest, while her soul was united to it, might be consigned to her servants, and be conveyed by them into France, there to repose in a catholic land, with the sacred reliques of her mother. In Scotland, she said, the sepulchres of her ancestors were violated, and the churches either demolished or profaned; and in England, where she might be interred among the ancient kings, her own and Elizabeth’s progenitors, she could entertain no hopes of being accompanied to the grave with those rites and ceremonies, which her religion required. She requested, that no one might have the power of inflicting a private death upon her, without Elizabeth’s knowledge; but that her execution should be public, and attended by her ancient servants, who might bear testimony of her perseverance in the faith, and of her submission to the will of Heaven. She begged, that these servants might afterwards be allowed to depart whithersoever they pleased, and might enjoy those legacies, which she should bequeath them. And she conjured her to grant these favours, by their near kindred; by the soul and memory of Henry VII. the common ancestor of both; and by the royal dignity, of which they equally participated.f Elizabeth made no answer to this letter; being unwilling to give Mary a refusal in her present situation, and foreseeing inconveniences from granting some of her requests.
[p] Camden, p. 523.
[q] State Trials, vol. i. p. 138.
[NOTE [T]] Camden, p. 525. This evidence was that of Curle, her secretary, whom she allowed to be a very honest man; and who, as well as Nau, had given proofs of his integrity, by keeping so long such important secrets, from whose discovery he could have reaped the greatest profit. Mary, after all, thought, that she had so little reason to complain of Curle’s evidence, that she took care to have him paid a considerable sum by her will, which she wrote the day before her death. Goodall, vol. i. p. 413. Neither did she forget Nau, though less satisfied in other respects with his conduct. Id. ibid.
[NOTE [U]] The detail of this conspiracy is to be found in a letter of the queen of Scots to Charles Paget, her great confident. This letter is dated the 20th of May 1586, and is contained in Dr. Forbes’s manuscript collections, at present in the possession of lord Royston. It is a copy attested by Curle, Mary’s secretary, and indorsed by lord Burleigh. What proves its authenticity beyond question is that we find in Murden’s Collection, p. 516, that Mary actually wrote that very day a letter to Charles Paget: And farther, she mentions, in the manuscript letter, a letter of Charles Paget’s of the 10th of April: Now we find by Murden, p. 506, that Charles Paget did actually write her a letter of that date.
This violence of spirit is very consistent with Mary’s character. Her maternal affection was too weak to oppose the gratification of her passions, particularly her pride, her ambition, and her bigotry. Her son, having made some fruitless attempts to associate her with him in the title, and having found the scheme impracticable, on account of the prejudices of his protestant subjects, at last desisted from that design, and entered into an alliance with England, without comprehending his mother. She was in such a rage at this undutiful behaviour, as she imagined it, that she wrote to queen Elizabeth, that she no longer cared what became of him or herself in the world; the greatest satisfaction she could have before her death was to see him and all his adherents become a signal example of tyranny, ingratitude and impiety, and undergo the vengeance of God for their wickedness. She would find in Christendom other heirs, and doubted not to put her inheritance in such hands as would retain the firmest hold of it. She cared not, after taking this revenge, what became of her body: The quickest death would then be the most agreeable to her. And she assured her, that, if he persevered, she would disown him for her son, would give him her malediction, would disinherit him, as well of his present possessions as of all he could expect by her; abandoning him not only to her subjects to treat him as they had done her, but to all strangers to subdue and conquer him. It was in vain to employ menaces against her: The fear of death or other misfortune would never induce her to make one step or pronounce one syllable beyond what she had determined: She would rather perish with honour, in maintaining the dignity, to which God had raised her, than degrade herself by the least pusillanimity, or act what was unworthy of her station and of her race. Murden, p. 566, 567.
James said to Courcelles, the French ambassador, that he had seen a letter under her own hand, in which she threatened to disinherit him, and said that he might betake him to the lordship of Darnley, For that was all he had by his father. Courcelles’ Letter, a M S. of Dr. Campbel’s. There is in Jebb, vol. ii. p. 573, a letter of her’s where she throws out the same menace against him.
