The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part D.: From Elizabeth to James I.
David Hume · en
The queen, meanwhile, gave a satisfactory answer to all Murray’s
demands; and declared that, though she wished and hoped from the present
inquiry to be entirely convinced of Mary’s innocence, yet if the event
should prove contrary, and if that princess should appear guilty of
her husband’s murder, she should, for her own part, deem her ever after
unworthy of a throne.[*] The regent, encouraged by this declaration,
opened more fully his charge against the queen of Scots; and after
expressing his reluctance to proceed to that extremity, and protesting
that nothing but the necessity of self-defence, which must not be
abandoned for any delicacy, could have engaged him in such a measure, he
proceeded to accuse her in plain terms of participation and consent in
the assassination of the king.[**] The earl of Lenox too appeared before
the English commissioners, and, imploring vengeance for the murder
of his son, accused Mary as an accomplice with Bothwell in that
enormity.[***]
When this charge was so unexpectedly given in, and copies of it
were transmitted to the bishop of Ross, Lord Herreis, and the other
commissioners of Mary, they absolutely refused to return an answer;
and they grounded their silence on very extraordinary reasons: they had
orders, they said, from their mistress, if any thing were advanced that
might touch her honor, not to make any defence, as she was a sovereign
princess, and could not be subject to any tribunal; and they required
that she should previously be admitted to Elizabeth’s presence, to whom,
and to whom alone, she was determined to justify her innocence.[****]
* Goodall, vol. ii. p. 199.
** Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 115, et seq. Goodall, vol.
ii. p. 206.
*** Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 122. Goodall, vol. ii. p.
208.
**** Anderson, vol. iv. part ii. p. 125, et seq. Goodall,
vol. ii. p. 184, 211, 217.
They forgot that the conferences were at first begun, and were still
continued, with no other view than to clear her from the accusations of
her enemies; that Elizabeth had ever pretended to enter into them only
as her friend, by her own consent and approbation, not as assuming any
jurisdiction over her; that this princess had from the beginning refused
to admit her to her presence, till she should vindicate herself from the
crimes imputed to her; that she had therefore discovered no new signs of
partiality by her perseverance in that resolution; and that though she
had granted an audience to the earl of Murray and his colleagues, she
had previously conferred the same honor on Mary’s commissioners;[*] and
her conduct was so far entirely equal to both parties.[**] [11]