206

NOTE ON DAVISON'S STATEMENTS.

[1587. the days of his prisoner." Paulet, adds this historian, "rejected the proposal with disdain." Conversations might have been misunderstood; rash expressions exaggerated. But letters of this import could not be capable of any other interpretation than that Elizabeth desired Mary to be removed by secret murder.

In 1823, Sir N. H. Nicolas published his "Life of William Davison," in which he gave two other apologies, which he describes as "the fullest and most satisfactory " of these papers, and which he believes have "never before been cited or published." The first of these is taken from the Cottonian MS., Titus, C. vii. f. 48, and the Cottonian MS. Caligula, C. ix. f. 149, and these " appear to be in Davison's hand."* The second is the Harleian MS., 290, f. 213, and, says Nicolas, "the manuscript is very similar to Davison's." + The one from the Harleian MS. is headed "A true relation of what passed between her majesty and me," &c. The other from the Cottonian MS. is headed "A Discourse sent by and from Mr. Secretary Davison, being then prisoner in the Tower of London, unto Secretary Walsingham," &c. There is another copy of the "Discourse" in the Harleian Collection, of which the Catalogue says, "written by the hand of Mr. Rafe Starkey." Nicolas points out that it varies very slightly from that in the Cottonian Collection. Three examinations of Davison, whilst he was a prisoner in the Tower, and reports of his trial in the Star-chamber, are the principal documents which further bear on the question.

The offence for which Davison was prosecuted in the Star-chamber, was,—as related in a letter written about three months after Mary's death-" for not proceeding with the queen of Scots according to his mistress' commandment at the delivery of the warrant, which was, not to put it in execution before the realm shall be actually invaded by some foreign power." The examinations of Davison in the Star-chamber are recorded in several papers, in which there are allusions to some other mode of proceeding than that contemplated in the warrant. Thus, amongst questions put to Davison on the 12th of March, he is asked, "whether six or seven days after it [the warrant] was passed the great seal, and in your custody, her majesty told you not in the gallery that she had a better way to proceed therein than that which was before advised?" Would the courtly examiners have ventured to ask such a question if they had expected that Davison would have blurted out that the other way was assassination? The answer of Davison was this: "He remembereth that upon some letters received from Mr. Paulet, her majesty falling into some complaint of him upon such cause as she best knoweth, she uttered such a speech that she would have matters otherwise done." § Did this speech, that she would have matters otherwise done, contemplate assassination ?

The two Reports purporting to be from Davison, which are preserved in the Harleian and Cottonian MSS., and have been reprinted by Sir N. H. Nicolas, have most important variations. The narrative of Sir N. H. Nicolas is mainly founded upon the Cottonian MS., which varies very slightly from that first published by Mackenzie. The Harleian Catalogue says of the two narratives, though they "differ in many circumstances, each containing several which the other wants, they are not repugnant one to the other, and therefore both may be true." They are so repugnant, however, that the most material averment of the "discourse" is not found in the "relation." The "discourse" purports to be sent by Davison to Walsingham when he was "a prisoner in the Tower," and bears the date as having been so sent, February 20, 1586 [1587]. It is an extraordinary circumstance that of this confidential communication there should be many copies; for it contains allegations against the queen which the writer, a prisoner in the Tower," would scarcely entrust to any person but his co

* Printed by Nicolas, Appendix A. Ellis, Second Series, vol. iii. p. 126.

Printed by Nicolas, Appendix B.

§ Sir N. H. Nicolas, "Life of Davison," p. 95.

1587.]

NOTE ON DAVISON'S STATEMENTS.

207

secretary, Walsingham, who, according to this statement, was art and part with him in an unscrupulous act. Of the "relation" only one copy is known. This fact is certainly insufficient to impugn the authenticity of the paper bearing the date of February 20. But as there were evident pains taken to publish it, by a multiplication of copies, it is not impossible that it might be so circulated after the death of Elizabeth, when any insinuations against the great queen would not have been displeasing to her successor.

We proceed to point out the chief discrepancies between the two papers; and we give, in the first place, an example of one material deviation, placing the passages in parallel columns; each describing what took place immediately after the warrant had been signed on the 1st of February :

From the Cotton MS.

