Chapter XIV: Conclusion

It is difficult to read this _Journal_ without emotion, more particularly when we think that the Royal victim had committed no crime and was absolutely innocent of any plot affecting the life of the Queen of England. After the kidnapping outrage her execution was clearly decided upon in the mind of Elizabeth, and it would have been better to have had the execution then than to have tormented Mary for another six months. No sooner was this outrage completed than the first step towards the death of Mary was taken, under date 13th September, as recorded by Bourgoyne, when her personal servants, part of her household, were separated from her by force, and they never saw her again. On the 9th October following the remainder were separated from her in the same offensive way, and only her four maids of honour were left to attend her.

Four days after this the commissioners arrived from London to undertake the trial, which lasted three days, a trial that was remarkable for its illegal procedure:—

(_a_) By refusing to permit the accused to be defended by counsel.

(_b_) Compelling the accused to defend herself.

(_c_) Refusing to surrender to the accused her own papers to enable her to make her defence; which papers were surreptitiously seized by Elizabeth's order some time previously.

(_d_) For having its decision “cut and dry” before the trial took place.

These points have all been proved up to the hilt. The trial was undoubtedly the greatest farce in English history, and we think would be very generally denounced by the English people as an outrage on their national honour and an event that materially affected the prestige of their country. Had the vilest criminal been sentenced to death he would have been treated with indulgence and kindness up to his execution. Not so Queen Mary. In the estimation of Elizabeth no amount of torture was too much to administer, and she compelled it to be administered. It is evident from the record that Paulet had _carte blanche_ after the sentence to treat her with greater severity than ever.

On the 19th November she wished to send a letter to Elizabeth respecting her will and arrangements for her funeral, and on Paulet being asked to forward it he replied that “he must first read it before it was sealed, as she (Queen Mary) might put something within of which he wished to be assured because of his mistress.” On 19th December Paulet was so insolent as to warn her “that it was her duty to thank the Queen (Elizabeth) for favours since her arrival in England and since, as she was much indebted to her!” On 12th January Paulet informed her that he could send no letters of hers to the Court without being authorised to do so. Mary wished to know if he had letters prohibiting him from sending her letters, but he replied that he could not answer particular questions; and so the torture of the poor captive was carried on from day to day.

On 20th January Paulet informed Sir Andrew Melville that he must leave his mistress and appear no more before her. Melville was the master of her household, and probably her most devoted and faithful friend and counsellor. The separation of Melville was the greatest calamity that could have befallen her. Thus they deprived her of the services of her priest and also of her steward, and on 23rd January Paulet's porter informed her chief baker that he must no longer carry the rod before dinner; the rod was an emblem of royal dignity. Mary remonstrated with Paulet, stating that it would neither hurt nor profit anyone; but Paulet was immovable, and Mary had to stand the insult.

On 4th February, four days before the execution, Mary was ill, and her physician recommended herbs from the garden to cure her trouble. It will scarcely be credited that Paulet in a brutal manner refused to allow the herbs to be gathered—but afterwards he consented. All this persecution was by order of the Queen of England. Why, it may naturally be asked, was the Queen of Scots tortured in this manner after she had been tried and condemned and sentence of death pronounced? Surely her condemnation might have satisfied Elizabeth without resorting to those miserable tactics—cruelly insulting her and killing her by inches. Paulet, who was an uneducated man, was capable of administering the coarsest treatment, in all which he was supported by his mistress and received from her many expressions of gratitude for carrying out her wishes and keeping the Queen of Scots in constant misery. We may well ask, Was Elizabeth a woman, or was she a fiend in human form?

On 7th February, the day before the execution, the Earls of Shrewsbury and Kent, and Beale, Drury, and Paulet, desired an interview with her, but she was ill and in bed. They, however, insisted on seeing her, and were reluctantly admitted, Shrewsbury being the only one who had the common decency to uncover his head. What these rude and uncultivated men, all foes of hers, wanted was simply to read the death-sentence, which, had they been gentlemen, any two of them might have read the paper and the others remained outside; or, considering their errand, they might have had as much consideration for the Queen as to wait till she got up and dressed. This document showed the cloven foot of Elizabeth. It described Mary as “formerly Queen of Scotland and Dowager of France,” which was an insulting reference; and her crime was that she had attempted to assassinate Elizabeth. When the paper was read Mary swore on the Bible that she had never sought, nor attempted to seek, the life of Elizabeth. In place of receiving this in solemn silence, seeing they had no authority to discuss anything with her, they with incredible insolence informed her that her Bible was the Pope's version and not binding. They offered her the Dean of Peterborough for consolation, “from whom she would learn what was the true religion, that she might no longer remain in the follies of Papistry and abomination.” The offer she rejected with scorn. On being informed that she was to die the following morning, she requested that her priest might help her to make her will; also that she wished to be buried in France. Both requests were refused, whether with or without Elizabeth's knowledge is not recorded. It was a disgraceful incident to all concerned.

And so we have arrived at the close of this great tragedy, and the spirit of the Queen of Scots has gone for ever beyond the jurisdiction of its royal persecutor. Mary's reputation has been dragged through the mire, and every effort made by adverse critics to slander her fair fame, but no authentic proof has been produced against her, no proof that will stand investigation. Her traducers have been compelled to fall back on forged or fabricated documents, and these have been freely put before us with the view of influencing the public mind against her.

It is evident from the most careful research that there is no authentic evidence to connect her either with the Darnley murder, the Casket Letters, or the Babington Conspiracy, while the Bothwell marriage was by the Ainslie Bond compulsory. Her life was full of trouble, and her last days were made bitter by suffering and distress. Can we wonder, after perusing Bourgoyne's _Journal_, that Mary Stuart regarded the scaffold with feelings of gratitude, and rejoiced that her captivity was at last concluded?

“When the day of toil is done,
When the race of life is run,
Father, grant Thy wearied one
Rest for evermore.”