The Last Days of Mary Stuart, and the journal of Bourgoyne her physician. Samuel Cowan
may be that there are some who may spend more.' Her Majesty seemeth afraid that this Ambassador might devise some mischievous means to disturb the quiet and sure bringing up of these men, and the things just rescued, whereupon she desired me to warn you that special care be taken thereof.”
This letter forms a link in the chain of the kidnapping outrage and shows the hand of Elizabeth as presumably the head of it. Nau and Curle were sent under a guard to London (Westminster Palace Prison). From that prison they witnessed on 20th September the cruel execution of Babington and one-half of his companions in Palace Yard, including Savage and Ballard; the other half were executed the following day at Tyburn. They admitted ciphering three letters to Babington from minutes alleged to have been written by Queen Mary. On Phillips' decipherment of the one dated 17th July, they said it was the same or like it, and signed an attestation to that effect. Nau, however, privily wrote a narrative of Mary's proceedings in the matter, fully exonerating himself and her from ever practising against Elizabeth's life. This he succeeded in getting delivered into Elizabeth's own hands, to the surprise and displeasure of Burghley, to whom it was shown by her. Burghley endorsed the narrative (contemptuously), “Nau's long declaration of things of no importance, sent privately to the Queen's Majesty.” In another endorsement suspicion is expressed as to how Nau got this letter put into Elizabeth's hands. Surprise should rather have been expressed that Elizabeth, having received such a letter, should have proceeded with the execution of her royal captive. Nau, from his influential position of private secretary to Queen Mary, was able to speak with authority on this point, and it was the first duty of the English Queen after receiving such a letter to make a searching investigation into the circumstances and find out the truth. If Mary was innocent, she ought to have been released on the spot. Nothing evidently would induce Elizabeth to liberate her. This letter was disregarded and the bogus indictment against Mary was proceeded with as if no such letter had been written.
On 24th August 1586 Paulet wrote Walsingham touching on the outrage of 16th August, desiring instructions as to the disposal of Nau and Curle's servants and the removal of Mary to Chartley. This letter is of no moment save as forming part of the record of that event:—
“Forasmuch as you required me by order from Elizabeth to acquaint her of what hath passed between this lady (Queen Mary) and me in the execution of the late charge, as also how she hath behaved herself since the apprehension of her secretaries, I have considered that the sooner I performed this duty the better it would be, and therefore I send to you enclosed my letter to Her Highness (Elizabeth). You will consider what shall be done with Nau's servant, who is of this country and came to his service from Pierrepont, and with Curle's servant, who is a Scot, they both being now unnecessary.
“Touching the residue of the Scottish family, I will send you a note of their names and charges, so that you may consider as to removing as you shall think proper.
“It is intended that this lady (Queen Mary) shall remove to Chartley to-morrow, where this household can have no long continuance without imminent danger and extreme charge to Her Majesty in many things this winter, as provision has not been made beforehand. I hear of traitors that are carried towards you every day—God be thanked for it.
“From Tixall, 24th August 1586.”
Walsingham's letter to Paulet under date 5th September was in the following terms:—
“Her Majesty continues her firm resolution to have that lady's money seized and her servants divided from her, as you may perceive by the enclosed extract of a letter I received this morning from Mr. Wade; and therefore, her pleasure being thus, I do not see why you should any longer forbear the putting of the same into execution. If afterwards inconveniences happen therefor, Her Majesty can blame none but herself.
“I am now absent from court by reason of inflammation in my leg grown of the pain of a boil, and therefore I cannot debate the matter with Her Majesty as I would. This afternoon the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Treasurer, and the Vice-Chamberlain meet at London. You shall be advised of the resolution that will be taken either for the removing of that lady to Fotheringay or bringing her directly hither to the Tower.”
Enclosure accompanying the foregoing letter:—
“Points to be considered in the proceedings against the Queen of Scots:
“Whether any tho … ys ought to be on publication of the commission.
“Whether the accusation shall be by writing or ore tenne, and by whom.
“If she will not answer.
“If she will require counsel.
“If she will require time to answer.
“If she will require to come to the Parliament House.
“If she will require to hear the accusers.
“Whether it shall be convenient to admit the accusers to maintain the accusation upon their voluntary oath, being partakers in the accusation being criminal.
“Whether the commission may not be adjourned to any place to finish the sentence.
“Whether any entry or record shall be made of the proceedings, and whether in Latin or English.
“Whether she shall be dealt with by the name of Mary, late Queen of Scots, or by what name.
“Whether the sentence must be given there or upon an adjournment to any other place.”
The kidnapping having been carried out and completed, Elizabeth before the end of August sent the following fulsome expression of gratitude to Paulet for the manner in which he had done his duty. The text of this curious letter is evidently founded on the material introduced by Walsingham into Mary's letter to Babington of 17th July. Elizabeth, there is reason to believe, knew about this and was responsible along with Walsingham for the consequences. No such language was ever before or since applied to the Queen of Scots:—
“Amias, my most faithful and careful servant, God reward thee treblefold in three double, for thy most troublesome charge so well discharged; if you knew (my Amias) how kindly besides dutifully my grateful heart accepteth and praiseth your spotless action, your wise orders, and safe regards, performed in so dangerous and crafty a charge, it would ease your travails and rejoice your heart; in which I charge you to carry this most just thought, that I cannot balance in any weight of my judgment the value that I prize you at, and suppose no treasure to countervail such a faith, and shall condemn myself in that fault which yet I never committed if I reward not such deserts, yea let me lack when I most need if I acknowledge not such a merit with a reward. Non omnibus est datum. Let your wicked murderess know how with hearty sorrow her vile deserts compel these orders, and bid her from me ask God's forgiveness for her treacherous dealings towards the saver of her life, many a year, to the intolerable peril of her own; and yet not contented with so many forgivenesses, must fall again so horrible, far passing a woman's thought much less a Princess. And instead of excusing (whereof not one can serve, it being so plainly confessed by the author of my innocent death) let repentance take place, and let the fiend possess her, so as her better part be lost, which I pray for with hands lifted up to Him that may both save and spill.—With my most loving adieu and prayers for thy long life, your most assured and loving Sovereign,
“Elizabeth R.”
This letter, which is a further development of Elizabeth's policy, was immediately followed by one from Walsingham to Paulet dated 25th August intimating the Queen's great commendation of him and approving the proposal of removing the Scottish Queen back to Chartley, but she is to be treated as a prisoner. It will be noticed in all this that Lord Burghley is conspicuous by his absence, Elizabeth and Walsingham being solely responsible for Mary's treatment at this period:—
“Gorges and Wade came safely to London on Sunday at night with their several charges, and Her Majesty is marvellously well satisfied with the care and endeavours that you have exercised in the search of the house (Chartley). She approves of removing your charge to Chartley for the reasons you give of the strength of the house and the easing the country of their continual watches. But upon report made by Wade of the unsoundness of the