"And thereupon (after some intermingled speech to and fro), told me she would have it done as secretly as might be, appointing the hall where she was for the place of execution; and misliking the court, or green of the castle for divers respects she alleged, with other speech to like effect. Howbeit, as I was ready to depart, she fell into some complaint of Sir Amias Paulet and others, that might have eased her of this burthen, wishing that Mr. Secretary [Walsingham] and I would yet write unto both him and Sir Drue Drury, to sound their disposition in that behalf. The same afternoon I waited on my lord chancellor for the sealing of the said I returned back unto Mr. Secretary Walsingham, whom I had visited by the way, and acquainted him with ' her pleasure touching letters that were to be written to the said sir Amias Paulet and sir Drue Drury, which at my return I found ready to be sent away."

warrant.

From the Harleian MS.

"She finally willed me to take up the said warrant, and to carry it immediately to the great seal, commanding me expressly to dispatch and send it down unto the commissioners with all the expedition I might, appointing the hall of Fotheringay for the place of execution, misliking the court-yard for divers respects she alleged; and, in conclusion, absolutely forbade me to trouble her any further, or let her hear any more thereof till it was done, seeing that for her part she had now performed all that either in law or reason could be required of her; and so, calling for the rest of the things I had to be signed, dispatched them all. This done, she entered into some speech with me of Mr. Secretary Walsingham, delivering me a message to be imparted unto him, and willing me withal to shew him her warrant in my way to the seal (he being then sick at his house in London), yielding merrily this reason, that she thought the sight thereof would kill him outright. After din

ner I repaired to the lord chancellor, according to my directions, having first visited Mr. Secretary Walsingham on my way, and acquainted him with those things her majesty had given me in charge."

In the above "relation" from the Harleian MS. there is not a word about the joint letter that was to be written, as the "discourse" states, to sound the disposition of Paulet and Drury. The warrant was to be dispatched and sent down to the commissioners with all expedition; the queen commanded that she should hear no more about it till it was done. The "discourse" has a very different story. Paulet and Drury were to be written to with reference to some irregular proceeding, for taking the life of Mary without the necessary forms: "Albeit I had before excused myself from meddling therein, upon sundry her majesty's former motions, as a matter I utterly prejudged, assuring her that it should be so much labour lost, knowing the wisdom and integrity of the gentlemen, whom I thought would not do such an unlawful act for any respect in the world; yet, finding her desirous to have the matter attempted, I promised for her satisfaction to signify this her pleasure to Mr. Secretary." Thus becoming an accessory to "an unlawful act," he goes to Walsingham, "he being then sick at his house in London ;" and the most wary man in the world instantly adopts some illegal suggestion, full of peril and difficulty, at the very moment when the great object of himself and the other members of the council was accomplished, and Elizabeth's warrant for Mary's execution was

208

NOTE ON DAVISON'S STATEMENTS.

[1587.

signed at last. The letter was such a matter of course that the sick man sets about its instant preparation; and when Davison returns, in an hour or so, he finds it "ready to be sent away." In the "true relation" of Davison there is not one word to indicate that any such letter was written, or ordered to be written. This relation, throughout, aims only at showing that the queen held firmly to her original command that the warrant should be quickly executed; "albeit she thought it might have been better handled, because this course threw the whole burthen upon herself." This was said on the 2nd of February; and Davison replies to the queen that he “ saw not who else could bear it, seeing her laws made it murder in any man to take the life of the meanest subject in her kingdom but by her warrant." This is corroborated by the "discourse." She thought "that it might have been otherwise handled for the form, naming unto me some that were of that opinion, whose judgments she commended." Her ministers complained of Elizabeth that she hesitated to give that authority to the council that would have been their warrant to issue a writ for the execution of the queen of Scots. Davison distinctly separates the warrant which the queen signed from the writ of execution which was issued by the council. It is clear that the queen had a vague desire that the warrant should come from her council, as the writ of execution did come-a weak and crafty desire, but not a longing for assassination. Some such longing had indeed, according to the "true relation," been put into her head by one of her most dangerous advisers, some days after the sick Walsingham and the conscientious Davison had, according to the ordinary interpretation, proposed to Paulet and Drury that they should murder their prisoner. Thus Davison relates a subsequent interview with the queen: "Some two or three days after, having special occasion to attend her majesty, and finding her in her gallery at Greenwich all alone, she entered into some speech with me of a course that had been propounded unto her underhand by one of great place, concerning that queen; asked me what I thought thereof; which, being in truth very unsuitable to the rest of her public proceedings, I utterly misliked, delivering my reasons, wherewith she seemed to rest satisfied, without any show of following this new course, or altering her former resolution in any point. This, it seems, was a new course," -a course very unsuitable to the rest of her public proceedings," which Elizabeth told Davison "had been propounded to her underhand by one of great place," but "without any show of altering her former resolution in any point"-the resolution that the warrant should take effect. And yet this "new course," according to the ordinary belief, was the "underhand " one which Walsingham and Davison had proposed to Paulet and Drury some days before, at the express desire of the queen herself.

