The Last Days of Mary Stuart, and the journal of Bourgoyne her physician. Samuel Cowan

      CHAPTER I

       Table of Contents

      The last act of the drama—Lord Burghley and Secretary Walsingham actively engaged against Queen Mary—Walsingham and his spies—Character of Walsingham—Plots of Elizabeth to take Mary's life—Savage, Ballard, Morgan, and Babington—Mary's pathetic appeal to Chateauneuf—Text of her first letter—Text of her second letter—Elizabeth and Sir Amias Paulet—The famous memoranda between Paulet and Wade as to how Mary was to be kidnapped and her papers seized—Paulet's official instructions to kidnap the Queen—Elizabeth's confirmation of these instructions—Elizabeth's final orders to kidnap Queen Mary.

      It may be said without qualification that no one who has not read the Journal of Bourgoyne can have an adequate conception of the life of the Queen of Scots during her last days. These have been very little touched upon by many of the writers whose works we possess, and the reason is obvious. The life of the Queen engrossed the attention of historians, and was in itself so eventful as to practically overshadow the later days of her career.

      That momentous time forms the subject of this volume, and for those who are interested in the history of that period this narrative is more particularly intended. Bourgoyne's notes extend from August 1586 to February 1587, and his summary may be regarded as the best and most accurate we possess of Queen Mary's life during what may very properly be called “The Reign of Terror.”

      Mary was overwhelmed with humiliation and misery from her long confinement and the failure of all her plans to effect her escape, while her mind was constantly on the rack in order to protect herself from the espionage of spies, and the systematic intercepting of her letters, resulting in their decipherment and forgery. The correspondence of the time is voluminous, much of it bearing on the so-called Babington Conspiracy and the determined efforts of Elizabeth and Walsingham to involve Mary in that plot; Mary's release, and the plots originated to effect that release; and the mass of correspondence which these plots involved.

      It would be an insufficient presentation of the case to say that Queen Mary's misery arose from her unwarrantable treatment. The treatment meted out to her by the express command of Elizabeth was, during the whole nineteen years of her captivity, one of studied and detestable cruelty, but for the period under review it was greatly accentuated. It was cruel, harsh, and inhuman, destitute of every element of justice and mercy, reminding us more of the barbarism of uncivilised rule in the dark ages,

      “When wild in woods

      The noble Savage ran,”

      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