Tomb of Mary, Queen of Scots, in the south aisle of Henry VII.'s Chapel, Westminster Abbey.

CHAPTER XIII.

The Association Statute for the surety of the queen's person-Commission for trial of Mary-Proceedings on the trial-Judgment against Mary-Conflicting opinions on this judgment -The parliament urge the execution of the sentence-The judgment proclaimed-Conduct of Elizabeth-Interview with Davison-Warrant of execution Mary beheaded at Fotheringay-Elizabeth disavows her responsibility in this proceeding-The disavowal a self-deception-Note on the statements that Elizabeth desired that the Queen of Scots might be privately assassinated.

To judge correctly of the course of proceedings against the queen of Scots, we must go back to the session of parliament of 1584-5, when the nation was alarmed by well-founded apprehensions of a Spanish invasion, and by decisive indications of plots for the deposition of Elizabeth and the recognition of Mary's claim to the English crown. In that session a law was passed, entitled, "An Act for provision to be made for the surety of the queen's majesty's most royal person, and the continuance of the realm in peace.'

VOL. III.

194

STATUTE FOR THE SURETY OF THE QUEEN'S PERSON.

[1586.

Before the passing of this Act, a most extraordinary combination had been entered into, which is thus recognised in the fourth clause of the statute for the surety of the queen's person: "And whereas of late many of her majesty's good and faithful subjects, have, in the name of God, and with the testimony of good consciences, by one uniform manner of writing under their hands and seals, and by their several oaths voluntarily taken, joined themselves together in one Bond and Association, to withstand and revenge to the uttermost all such malicious actions and attempts against her majesty's most royal person." The specific object of the Association was much more explicitly defined in the instrument to which the good and faithful subjects had set their hands and seals. It was to the effect that if any attempt against the queen's person "shall be taken in hand or procured," whereby any should pretend title to come to the crown by the untimely death of the queen so procured, the Associators not only bind themselves never to allow of any such pretended successor, by whom or for whom any such act shall be attempted, but engage to prosecute such person or persons to death. It is not correct to state that in the statute for the surety of the queen's person, "the terms of this Association were solemnly approved by parliament." * It provided that the articles of the Association "shall and ought to be in all things expounded and adjudged according to the true intent and meaning of this Act;" and the Act expressly limited its meaning by the condition "that if any invasion or rebellion should be made by or for any person pretending title to the crown after her majesty's decease, or if any thing be confessed or imagined tending to the hurt of her person," it should be "with the privity of any such person." In that case it was provided that a commission, composed of peers, privy counsellors, and judges, should examine and give judgment on such offences; and that, after a proclamation of such judgment under the great seal, all persons against whom such sentence shall be given and proclaimed should be disabled for ever to have any claim to the crown; and all her majesty's subjects, by virtue of this statute, and by the queen's direction, might pursue the said persons to death. In case of the violent death of the queen, the privy council, with others, might proclaim the guilty parties, and use force in pursuing them to death. Mr. Hallam has pointed out that "this statute differs from the associators' engagement, in omitting the outrageous threat of pursuing to death. any person, whether privy or not to the design, on whose behalf an attempt against the queen's life should be made."+ Such was the law when the Babington conspiracy was discovered; and Mary was put upon her trial under this law, and not under the old Statute of Treasons, to determine whether that conspiracy against the life of Elizabeth was "with the privity of any person that shall or may pretend title to the crown of this realm."‡

On the 5th of October, 1586, a commission was issued to a large number of the most eminent persons of the kingdom, including twenty-nine peers, nine privy councillors, the chancellor, and five judges. In this commission it was recited, that since the first day of June, in the 27th year of the queen, “divers matters have been compassed and imagined tending to the hurt of our royal person, as well by Mary, daughter and heir of James the fifth, king of Scots, and commonly called queen of Scots and dowager of France, pretending title

* Tytler, vol. viii.

+"Constitutional History.'

27 Eliz., c. 1, clause 1.

1586.]

COMMISSION FOR TRIAL OF MARY.

195

to this realm of England; as by divers other persons, cum scientia, in English with the privity of the same Mary, as we are given to understand." To the commissioners was assigned full power to examine all such matters, and to give sentence and judgment, under the act for the surety of the royal person. Thirty-six commissioners repaired to the castle of Fotheringay; and letters from Elizabeth were delivered to Mary, apprising her of the proceedings that were to be taken against her. At some preliminary interviews with a deputation from the commissioners, Mary maintained that she was an absolute queen; that she was no subject; and rather would die a thousand deaths than acknowledge herself a subject. She especially objected to the recent law,upon which the authority of the commissioners wholly depended,-as unjust, as devised of purpose against her. But Hatton, the vice-chamberlain of Elizabeth, urged her to lay aside the bootless privilege of regal dignity, and by appearing before the commissioners have the means of showing her innocence. She ultimately yielded. The court was opened on Friday, the 14th of October, in the great hall at Fotheringay castle. Amongst the Cottonian MSS. there is a rough plan, in the hand-writing of lord Burleigh, for the arrangement of the hall. The "Great Chamber" was to be divided by "a rail as is in the Parliament Chamber." Within the bar was to be a cloth of

state, with a chair for the queen of England; and opposite, nearer the rail, at chair for the queen of Scots. On the right of the queen of England's chair, a form for four justices, and a form for fourteen earls. On the left a form for the queen's counsel; a form for seven counsellors; and a form for thirteen barons. The space below the bar was "for all persons not being in commission, nor of the queen's learned counsel."*

It is scarcely possible, within reasonable limits, to furnish an adequate relation of this so-called trial. Like all other trials for high-treason at that period, the witnesses were not examined in open court; the accused was not allowed counsel. There sat, facing the empty chair of royal state, this acute and courageous woman, with those before her whom she regarded as her enemies, ready to overwhelm her by their accusations or their arguments. She repeated her declaration, that whatever answers she gave were made under protest against the authority of the commission to try a princess who was no subject of the queen of England. Gawdy, the queen's sergeant, went through the history of the Babington conspiracy, and brought forward arguments that she knew of it, approved it, and showed the means of its execution. She maintained that she knew not Babington; had never received any letters from him, nor written any to him; that she never plotted the destruction of the queen; and that to prove the same her subscription under her own hand ought to be produced. Copies of Babington's letters to her were read. “Let it be proved," she answered, "that I received them." The confessions of Babington and others were then recited, to prove that she had written letters which showed knowledge of the conspiracy. She said this was second-hand evidence. A copy of a letter was read, as of one written by her to Babington. She demanded that the original, said to be in cypher, should be produced. She hinted that Walsingham, who had placed spies about her, might have caused her cypher to be counterfeited. Walsingham protested that as a private

* See plan in Ellis, First Series, vol. ii.