Читать книгу The Last Days of Mary Stuart, and the journal of Bourgoyne her physician - Samuel Cowan - Страница 3

Table of Contents

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.

One writer informs us that her death was not known in Scotland for a month after its occurrence, while the administration of the Crown of England for this period was almost wholly confined to her persecution and the creating of schemes by which her death might be accomplished.

When Mary abandoned all hope of getting satisfaction from Elizabeth, she addressed a communication on the subject to Chateauneuf, the French Ambassador in London, setting forth the nature of her grievances, and desired him to discuss the same with Elizabeth. This letter leaves us in no doubt regarding the sufferings of the writer. She speaks plainly of the cruelty of Elizabeth and of the “infirm and pitiable condition to which eighteen years of imprisonment have brought me”; that for four years she had endeavoured to please Elizabeth, and had sent her secretary with carte blanche to come to terms with her; but everything had failed. The Ambassador discussed it very seriously with Elizabeth, but made no impression. A few days after the despatch of this letter Mary wrote another to Chateauneuf, both of which we reproduce slightly condensed.

The letter to the French Ambassador speaks for itself, and gives us a better idea of her forlorn condition than any other paper we possess. It is painfully evident that she was reduced to the level of a criminal, and every comfort and every means of recreation denied her. Nobody was permitted even to approach the house where she was living without declaring their object, and no one was allowed to have access to her. “It is unreasonable,” as she says, “to make me suffer for that of which I am not the cause.” But that is not the most painful part of this pitiable letter. She adds, “And to speak still more freely, necessity making me, to my great regret, overcome shame, I began to be very ill attended to in my own person, and with no regard to my infirm state.” Even if Mary had been guilty of all that was laid to her charge, this treatment by the English Queen was infamous, and what is to be said if she was innocent? It was only a month after the date of this letter that the kidnapping of Mary took place by Elizabeth's command. The letter was in the following terms:—

Queen Mary to Chateauneuf, end of July 1586, Chartley:

“In consequence of the small satisfaction which I receive in all that concerns my condition here, I am constrained once for all to represent by you to the Queen of England my very strong complaints in this respect, seeing that the more passively I have endured all this time to give proof to her of the determination which I had in complying in all and by all with her, so much the more they reduce me step by step to the utmost distress, without any regard to my rank and without consideration of the infirm and pitiful condition to which eighteen years of imprisonment have brought me, or recollection of the promises which the said Queen has made to me to the contrary. So that it appears that my enemies, who in expectation of my death being at hand, in my sickness had last summer slightly relaxed their rage against me, wish to retrace their former steps to hasten by evil and unworthy treatment that which they do not wish or are unable to execute otherwise, lest they make themselves openly culpable.

“I have constantly during the space of four years courted the Queen of England by the most advantageous overtures and endeavours and correspondence to come to the point of some good agreement with her, and at last I sent to her my secretary in a manner with carte blanche.

“I made such offers to her that herself and those of her Council wrote to me they could desire nothing more on my part; and in sooth there never was seen nor heard of a Sovereign prince imprisoned, rightfully or wrongfully, who has redeemed his liberty on conditions so unreasonable for himself. Not only has there been nothing further done with regard to my propositions for my liberation as I had been assured of it, but almost nothing of that which had been promised has been performed to me. Instead of the mission of certain of my servants to my son, which had been granted to me in order to make an end with him of the hindrance which they alleged he made to my treaty of liberation, and which they said prevented the Queen from going further into it, I have been shut up entirely out of the way and separated from him, in order the better to reunite him to our common enemies here and to expose or subject him to his rebellious subjects. For my safety in this bondage there is nobody of judgment who does not consider it less at present than in the hands of one of the peers and lords of this kingdom, of reputation, force, and power sufficient to preserve me against the attempts of my enemies whatever may happen; which has always been my principal desire since they have removed me from the custody of Lord Shrewsbury; and in that I do not mean to do wrong to my present keeper, whom in other respects I consider a very honourable gentleman and faithful servant of his mistress.