We find this scheme of seizing the king of Scots, and delivering him into the hands of the pope or the king of Spain, proposed by Morgan to Mary. See Murden, p. 525. A mother must be very violent to whom one would dare to make such a proposal: But it seems she assented to it. Was not such a woman very capable of murdering her husband, who had so grievously offended her?
[t] State Trials, vol. i. p. 113.
[NOTE [V]] The volume of State Papers collected by Mr. Murden, prove beyond controversy, that Mary was long in close correspondence with Babington, p. 513, 516, 532, 533. She entertained a like correspondence with Ballard, Morgan, and Charles Paget, and laid a scheme with them for an insurrection, and for the invasion of England by Spain, p. 528, 531. The same papers show, that there had been a discontinuance of Babington’s correspondence, agreeably to Camden’s narration. See State Papers, p. 513. where Morgan recommends it to queen Mary to renew her correspondence with Babington. These circumstances prove, that no weight can be laid on Mary’s denial of guilt, and that her correspondence with Babington contained particulars, which could not be avowed.
[NOTE [W]] There are three suppositions, by which the letter to Babington may be accounted for, without allowing Mary’s concurrence in the conspiracy for assassinating Elizabeth. The first is, that which she seems herself to have embraced, that her secretaries had received Babington’s letter, and had, without any treacherous intention, ventured of themselves to answer it, and had never communicated the matter to her: But it is utterly improbable, if not impossible, that a princess of so much sense and spirit should, in an affair of that importance, be so treated by her servants who lived in the house with her, and who had every moment an opportunity of communicating the secret to her. If the conspiracy failed, they must expect to suffer the severest punishment from the court of England; if it succeeded, the lightest punishment, which they could hope for from their own mistress, must be disgrace, on account of their temerity. Not to mention, that Mary’s concurrence was in some degree requisite for effecting the design of her escape: It was proposed to attack her guards, while she was employed in hunting: She must therefore concert the time and place with the conspirators. The second supposition is, that these two secretaries were previously traitors; and being gained by Walsingham, had made such a reply in their mistress’s cypher, as might involve her in the guilt of the conspiracy. But these two men had lived long with the queen of Scots, had been entirely trusted by her, and had never fallen under suspicion either with her or her partizans. Camden informs us, that Curle afterwards claimed a reward from Walsingham on pretence of some promise; but Walsingham told him, that he owed him no reward, and that he had made no discoveries on his examination, which were not known with certainty from other quarters. The third supposition is, that neither the queen nor the two secretaries, Nau and Curle, ever saw Babington’s letter, or made any answer; but that Walsingham, having decyphered the former, forged a reply. But this supposition implies the falsehood of the whole story, told by Camden, of Gifford’s access to the queen of Scots’ family, and Paulet’s refusal to concur in allowing his servants to be bribed. Not to mention, that as Nau’s and Curle’s evidence must, on this supposition, have been extorted by violence and terror, they would necessarily have been engaged, for their own justification, to have told the truth afterwards; especially upon the accession of James. But Camden informs us, that Nau, even after that event, persisted still in his testimony.
We must also consider, that the two last suppositions imply such a monstrous criminal conduct in Walsingham, and consequently in Elizabeth (for the matter could be no secret to her) as exceeds all credibility. If we consider the situation of things and the prejudices of the times, Mary’s consent to Babington’s conspiracy appears much more natural and probable. She believed Elizabeth to be an usurper and a heretic: She regarded her as a personal and a violent enemy: She knew that schemes for assassinating heretics were very familiar in that age, and generally approved of by the court of Rome and the zealous catholics: Her own liberty and sovereignty were connected with the success of this enterprize: And it cannot appear strange, that where men of so much merit as Babington could be engaged, by bigotry alone, in so criminal an enterprize, Mary, who was actuated by the same motive, joined to so many others, should have given her consent to a scheme projected by her friends. We may be previously certain, that, if such a scheme was ever communicated to her, with any probability of success, she would assent to it: And it served the purpose of Walsingham and the English ministry to facilitate the communication of these schemes, as soon as they had gotten an expedient for intercepting her answer, and detecting the conspiracy. Now Walsingham’s knowledge of the matter is a supposition necessary to account for the letter delivered to Babington.
As to the not punishing of Nan and Curle by Elizabeth, it never is the practice to punish lesser criminals, who had given evidence against the principal.
