1586 papers-no witnesses; she had been deprived of pen, ink, and paper, and yet she displayed such wonderful self-possession and address, and defended herself with such prompt, clear, and sagacious remarks, against the most expert lawyers and politicians of that age, as kept at bay, for two whole days, the hunters of her life. The proceedings began by a debate, in which Mary repeated her protest against the court, and the statute under which it acted. The Queen's sergeant then opened the case. His accusation consisted of two parts, and alleged that Mary The charges had conspired, with foreigners and traitors, to procure (1) the invasion against her of the realm, and (2) the death of the Queen. In proof of the first, there was produced a multitude of letters, either intercepted, or found in her cabinet, which had passed between her and Mendoza, Morgan, and Paget, showing that she had approved of the plan of invasion devised in the Paris conferences, and had offered to aid it by inducing her friends in Scotland to rise in arms, seize the person of James, and prevent his fulfilling the treaty with Elizabeth. This charge was good, and Mary did not deny it, but treated it as frivolous, and beyond the jurisdiction of that or any other court. In support of the second charge, Elizabeth's counsel urged Babington's confession and produced copies of three letters :-the first from Mary to Babington, renewing their correspondence; the second from Babington, minutely detailing the conspiracy; and the third from Mary, approving of the plot, and containing her instructions concerning its execution. In the second letter there occurred this passage:-" For the despatch of the usurper, from the obedience of whom, by the excommunication of her, we are made free, there be six noble gentlemen, all my private friends, who, for the zeal they bear to the Catholic cause and your majesty's service, will undertake the tragical execution." The Evidence. copy of Mary's answer to this letter was produced in the shape of seven points for deliberation said to be extracted therefrom, on one of which the prosecution particularly insisted. This was:-" By what meanes doe the six gentilmen deliberate to procede?" which the counsel maintained, established Mary's participation with Babington in the crime of imagining and compassing the Queen's death. But as the crown lawyers did not think proper to produce the originals of these copies, if they had any, they considered it necessary to prove their authenticity by adducing, first, a confession of Babington, that he had written a letter to Mary, and had received an answer, containing similar passages, and that he believed these copies to be faithful transcripts of the originals: second, the confessions of Nau and Curle, whom the commissioners refused to confront with Mary: and third, the admission, in several of Mary's letters to her foreign correspondents, that she had received from the conspirators, notice of their intentions. These proofs, says Hallam,*"form a body of evidence, not, indeed, irresistibly convincing, but far stronger than we find in Probability many instances where condemnation has ensued;" but it gut. is clear, from other evidence, viz., the letters of Paget and Morgan, written to Mary during July, 1586, that she was aware not only of the projected invasion and rebellion, but of the design against Elizabeth's life. Besides this, there are sufficient reasons for believing the truth of the charges against Mary, because of the great probability that she would concur in any scheme against * Const. Hist., I., 158. + Ibid, 159; Mackintosh, III, 317. of her The CHAP. V Elizabeth, the certainty of her long correspondence with the conspirators, who certainly had not hesitated to hint to her their designs against the English Queen; and the deep guilt which a false charge must inevitably bring upon Sir Francis Walsingham.* After the evidence had been gone through, Mary declared her innocence, and demanded that she should be provided with counsel, that she should be tried before parliament, and that she should have an interview with Elizabeth; all which demands were refused. The court adjourned, to meet again in the Star Chamber, on the 25th of October, when they pronounced sentence of death against Mary and her two secretaries; but they Sentence. added a provision, declaring that the sentence did not derogate from James, King of Scotland, in his title and honour, and that he was in the same place, degree, and right as if the said sentence had never been pronounced.+ The parliament confirmed this sentence, and on the 6th of December it was published by proclamation. The inhabitants of London illuminated their houses for joy, and the church bells rang merry peals for twenty-four hours. Thus, those men who, in 1572, had been loud in their execrations of the popish impiety and cruelty, which had made religion a motive for the massacre of St. Bartholomew, now urged the execution of the Queen of Scots chiefly on account of her religious faith. 