The manifest discrepancies between the two papers attributed to Davison might perhaps have suggested some such doubts as we have stated, if not of their genuineness, at least of their real meaning, if there had not appeared other papers which profess to be the identical correspondence of Walsingham and Davison with Paulet and Drury: We give the letter of Elizabeth's secretaries as it was first discovered and presented to the world about a hundred and forty years after it professed to have been written. If this letter had never appeared, we might have most reasonably doubted whether the strongest statements of Davison had any reference to secret assassination.

"To SIR AMIAS PAULET.

"After our hearty commendations, we find by speech lately uttered by her majesty, that she doth note in you both a lack of that care and zeal for her service that she looketh for at your hands, in that you have not in all this time of yourselves, without other provocation, found out some way to shorten the life of

1587.J

NOTE ON DAVISON'S STATEMENTS.

209

that queen, considering the great peril she is hourly subject to so long as the said queen shall live. Wherein, besides a kind of lack of love towards her, she noteth greatly that you have not that care of your own particular safeties, or rather of the preservation of religion, and the public good and prosperity of your country, that reason and policy commandeth; especially having so good a warrant and ground for the satisfaction of your conscience towards God, and the discharge of your credit and reputation towards the world, as the oath of Association, which you both have so solemnly taken and vowed, and especially the matter wherewith she standeth charged being so clearly and manifestly proved against her. And therefore she taketh it most unkindly towards her that men professing that love toward her that you do, should in any kind of sort, for lack of the discharge of your duties, cast the burthen upon her, knowing as you do her indisposition to shed blood, especially of one of that sex and quality, and so near to her in blood as the said queen is. These respects, we find, do greatly trouble her majesty, who we assure you hath sundry times protested, that if the regard of this danger of her good subjects and faithful servants did not more move her than her own peril, she would never be drawn to assent to the shedding of her blood. We thought it very meet to acquaint you with these speeches lately passed from her majesty, referring the same to your good judgments. And so we commit you to the protection of the Almighty. "Your most assured friends,

At London, Feb. 1, 1586 [1587].

"FRANCIS WALSINGHAM. "WILLIAM DAVISON."

Mr. Hallam has referred to doubts of the genuineness of this letter which were expressed in the original edition of the "Biographia Britannica," Note to Art. "Walsingham." Others, less candid, have avoided hinting that such a doubt had ever been expressed. The point is all-important. If this letter is a genuine one, there is an end of all doubt-Elizabeth desired that Mary should be secretly murdered. If it be a forgery, the charge falls to the ground; for there is nothing in the apologies of Davison that gives this meaning absolutely nothing that is incapable of another interpretation. The writer of the note in the "Biographia Britannica" rests his scepticism upon his confident belief that Walsingham, the most wary of politicians,—who, according to Camden, had resisted every suggestion for dealing with Mary except by open trial,-would never have committed himself to an expression of the queen's regret that Paulet and Drury had not taken means to shorten her life. But there is another suspicious point of internal evidence, which that writer has not noticed. Davison signs a letter, in which he says that the oath of the Association (which was an engagement to pursue to death any person plotting against the life of queen Elizabeth) would be a ground for the satisfaction of their conscience in proceeding of themselves to the execution of that oath. The man who signs this exhortation had refused himself to join the Association, and sets forth, at a later period, that such refusal had been injurious to him. Is it possible that any conscientious man-as Davison is held to have been-would plead the obligation to shed blood imposed by an oath upon others, which bath he had refused to take, as being against his own conscience?