But what ought to induce us to reject these three suppositions, is, that they must, all of them, be considered as bare possibilities: The partizans of Mary can give no reason for preferring one to the other: Not the slightest evidence ever appeared to support any one of them: Neither at that time, nor at any time afterwards, was any reason discovered, by the numerous zealots at home and abroad who had embraced Mary’s defence, to lead us to the belief of any of these three suppositions; and even her apologists at present seem not to have fixed on any choice among these supposed possibilities. The positive proof of two very credible witnesses, supported by the other very strong circumstances, still remains unimpeached. Babington, who had an extreme interest to have communication with the queen of Scots, believed he had found a means of correspondence with her, and had received an answer from her: He, as well as the other conspirators, died in that belief: There has not occurred, since that time, the least argument to prove that they were mistaken: Can there be any reason at present to doubt the truth of their opinion? Camden, though a profest apologist for Mary, is constrained to tell the story in such a manner as evidently supposes her guilt. Such was the impossibility of finding any other consistent account, even by a man of parts, who was a contemporary!
In this light might the question have appeared even during Mary’s trial. But what now puts her guilt beyond all controversy is the following passage of her letter to Thomas Morgan, dated the 27th of July 1586. “As to Babington, he hath both kindly and honestly offered himself and all his means to be employed any way I would. Whereupon I hope to have satisfied him by two of my several letters, since I had his; and the rather, for that I opened him the way, whereby I received his with your aforesaid.” Murden, p. 533. Babington confessed, that he had offered her to assassinate the queen: It appears by this, that she had accepted the offer: So that all the suppositions of Walsingham’s forgery, or the temerity or treachery of her secretaries, fall to the ground.
[x] Queen Elizabeth was willing to have allowed Curle and Nau to be produced in the trial, and writes to that purpose, to Burleigh and Walsingham, in her letter of the 7th of October, in Forbes’s MS. collections. She only says, that she thinks it needless, though she was willing to agree to it. The not confronting of the witnesses was not the result of design, but the practice of the age.
[y] Camden, p. 526.
[z] D’Ewes, p. 375.
[a] Ibid. p. 379.
[b] Ibid. p. 402, 403.
[NOTE [X]] This parliament granted the queen a supply of a subsidy and two fifteenths. They adjourned, and met again after the execution of the queen of Scots; when there passed some remarkable incidents, which it may be proper not to omit. We shall give them in the words of Sir Simon D’Ewes, p. 410, 411, which are almost wholly transcribed from Townshend’s Journal. On Monday the 27th of February, Mr. Cope, first using some speeches touching the necessity of a learned ministry and the amendment of things amiss in the ecclesiastical estate, offered to the house a bill and a book written; the bill containing a petition, that it might be enacted, that all laws now in force touching ecclesiastical government should be void: And that it might be enacted that that book of common prayer now offered, and none other, might be received into the church to be used. The book contained the form of prayer and administration of the sacraments, with divers rites and ceremonies to be used in the church; and he desired that the book might be read. Whereupon Mr. Speaker in effect used this speech: For that her majesty before this time had commanded the house not to meddle with this matter, and that her majesty had promised to take order in those causes, he doubted not but to the good satisfaction of all her people, he desired that it would please them to spare the reading of it. Notwithstanding the house desired the reading of it. Whereupon Mr. Speaker desired the clerk to read. And the court being ready to read it, Mr. Dalton made a motion against the reading of it; saying, that it was not meet to be read, and it did appoint a new form of administration of the sacraments and ceremonies of the church, to the discredit of the book of common prayer and of the whole state; and thought that this dealing would bring her majesty’s indignation against the house, thus to enterprize this dealing with those things which her majesty especially had taken into her own charge and direction. Whereupon Mr. Lewkenor spake, shewing the necessity of preaching and of a learned ministry, and thought it very fit that the petition and book should be read. To this purpose spake Mr. Hurleston and Mr. Bainbrigg; and so, the time being passed, the house broke up, and neither the petition nor book read. This done, her majesty sent to Mr. Speaker, as well for this petition and book, as for that other petition and book for the like effect, that was delivered the last session of parliament, which Mr. Speaker sent to her majesty. On Tuesday the 28th of February, her majesty sent for Mr. Speaker, by occasion whereof the