“With regard to my condition and treatment here, which the said Queen had expressly written to me she wished to do all things very honourably as far as to disclaim that of the past, I must say in a word that I find myself at the present time rather confined in a gaol than in a prince's captivity, much below me or whom they could by right of war or otherwise justly detain. I am interdicted from all private correspondence with my son, to whose welfare and preservation as I feel myself obliged to have regard, so much the more I have of sorrow and torture in being unable to render him this maternal duty in the straits and necessity wherein he very often is.

“As to my private affairs, you are aware of the severity exercised at Chartley when he came to give an account of them, so that his journey to me amounted almost to nothing.

“My servants' despatches are delivered to me with so much delay, and mine to them, that the opportunities usually slip away before I can make use of them, the necessity, nevertheless, for it being such, that I am put as they say to my last shift. The place in which I am is made so detestable by the severity which is exercised to all who approach to it even for the ordinary conveniences necessary for me and my servants, and I am seldom permitted to do good to any poor person in the neighbourhood, the distribution of my alms having been removed from me this year, that it was too apparent how much they endeavour to make me be reputed and held as some savage and complete stranger, and so insult those not only who should have some respect for me, but whoever will have anything to do with me and my servants.

“I have not until now had so much need of having a fixed residence in which I might settle myself with the conveniences requisite for my health, being but as one passing from inn to inn.

“In like manner the expenditure of my household remains, from what I hear, so uncertain that I cannot in any way check it, being always dependent on the goodwill of the person who shall have charge of me for retrenching and disposing of it as he shall think fit. The freedom promised for my exercise with some recreation has not been preserved to me, being now prohibited from going out on festival days, without considering that in consequence of my ailments, and that the time does not always suit, especially winter, I must take it when I can. Other encroachments have been made which I cannot construe, but the restriction and deterioration of my former state, instead of having it amended as they promised me: it serving no purpose to say that the time has not been suitable for it, owing to the disorders which have happened in Christendom, as they have always replied to me, except that they wish more plainly to say that they cannot find the time suitable for doing me a good act. It is unreasonable to make me suffer for that of which I am not the cause, and perchance the treaty between the said Queen and me had by it prevented a part. I had hoped that the evidence of my sincerity destroying in her impressions to the contrary would revive towards me her good disposition, and procure for me the satisfaction of passing the little of life that remains to me in the close friendship which I have always so much desired with her. But alas! I fear that the evil has gone so far as to be irremediable, however I may endeavour to place the good against the evil, my enemies being unable to content themselves with this my long-suffering and imprisonment, or that in it I may never have any peace of mind or body. And to speak still more freely to you, necessity making me thereon, to my great regret, overcome shame. I begin to be very ill attended to in my own person, and with no regard to my infirm state, which deprives me in a manner mostly of all appetite. For which if they had been inclined to allow me to supply it at my own cost I should not have made entreaty. Being more than ever entirely hopeless of better treatment and of securing my condition and rest here for the future, I have resolved to renew more urgently than ever the request I have made to the said Queen all these years past for my liberation, conjuring her in God's name, and in as far as her conscience towards herself and honour before the world are dear to her, to see to it speedily. I entreat you very earnestly to interpose thereto as far as you can the weight and intercession of the King your master, my brother-in-law, as the mediator always proposed by me in that matter. The physicians are of opinion that there are no means left for preserving my life by strengthening my nerves from the weakness of which by want of exercise all my maladies proceed, but by some natural warm baths of Italy, which, being impossible to be had in this country, it seems to me that the said Queen, in the imminent danger in which she knows I am, ought to feel responsible for the evil consequences which may arise from refusing this last and only remedy.

Marie R.”

