and having written it down, he despatched it on the same day to the Court. We may ask ourselves whether Elizabeth was sincere in her overtures to her cousin. If Mary had sued for mercy, would Elizabeth have granted it? It is more probable that any words which could have been extorted from Mary would have been used by the English Queen as a safeguard for her own honour. Armed with a confession of any sort, Elizabeth would have had no difficulty in ridding herself quietly of her cousin, and her own reputation would have suffered less. As we have seen, Mary at once perceived the trap prepared for her, and with her usual promptitude and courage she easily avoided it. About this time a little ray of comfort came to cheer the Queen's imprisonment. Her faithful steward, Melville, who had of late been separated from her, was permitted to return, and he brought with him his daughter and the daughter of Bastien Pages, who was a goddaughter of the Queen's. The consolation which Mary received from their arrival was, however, soon allayed by the summary dismissal of her coachmen and some other servants, a proceeding which she rightly took to be a fresh sign of the gravity of her position.[20] [Footnote 20: See _Letter Books of Sir Amyas Paulet_, p. 290; and Chantelauze, p. 495.] In London meanwhile events were proceeding rapidly. On October 8th the Commissioners appointed to judge the Scottish Queen assembled at Westminster. The Chancellor, Sir Thomas Bromley, having briefly related the history of the late conspiracy, read aloud copies of the letters addressed by Babington to Mary, her reputed answers, and the evidence said to have been extracted from Nau and Curle. At the conclusion nearly all present were of opinion that Mary should be brought to trial. The Commissioners were therefore summoned to meet at Fotheringay, and all the peers of the kingdom were invited to be there present, save those employed in offices of state. To the great displeasure of Elizabeth and Burleigh, Lord Shrewsbury evaded this summons on the plea of illness. The Queen herself intimated the approaching trial to her faithful Paulet.[21] The crisis, therefore, had now come. No one familiar with the character of Elizabeth or the policy of her advisers could doubt the issue of the trial. It would have seemed only natural to suppose that France or Spain would effectively resent the outrage offered to a sister Queen; but the days of chivalry were past, and Philip of Spain could forsake an ally and Henry of France abandon a sister-in-law in her dire need. To the honour of France be it said, however, that Mary found an ardent defender in the French Ambassador, De Chateauneuf, who exerted himself to the utmost on her behalf; Elizabeth, however, treated his efforts with supreme contempt. [Footnote 21: See _Letter Books of Sir Amyas Paulet_, p. 295.]