house did not sit. On Wednesday the first day of March, Mr. Wentworth delivered to Mr. Speaker certain articles, which contained questions touching the liberties of the house, and to some of which he was to answer, and desired they might be read. Mr. Speaker desired him to spare his motion, until her majesty’s pleasure was further known touching the petition and book lately delivered into the house; but Mr. Wentworth would not be so satisfied, but required his articles might be read. Mr. Wentworth introduced his queries by lamenting, that he as well as many others were deterred from speaking, by their want of knowledge and experience in the liberties of the house; and the queries were as follow: Whether this council were not a place for any member of the same here assembled, freely and without controulment of any person or danger of laws, by bill or speech to utter any of the griefs of this commonwealth whatsoever, touching the service of God, the safety of the prince and this noble realm. Whether that great honour may be done unto God, and benefit and service unto the prince and state, without free speech in this council that may be done with it? Whether there be any council which can make, add, or diminish from the laws of the realm but only this council of parliament? Whether it be not against the orders of this council to make any secret or matter of weight, which is here in hand, known to the prince or any other, concerning the high service of God, prince, or state, without the consent of the house? Whether the speaker or any other may interrupt any member of this council in his speech used in this house tending to any of the forenamed services? Whether the speaker may rise when he will, any matter being propounded, without consent of the house or not? Whether the speaker may over-rule the house in any matter or cause there in question, or whether he is to be ruled or over-ruled in any matter or not? Whether the prince and state can continue, and stand, and be maintained, without this council of parliament, not altering the government of the state? At the end of these questions, says Sir Simon D’Ewes, I found set down this short note or memorial ensuing: By which it may be perceived, both what serjeant Puckering, the speaker, did with the said questions after he had received them, and what became also of this business, viz. “These questions Mr. Puckering pocketed up and shewed Sir Thomas Henage, who so handled the matter, that Mr. Wentworth went to the Tower, and the questions not at all moved. Mr. Buckler of Essex herein brake his faith in forsaking the matter, &c. and no more was done.” After setting down, continues Sir Simon D’Ewes, the said business of Mr. Wentworth in the original journal book, there follows only this short conclusion of the day itself, viz. “This day, Mr. Speaker being sent for to the queen’s majesty, the house departed.” On Thursday the second of March, Mr. Cope, Mr. Lewkenor, Mr. Hurlston, and Mr. Bainbrigg were sent for to my lord chancellor and by divers of the privy council, and from thence were sent to the Tower. On Saturday, the fourth day of March, Sir John Higham made a motion to this house, for that divers good and necessary members thereof were taken from them, that it would please them to be humble petitioners to her majesty for the restitution of them again to the house. To which speeches Mr. Vice-chamberlain answered, that if the gentlemen were committed for matter within the compass of the privilege of this house, then there might be a petition; but if not, then we should give occasion to her majesty’s farther displeasure: And therefore advised to stay until they heard more, which could not be long: And farther, he said touching the book and the petition, her majesty had, for diverse good causes best known to herself, thought fit to suppress the same, without any farther examination thereof; and yet thought it very unfit for her majesty to give any account of her doings.——But whatsoever Mr. Vice-chamberlain pretended, it is most probable these members were committed for intermeddling with matters touching the church, which her majesty had often inhibited, and which had caused so much disputation and so many meetings between the two houses the last parliament.
This is all we find of the matter in Sir Simon D’Ewes and Townsend; and it appears that those members, who had been committed, were detained in custody till the queen thought proper to release them. These questions of Mr. Wentworth are curious; because they contain some faint dawn of the present English constitution; though suddenly eclipsed by the arbitrary government of Elizabeth. Wentworth was indeed, by his puritanism, as well as his love of liberty (for these two characters of such unequal merit, arose and advanced together) the true forerunner of the Hambdens, the Pyms, and the Hollises, who, in the next age, with less courage, because with less danger, rendered their principles so triumphant. I shall only ask, whether it be not sufficiently clear from all these transactions, that in the two succeeding reigns it was the people who encroached upon the sovereign; not the sovereign, who attempted, as is pretended, to usurp upon the people?