The second letter was as follows:—

Queen Mary to Chateauneuf, 13th July 1586, Chartley:

“I do not know what determination has been taken for my change of residence and the passports of my servants; but my keeper for some days has shown himself much more vigorous and overbearing than ordinary, cutting off entirely all access round about this house from everyone whosoever, and intending to reduce the expenditure of my household as strictly as he can, contrary to the order settled and decided by the Queen of England and her Council. If this restriction continues it will be the means of making my servants more weary of this prison and altogether insupportable to them. I have heard a report, but uncertain, that my keeper is to be discharged at the end of this summer, and some suppose I am to be delivered to the Earl of Shrewsbury, which I can with very great difficulty bring myself to believe. He speaks also of removing from me all the English servants which I have in my household. But I dare not take notice of anything until my keeper gives me a hint of it. In truth I shall not be sorry to change my host, for he is one of the most whimsical and austere persons whom I have ever known, and in a word fitter for a gaol of criminals than for the custody of one of my rank and birth. Besides that, in the event of the death of the Queen of England, I should think my life very insecure in his hands, from his little rank, credit, influence, and power, and especially in this quarter, where he makes himself exceedingly hated and ill-liked. There would be no harm in your speaking of it to Lord Burghley, but it should only be by way of conversation and from yourself on the authority of some of my friends in this kingdom, without giving him any ground of suspicion that the wind blows from this quarter.”

MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS.

Watson Gordon Portrait

When Bourgoyne began this Journal the Queen would be fully eighteen years in captivity. It will be noticed that Paulet her gaoler appears to have had carte blanche from Elizabeth to treat her with every mark of cruelty. Every such act was communicated to her, and that she never disapproved of what Paulet did indicated her tacit consent to what was going on. Considering Mary's long captivity, and the weakness of her physical frame as the result of that captivity, it is almost impossible to conceive that Elizabeth or her ministers could authorise such treatment as is fully set out in these letters. It would appear from this Journal and from other documentary evidence that Mary's life was doomed before any trial ever took place at Fotheringay. Paulet's execution of Elizabeth's orders, no doubt well discussed at the Privy Council, was to lead up as it did to Mary's execution. Her first act towards that end as recorded by Bourgoyne was the bogus Stag Hunt at Chartley—the kidnapping incident. What could be more disgraceful than that proceeding?

It is briefly referred to by some historians as merely the removal of the Queen to Tixall, but Bourgoyne's Journal discloses the true nature of the transaction; and the full description given by him, which may be accepted as authentic, shows that this outrage was an act of kidnapping pure and simple. On 3rd August there was a conference to arrange the details, between Paulet and Wade, the latter one of Elizabeth's secretaries. The narrative of this private conference, which evidently was not intended to be made public, affords us a side-light into the machinations of the period, and identifies Elizabeth with this crafty and cunning plot. The composition of the narrative is evidently hers, and the plot was carried out to the letter. (See Bourgoyne, pp. 160–70.) At this conference Elizabeth's questions were put down accompanied by Paulet's answers.

The reader will notice that the principal event is left to the last; that the seizure of Mary's papers and the seizing of Nau and Curle are plausibly put in the foreground. It is of great importance that these papers are preserved. This document was sent to Walsingham accompanied by the following letter from Paulet:—

“Chartley, 3rd August 1586. I heard from Mr. Wade yesterday, and this morning I met him and conferred with him at length, as will appear by these notes enclosed. He procured the substitute, and was the only messenger between him and me. He had been charged and troubled many ways, as knoweth the Almighty, who always preserve you.”

Memoranda of a conference between Paulet and Wade about the manner of seizing Queen Mary's papers and the kidnapping of the Queen of Scots:—

“That Her Majesty (Elizabeth) desires Sir Amias Paulet to consider in what manner the Queen (his charge's) writings might be best seized on, whether remaining there, or removing her to some other place under the colour of hunting or taking the air would be best. This Queen will be easily induced to kill a stag in Sir Walter Aston's park, where order being taken with her, some gentleman of credit may be sent forthwith to seize her chambers and cabinets in this house, and to remove out of it the gentlewomen they shall find there.