The answer of Paulet and Drury to the infamous proposal of Walsingham and Davison is as follows:

"To SIR FRANCIS WALSINGHAM, KNT.

"SIR,-Your letters of yesterday coming to my hands this present day at five in the afternoon, I would not fail, according to your directions, to return my answer with all possible speed, which shall deliver unto you great grief and

VOL. III.

F

210

NOTE ON DAVISON'S STATEMENTS.

[1587.

bitterness of mind, in that I am so unhappy to have liven to see this unhappy day, in the which I am required, by direction from my most gracious sovereign, to do an act which God and the law forbiddeth. My good livings and life are at her majesty's disposition, and am ready to lose them this next morrow if it shall so please her; acknowledging that I hold them as of her mere and most gracious favour. I do not desire them, to enjoy them, but with her highness's good liking; but God forbid that I should make so foul a shipwrack of my conscience, or leave so great a blot to my posterity, or shed blood without law and warrant ; trusting that her majesty, of her accustomed clemency, will take this my dutiful answer in good part (and the rather, by your good mediation), as proceeding from one who will never be inferior to any Christian subject living in duty, honour, love, and obedience towards his sovereign.. And thus I commit you to the mercy of the Almighty. From Fotheringay, the 2nd of February, 1586 [1587].

"Your most assured poor friends,

The following is a postscript :

"A. PAULET. "D. DRURY."

"Your letter coming in the plural number, seems to be meant as to sir Drue Drury as to myself: and yet because he is not named in them, neither the letter directed unto him, he forbeareth to make any answer, but subscribeth in heart to my opinion." (And yet he does answer, and appends his signature.)

If any one can readily believe that this is the boastful style in which two of Elizabeth's servants, the breath of whose nostrils was court favour, would answer a half-command of the queen herself, transmitted by her two secretaries of state, we can only say that they have more confidence than ourselves, not only in the public virtue of such men, but in their unexampled boldness in hurling foul scorn at their mistress and her ministers. We have seen how suspicious are all the circumstances connected with the dispatch of the letter held to contain a plain command of the queen "to shorten the life" of the unhappy prisoner of Paulet and Drury. According to Davison's "discourse," as explained by the letter itself, Elizabeth gives her order without any hesitation. She does not dally, as John dallied with Hubert:

"I had a thing to say,-But let it go."

Let us see how she receives the refusal of Paulet to execute this supposed unholy command. Does her conscience sting her when she reads what Paulet replies— "God forbid that I should make so foul a shipwrack of my conscience, or leave so great a blot to my posterity, or shed blood without law or warrant "—"to do an act which God and the law forbiddeth "—to be an assassin? Does she use any solemn oath to purge herself from a suspicion that her meaning was murder? With the same matchless impudence that prompted her command, she reads the refusal to obey it. "She rose up, and after a turn or two went into the gallery, whither I followed her; and there renewing her former speech, blaming the niceness of those precise fellows, as she termed them, who in words would do great things for her surety, but in deed performed nothing, concluded that she would well enough have done without them. And here, entering into particularities, named unto me, as I remember, one Wingfield, who, she assured me, would, with some others, undertake it." ("Discourse.") If to "undertake it" meant to poison, or to stab, no murderess that ever lived was so brazen-faced in her "particularities " as this Elizabeth. Mr. Tytler paraphrases this passage, and says, "Who this new assassin was to whom the queen alluded does not appear.' Let us try to make the matter clearer. The earl of Shrewsbury had a castle called Wingfield, or Winfield. There Mary was, in 1584, under the charge of sir Ralph Sadler.

Insert two letters in