The Last Days of Mary Stuart, and the journal of Bourgoyne her physician. Samuel Cowan
charge (the Queen of Scots) shall be shortly conveyed to some other place, and not there remain with so much liberty as she enjoyeth, but in the state of a prisoner attended only with few persons, such as she must have of necessity. Therefore Her Majesty would have you to consider to what number the said persons may be restricted. I mean to know Her Majesty's pleasure touching the priest whom in the meanwhile you have done well to detain in Gresley's house. And you shall also know what is to be done with young Pierrepont and Melville. For young Pasquier, Her Majesty would have you send him here under sure guard such as to you shall seem convenient, because it is supposed he was privy to the writing of those letters that were in cypher.”
During Mary's captivity Elizabeth committed a series of crimes or cruelties against her, but these pale into insignificance as against the kidnapping outrage and the final scene at Fotheringay. In all the circumstances, what is there to excuse or explain this policy? In vain will the student of history investigate the matter, for explanation there is none. Elizabeth resolved that the time had come when the Scottish Queen should be removed to the place of her destruction—Fotheringay. Lord Burghley, who now appears on the scene, and Walsingham, were intrusted with the management and execution of the scheme which was to become the greatest tragedy in English history. These men on 26th August instructed Paulet as follows:—
“The Queen's Majesty, on information given to her by Wade, has resolved to have the Queen your charge removed to some other place of more safety, and for that purpose hath thought upon Fotheringay Castle in Northamptonshire, and asks us to consider of such things as are necessary for the removal. We have directed Sir Walter Mildmay to inspect the said castle and certify us of the state thereof, and how the household may be furnished with necessary provisions and wood and coal, and with a suitable quantity of beer from some brewer in the town of Fotheringay or otherwise. You will likewise send either Darell or some other apt person thither, accompanied with one of the wardrobe, to consider in what sort the stuffs and hangings that are now with you may furnish some convenient lodging for the Queen. It is not meant that she shall henceforth have that scope and liberty that heretofore she has enjoyed, but remain in the state of a prisoner, with some regard nevertheless to her degree and quality. Other particulars wherein we desire to be informed we have set down in the enclosed articles, wherein we pray you that you will reply immediately. What number of servants both of men and women will be sufficient to attend upon the Queen of Scots' person being kept as a prisoner, and how many of those that she hath attendant now upon her may be spared? The names and quality as well of such as shall attend as of such as are to be dismissed to be set down.
“How she is furnished of coach and litters for the removal both of herself and those who shall attend upon her.
“In how many days the removal from Chartley to Fotheringay may be performed (it is thought here that the readiest way is by Leicester), having regard to the sickly state of her body.
“What well-affected gentlemen there are between Chartley and Fotheringay who have convenient houses to lodge the said Queen, wherein Sir Walter Mildmay's advice shall be used.
“Whether it shall not be convenient for her to stay two or three days in Leicestershire or in some convenient place in Northamptonshire until the said house may be put in readiness, wherein Sir Walter's advice is also to be used, by sending some discreet person from you to him.
“Under what guard she should be conveyed until she comes into Leicestershire, where the country being sound you shall need the less assistance.
“If you are furnished with money for this removal, and if not what sum you will require. There is now orders given for your man to receive £600 or £700 here at London. You are to decide how soon she should be removed.”
In continuation of this correspondence we have the following communication dated the succeeding day from Paulet to Walsingham referring to the removal of the Queen from Sir Walter Aston's house at Tixall to Chartley conducted by Sir Walter, Mr. Gresley, Mr. Chetwynd, and others; the Queen's visit to Curle's wife and baptizing Curle's child:—
“This lady was removed hither on the 25th of this month by Sir Walter Aston, Mr. Bagott, Mr. Gresley, Mr. Littleton, Mr. Chetwynd, and others to the number of one hundred and forty horses at the least. At the coming out of Sir Walter Aston's gate she said with a low voice, weeping, to some poor folks who were there assembled, 'I have nothing for you; I am a beggar as well as you; all is taken from me,' and when she came to the gentlemen she said, weeping, 'Good gentlemen, I am not witting or privy to anything intended against the Queen.' She visited Curle's wife (who was delivered of child in her absence) before she went to her own chamber, bidding her to be of good comfort, and that she would answer for her husband in all things that might be objected against him. Curle's child remaining unchristened, and the priest removed before the arrival of this lady, she desired that my minister might baptize the child with such godfathers and godmothers as I would procure, so as the child might bear her name. This being refused, she came shortly after into Curle's wife's chamber, and laying the child on her knee, she took water out of the basin, and casting it upon the face of the child said, 'Mary, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,' calling the child by her own name Mary. This may not be found strange in her who maketh no conscience to break the laws of God and man.
“At the coming hither Mr. Darell delivered the keys as well of her chamber as of her coffers to Bastian, which he refused by direction from his mistress, who required Mr. Darell to open her chamber door, which he did; and then this lady, finding that her papers were taken away, said in great choler that two things could not be taken from her: her English blood and her Catholic religion, which both she would keep until her death, adding further these words: 'Some of you will be sorry for it,' meaning the taking away of her papers. I was not present when these words were spoken, but no doubt they reached me, in what sense she only knoweth. I may be sorry for others, but I know there is nothing in her papers that can give me cause to be sorry for myself. I am deceived also that she is not hasty to see me or speak with me, only she sent to know if I would convey her letter to Her Majesty, which I refused, saying that no letters should pass out of this house without orders from above. She made the like request at Sir Walter Aston's house, which I also refused and desired your direction thereon. I received yours of the 25th, by which you continue to increase my joy by your report of Her Majesty's gracious acceptance of my unworthy services. God be thanked that so many of the principal conspirators are apprehended, and God make us thankful for his singular mercies.”
It is possible Paulet did not know of the interpolations on Queen Mary's letters. He was evidently outside the select circle which carried them out. The close of this letter would indicate that he, being outside of it, was convinced of the complicity of Mary in the Babington Plot. He never for a moment suspected the sincerity of Elizabeth.
When Mary reached Chartley from Tixall on 25th August she found her coffers and desks rifled and all her papers and jewels taken away. One cabinet in her bedroom, strange to say, had been overlooked, and it contained her money. Paulet wrote immediately to Walsingham, the result being that Paulet and Richard Bagot, a magistrate, on receipt of Walsingham's reply, rudely entered the presence of Mary, intimating that they were commanded to take her money, and advised her to deliver it up quietly. Mary emphatically refused to comply, and declared she would not give up the key. Paulet called his servants and told them to bring bars to break open the door. Seeing the uselessness of further resistance, she submitted, and saw him seize five rolls of canvas, containing five thousand French crowns, two leather bags, one having £104 in gold and the other £3 in silver; the silver he left with her. In Nau's chamber he found two bags, one with £900 and the other with £286, and a chain valued at £100. In Curle's chamber he found two canvas rolls each containing one thousand crowns; they were Queen Mary's gift to Mrs. Curle on her marriage. Paulet sealed and took possession of them in Elizabeth's name, and delivered them into Bagot's charge. [5]
This was another of the disreputable transactions carried out by Elizabeth's orders. The question may very naturally be asked, What right had she to break into lockfast places and seize the money and jewels, etc., of the Scottish Queen? If a subject behaved in this manner he would be immediately arrested and punished.
It is important at this crisis to know what