“That he also consider how Nau and Curle may be best apprehended, and in what manner that seemeth meet that they be apprehended at the very instant of the challenge made to the Queen.”

Reply: “I would not advise that this enterprise should be unfurnished with gentlemen of trust and credit, but that two gentlemen be sent to take the charge of the conducting of Nau and Curle, so as to keep them from conference. Pasquier is half a secretary and much employed in writing, and perchance not unacquainted with great causes.”

“Consider whether it be not fit to remove her, and to what place. What persons are to be retained about her, and in what manner she shall be kept.”

Reply: “The cabinets and other places cannot be duly searched unless she be removed, because the doing thereof will require some leisure, and she cannot be lodged in any other place in this house than where the cabinets are. Three gentlewomen, her master cook, her panterer, and two grooms of her chamber, may suffice in the beginning of this removal but may be increased afterwards.”

“Decide in what manner she should be removed and under what guard.”

Reply: “Sir Walter Aston's house seems for many reasons the fittest for this purpose, and he may convey her directly from his park to his house, with the assistance of my horsemen and others. I think he will require to be assisted with my guard of soldiers, who may take their board and lodging in the village adjoining, and because the house is of no strength, if I were in Sir Walter Aston's place I would have some stronger guard.”

“Have you already sufficient instructions for requesting the assistance of the well-affected gentlemen, and if not, then to advise what further commission required?”

Reply: “I have already Her Majesty's commission for levying forces.”

“Have a watchful eye over your charge, and in such sort as may create no suspicion.”

Reply: “This shall be performed as near as I may.”

“That the extraordinary posts be commanded to use more diligence, and for that purpose to keep two horses in the house for the packets.”

Reply: “It seemeth meet that this order come from you, and I will also require it.”

“Your opinion touching the gentlemen in that county and in other counties next adjoining who are well affected and fit to be used in this enterprise.”

Reply: “I have lived as a prisoner in this country, and therefore not well acquainted with the state thereof; but I have a very good opinion of Sir Walter Aston, Mr. Bagott, and Mr. Greysley, all three neighbours. Mr. Trentham is one of the lieutenants of this shire, and of very good report, but I have had little to do with him.”

“Consider what order shall be taken with the unnecessary number of her servants, especially with young Pierrepont.”

Reply: “Although I take Mr. Melville to be free from all practices, and indeed liveth as a stranger to his own company and hateth Nau deadly, yet I think he should be removed from his Mistress to some gentleman's house.”

This paper is preserved in the State Paper Office, and is an authentic proof that the kidnapping outrage was carried out at the desire and by the personal order of Queen Elizabeth. The instructions given in the paper would not have been believed if the paper had not been preserved. In all this Elizabeth was deliberately violating the laws of England and the eternal principles of justice.

The Queen of Scots was not her subject. She had no jurisdiction over her, and the seizing of her papers was, in the circumstances, simply an act of highway robbery, punishable in the case of a subject with death.

At this date (9th August 1586) the plot for the kidnapping must have occupied Elizabeth's whole attention. She had evidently become doubtful as to whether Paulet was equal to the occasion, and whether the commission with which she had intrusted him was not too much for his capability. It was to his credit that she doubted his sincerity and ability concerning this infamous scheme. It will be observed that Paulet's orders of 3rd August were duplicated by Elizabeth on 9th August, so determined was she that nothing should prevent the plot being carried out.

The records of the time are incomplete, and leave us to conjecture what public feeling was. It was impossible for the nation to concur with Elizabeth's administration regarding this matter, and we observe that no expression of approval or disapproval was allowed to be recorded.

