The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part D.: From Elizabeth to James I. — David Hume — John Shaqi
The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part D.: From Elizabeth to James I.
David Hume · en
By this artful speech, Mary was persuaded to answer before the court;
and thereby gave an appearance of legal procedure to the trial, and
prevented those difficulties which the commissioners must have fallen
into, had she persevered in maintaining so specious a plea as that of
her sovereign and independent character. Her conduct in this particular
must be regarded as the more imprudent; because formerly, when
Elizabeth’s commissioners pretended not to exercise any jurisdiction
over her, and only entered into her cause by her own consent and
approbation, she declined justifying herself, when her honor, which
ought to have been dearer to her than life, seemed absolutely to require
it.
On her first appearance before the commissioners, Mary, either sensible
of her imprudence, or still unwilling to degrade herself by submitting
to a trial, renewed her protestation against the authority of her
judges: the chancellor answered her, by pleading the supreme authority
of the English laws over every one who resided in England; and the
commissioners accommodated matters, by ordering both her protestation
and his answer to be recorded.
The lawyers of the crown then opened the charge against the queen
of Scots. They proved, by intercepted letters, that she had allowed
Cardinal Allen and others to treat her as queen of England; and that she
had kept a correspondence with Lord Paget and Charles Paget, in view of
engaging the Spaniards to invade the kingdom. Mary seemed not anxious to
clear herself from either of these imputations. She only said that she
could not hinder others from using what style they pleased in writing to
her; and that she might lawfully try every expedient for the recovery of
her liberty.
An intercepted letter of hers to Mendoza was next produced; in which she
promised to transfer to Philip her right to the kingdom of England, if
her son should refuse to be converted to the Catholic faith; an event,
she there said, of which there was no expectation while he remained in
the hands of his Scottish subjects.[*]
* State Trials, vol. i. p 138.
Even this part of the charge she took no pains to deny, or rather she
seemed to acknowledge it. She said that she had no kingdoms to dispose
of; yet was it lawful for her to give at her pleasure what was her own,
and she was not accountable to any for her actions. She added, that she
had formerly rejected that proposal from Spain; but now, since all
her hopes in England were gone, she was fully determined not to refuse
foreign assistance. There was also produced evidence to prove, that
Allen and Parsons were at that very time negotiating, by her orders, at
Rome, the conditions of transferring her English crown to the king of
Spain, and of disinheriting her heretical son.[*] [21]