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

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 by means of spies, and producing the material which accomplished her destruction, he executed in cold blood Anthony Babington and his eleven companions after a mock trial, or no trial at all, victims of a plot of his own creation, and because they were the only human beings who could prove Mary's innocence of this base and contemptible enterprise.

Walsingham's character is thus given by an eminent writer:[1] He was ambitious, cunning, heartless, and a liar. He also ruined more innocent persons than the whole of Elizabeth's Privy Council. It was he who overwhelmed the Earls of Arundel and Northumberland, destroyed the Howard family, covered the sea and the Continent with English exiles, and spread over Europe a leprous spying; while he encouraged, led on, and ruined Babington. And another writer[2] says of him: He completely deceived Charles IX. and the house of Austria, fomented the insurrection of the Huguenots in France and the wars of the Low Countries at the time that he was trusted by both reigning houses. It is said that he employed in foreign courts fifty-three secret agents and eighteen spies, and that he had the wonderful art of weaving plots in which many people got so entangled that they could not escape. He obtained evidence of the setting out of the Armada by a copy of a letter written by Philip King of Spain to the Pope, procured him by a priestly spy, who bribed a gentleman of the Pope's bedchamber to steal the key of his Holiness' cabinet, and while the Pope slept to transcribe the letter and return the key. This summary of Walsingham's character fully corroborates his conduct to the Scottish Queen.

Though free from dread of Scotland, Walsingham conceived and carried out the most treacherous and shameful plot recorded in history. He himself led the Catholics to conspire against Elizabeth. He managed to implicate the Queen of Scots, that he might be able to massacre with seeming justice the royal prisoner and her defenders. His spies filled the ports, towns, and even seminaries. He made use of Catholic conspirators to accuse and ruin Mary. His task was easy; for it was quite natural that a Queen held against all right a captive for many long years should give way to hope and encourage those who might try to release her.[3] There is reason to believe that the plots for Queen Mary's release during the nineteen years of her captivity were pretty numerous, as the activity of the Queen and the Catholics of England, France, and Spain was unabated. These plots are practically unrecorded, the inference being that they all broke down from one reason or another before arriving at maturity. There were also plots by Elizabeth to take the life of the Queen of Scots privately, such as the one to have her drowned and the other to have her poisoned or executed in private, but these also fell through. The last plot for Mary's liberation had the elements of success had it been managed with greater skill and judgment. All the arrangements were as good as completed when it was discovered by Walsingham. It has been the subject of much controversy arising from the extraordinary nature of its negotiation and development. When every plot for Mary's release had failed, and her friends were wearied out with her long captivity, an English Catholic named John Savage, who had served under the Prince of Parma in the Spanish army, had a conference on the subject of Mary's release with some of the priests at Rheims. At this conference Savage undertook the assassination of Elizabeth with his own hands. About the same time another plot was formed by Ballard, who had a conference with Charles Paget, Morgan, and Mendoza regarding an invasion of England and the deliverance of Mary. He arrived in London on 22nd May, when he met Babington. Babington had been a page on the staff of Lord Shrewsbury at Sheffield, but he was also connected with a good family in Derbyshire. Ballard, it is alleged, informed him of the proposed assassination, and that it would precede the invasion of England. Babington would not entertain the assassination, but he entered into a plot for the liberation of Mary—the Babington Plot.[4] These three men—Savage, Ballard, and Babington—were all executed for this plot. In Chapter XII. of this volume (appendix) we have reproduced some remarkable letters in connection with these plots for the Scottish Queen's release which throw additional light on the subject.

Before reproducing Bourgoyne's Journal it will be necessary for the reader's benefit to give a summary of the correspondence and political manœuvres of the period. The accompanying narrative will enable the reader to recognise Queen Mary's actual position and circumstances, and the unconquerable spirit she manifested to the very last in defending herself for nineteen years against the false and calumnious charges of her enemies. The people of Scotland appear to have been quite in the dark, and to have taken no part in the extraordinary proceedings that in her last days were going on.