The next paper recorded is dated 9th August and is entitled “A Memorial of Things to be done about the Removal (kidnapping) of the Scottish Queen. Instructions for Sir Amias Paulet.” This paper, which we reproduce, is in the handwriting of Walsingham, and is followed by one from Elizabeth accentuating the instructions already conveyed to Paulet:—

“Remove her under colour of some good excuse before arresting Nau and Curle or seizing papers. Take her to some house near Chartley where the inhabitants are known to be best affected to us. The owner of the house to be removed where the Scottish Queen shall stay for a time. Appoint standing watches in the towns for a time and the well-affected Justices to assist in the thoroughfares. Gorges to repair to Stafford or some place near Chartley to seal the study. He to conduct the prisoners and to be assisted by Francis Hast. Have some gentlemen of credit at the search writings and send up some trusty servants with the same in the company of Wade.

“Search Nau and Curle's chests and take order with Pierrepont.”

Following on this communication of Walsingham the English Queen sent her own instructions as follows:—

Instructions of Elizabeth to Sir Amias Paulet about the removal of the Queen of Scots, the apprehending of Nau and Curle and the seizure of their papers, 9th August 1586:

“You shall, with as convenient speed as you may, under the colour of going a-hunting and taking the air, remove the Queen, your charge, to some such house near to the place where she now remaineth as you shall think meet for her to stay in for a time until you shall understand our further pleasure. And to the end that she may be kept from all means of intelligence: we think that the owner of the house where you place her shall be removed, saving such persons as are to furnish necessaries of the household. You shall between Chartley and the place where you mean to remove her, as is contained in our letters, cause her servants Nau and Curle to be apprehended, and to be delivered into the hands of some trusty gentleman of that county or the counties next adjoining, as you shall know to be discreet, faithful, and religious, for H—— B—— to conduct them to London with some convenient guard, where there shall be order given for the placing of them.

“You shall also take order with the conductors to see them brought up in two separate troops, and to have special care that they may be kept from conference with any person on their way to London, and to appoint in the places where they lodge good standing watches to be kept during the night.

“You shall immediately after she is departed from Chartley cause all such papers as are found either in her own lodging or in the lodgings of any that appertain to her (taking care that all secret corners in the lodging be diligently searched) to be seized and to be put up in bags or trunks as you shall think meet, for execution of which service you shall use besides our servant Wade two principal gentlemen of credit either of that county or of some other county adjoining. For which purpose we think John Manners the elder and Sir Walter Aston suitable to be used if they be found in the country, or some of like quality. These we would have in no way made acquainted with the said service until the Queen shall be removed and they brought to the place when and where you shall think suitable to be performed. You shall cause the said gentlemen, together with Wade, to seal up with their seals of arms the said bags or trunks where the letters and papers shall be placed: and to send up two of their trusty servants together with Wade with the said writings.

“You shall do well during the time of her abode in the house she is taken to, to cause some substantial watches to be kept both about the house as also in the town next adjoining; wherein we doubt not but you will have a special regard to use the service of such of the Justices and gentlemen in that county as are well affected, giving them special orders to choose well-affected men as watchers, and not such as are known to be recusants.

“And whereas our meaning is that hereafter she shall not have such a number of attendants as she has had, we think you should make choice of as many of her train, both men and women, as you shall see necessary to attend on her person; and for the rest they should be kept together at Chartley in such a manner as there shall be no access to them, until you shall understand our further pleasure.”

All this shows how deliberately the kidnapping scheme was carried out.

Queen Elizabeth to Paulet, 9th August 1586. Final orders to kidnap:—

“We having of late discovered some dangerous practices, tending not only to the troubling of our estate but to the peril of our own person, whereof we have just cause to judge the Queen, your charge, and her two secretaries, Nau and Curle, to have been parties and assenting in a most unprincely and unnatural sense, contrary to our expectations, considering the great and earnest protestations she hath made of the sincerity of her love and goodwill to us. Our pleasure therefore is that you cause the two secretaries to be apprehended and to be sent up to us under good and sure guard, and that you take the said Queen to some such place as you shall think meet, and there to see her straitly kept with so many of her train to attend on her as you shall think necessary until you understand our further pleasure.

“Elizabeth R.”

The interpolations on Mary's letter to Babington of 17th July 1586 were at that date three weeks old, so that this letter is apparently founded on them.