36. Conduct of Elizabeth and her council after the Trial. Henry III., of France, and James, of Scotland, sent special envoys to intercede with Elizabeth for the life of Mary, but she refused to listen to any entreaties; and when the Scottish messenger, Melville, requested, at least, some delay of the execution, she turned round upon him and replied with fury, "No! not for an hour." This answer sufficiently proves that Elizabeth was never really touched either by hesitation or humanity; the irresolution and conflict of passions which she affected for the next two or three months, arose entirely out of a regard for her own reputation. As the time approached for executing the sentence, she went about muttering to herself, as if still undecided, "Aut fer, aut feri; ne feriare feri." She was often heard to lament that no one would relieve her by undertaking to assassinate the royal convict; and even on the day that she signed the warrant, she caused Walsingham and Davison, the two secretaries, to write to Paulet and Drury, to sound them on the subject. At length, on the 1st of February, 1587, after the departure of Hume V., 295-299. + Lingard, VIII., 230; Mackintosh, III., 318; Hume V., 299. 1587 the French and Scottish ambassadors, Elizabeth signed the warrant, with a jest on Walsingham's hatred of the Queen of Scots. That wily statesman, as well as Burleigh, cautiously kept aloof from the court at this crisis; they knew that the Queen would throw upon her ministers all the odium of the execution afterwards, and they therefore left that fearful responsibility to Davison. As soon as the warrant was signed, the secretary took it to Burleigh, whom he found closeted with Leicester. They advised him to use despatch; he then went with it to Walsingham, and at five o'clock that day, the great seal was affixed to it by Lord Bromley, the chancellor. The next morning Elizabeth asked Davison if the warrant was sealed, and being told that it was, she chided him for his haste, and again hinted at assassination. Her words and manner awakened in him some misgivings. He consulted Sir Christopher Hatton, the lord chamberlain, and told him he was resolved not to plunge himself any deeper in so great a business alone. The two then went to Burleigh, who assembled the council the next day (February 3rd), and it was unanimously resolved that the Queen, having done all that the law required on her part, it was now their duty to take the rest of the burden on themselves. The next day the Queen told Davison that she had dreamed that the Queen of Scots was executed, and that she had punished him severely in consequence. Though she spoke jestingly, he was alarmed, and, therefore, openly asked her whether she intended the warrant to be executed. She said, with unusual vehemence, "Yea, by G-d!" The same day a commission was signed, appointing the Earl of Shrewsbury as Earl Marshal, with the Earls of Derby, Kent, Cumberland, and Pembroke, to proceed to Fotheringay with the warrant, and superintend its immediate execution.* 37. The Execution of Mary Queen of Scots. The Queen of Scots was informed of her sentence and condemnation on the 22nd of November, by Lord Buckhurst. She received the news with firmness and cheerfulness, saying that she was aweary of this world, protesting against the justice of her doom, and denying, with the name of the Saviour in her mouth, that she had ever assented to, or sought the murder of Elizabeth. With the assistance of her almoner, she then wrote three letters, one being to Elizabeth, requesting a few favours as to the manner of her death and the disposal of her body, saying that she bore no malice or resentment towards her good sister, but reminding her that the *See Life of Davison, by Sir Harris Nicholas; Mackintosh, III., 322-3 CHAP. V. day would come when they would both be tried by an unerring judge, and thanking God that He was pleased to put an end to her troublesome pilgrimage. On the 7th of February, the commissioners arrived at Fotheringay, and bade Mary to prepare for death the next day. She heard them without emotion, and swore upon the New Testament that she had not devised or excited the death of the Queen. They refused her the attendance of her confessor, and in her last hour forced upon her the mockery of the services of a Protestant divine, Fletcher, dean of Peterborough, who, "under colour of pious exhortation, assailed her in a strain of savage bigotry," and told her that she "had no other means of escaping endless perdition than by repenting of her former wickedness," and recanting from the faith in which she had lived.* She rose early on the fatal morning of the 8th; dressed herself with care as for a festival; distributed her bequests among her servants; and remained at prayer in her oratory till eight o'clock, when the sheriff summoned her to the scaffold. On her way to the great hall where she was to suffer, she met Sir Andrew Melville, her steward, who, for several weeks, had been excluded from her presence. The old servant fell on his knees, wrung his hands, and cried aloud, "Oh! madam, unhappy me! was ever a man on earth the bearer of such sorrow as I shall be, when I report that my good and gracious Queen and mistress was beheaded in England!" "Good Melville," replied Mary, "cease to lament: thou hast cause rather to joy than mourn; for thou shalt see the end of Mary Stuart's troubles." Six of her servants were allowed to witness her death. After being disrobed by her maids, one of them blindfolded her. The executioner then led her to the block. As she knelt down she repeated, "Into Thy hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit," and her head, once the most admired and beautiful in the world, was severed from her shoulders at the third stroke. The dean of Peterborough said, "So perish all Queen Elizabeth's enemies;" to which none but the Earl of Kent responded "Amen! The body was embalmed, enclosed in lead, and kept in the castle for six months, when Elizabeth ordered it to be interred with royal pomp in the Abbey Church of Peterborough, opposite to the tomb of Catherine of Arragon. On the 11th of October, 1612, James I. caused it to be transferred to Westminster Abbey. When Elizabeth received the news of the execution, she pretended to be overwhelmed with grief, and transported with indignation against her ministers. She banished Burleigh from * Mackintosh, III., 325; Hume, V., 311-312. 1587 court, and imprisoned Davison for the rest of her reign, besides fining him £10,000. She wrote a letter of pretended sorrow and perfidious condolence to James VI., the worthless son of her victim, and easily appeased him; but she never deceived or silenced the opinion of the world. 38. Remarks upon the execution. to the laws Although the execution of the Queen of Scots cannot be entirely vindicated, yet it is not deserving all the censure which has been thrown against it. It is essential to any apology for Elizabeth that Mary should have been assenting to a conspiracy against her life: for to endeavour to effect her deliverance, or to assent to a conspiracy against Elizabeth's power, could be no crimes in the Scottish Queen under the circumstances in which she was placed. That Mary did assent to such a conspiracy, and that she was guilty and her sentence legal, under the statute which had been passed in the 27th year of the reign, we have already shown; but this is not questioned. It has been said, and Mary herself made it a ground of defence, that, as an independent sovereign, she was not amenable to the laws of Mary was England. But this is not so true as it at first sight appears to be. amenable Every independent government is supreme within its own territory, and of England. strangers, whether voluntarily resident in it or not, are amenable to the jurisdiction of its tribunals; and prisoners of war have suffered death for criminal offences, as well as other foreigners who have resided here from choice. It is certainly an exception to this rule, that foreign ambassadors are exempt from criminal process; but whether that exemption extends to such a flagrant abuse of the confidence reposed in them, as to allow them to conspire against the life of the sovereign at whose court they reside, is a question; and it is, observes Hallam,* a "principle I do not apprehend," that a sovereign or his ambassador temporarily resident in the territories of another may frame plots for his assassination with impunity. But even granting this privilege of inviolability, it can only be claimed by an independent sovereign, Mwhich ary was not, for her son had been acknowledged by She was England, and by all Europe, for twenty years, and there was not a independent Scotchman who avowed allegiance to her. Therefore, to pronounce sovereign. Mary's execution unjust, on the ground that she was not amenable to English law, is a statement which cannot be defended. But while execution was thus not so iniquitous and unwarrantable as it has been represented, it must be admitted, that it would have been much more generous if Elizabeth had not exacted the law's full penalty. The detention of Mary in England was in violation of all law, and cannot be extenuated; and even the French revolutionists, amidst the fury of their proscriptions, admitted that impolitic; her impri persons thrown by chance or necessity upon a shore where their lives are proscribed, are absolved from the operation of the proscribing law, "ils unlawful. sont naufrages, donc incondamnables." The great operating cause of the execution in the mind of Elizabeth's council was, doubtless, the security of the established religion, and of the Protestant succession to the throne: grand objects certainly, and demanding great sacrifices; but which might have been accomplished by other means than the shedding of blood.‡ not an Her death sonment *Const. Hist., I., 161. + Mackintosh, III., 327. Hallam, I., 161-162, P |