In addition to this threat to Mary's life, in 1584 the members of Elizabeth's Privy Council had signed a "Bond of Association", according to which any claimant to the throne on whose behalf anyone plotted against Elizabeth, even if the claimant was entirely ignorant of the plot, should be excluded from the succession to the throne and put to death. Hundreds of Englishmen signed the Bond. The following year the terms of the Bond of Association were made law by an Act of Parliament, the so-called Act of Association. However, the intricately worded Act,somewhat obscurely, seems to require that the claimant be at least privy to the plot in order to be put to death.

For fourteen years then, and much more for the last two years, Mary's life was in continual danger. Elizabeth's ministers had only to discover a plot on Mary's behalf so that they could at least disable her from the crown, if not also kill her; or better yet implicate Mary in a plot on her behalf so that they certainly could kill her, since Elizabeth would have to answer for Mary's death to the other Catholic monarchs of Europe.

Sir Francis Walsingham, Elizabeth's Secretary of State and chief of her espionage, used two agents provocateurs, Gilbert Gifford and Bernard Maude, to manipulate respectively two men, John Savage and John Ballard, who believed that the killing of a tyrant was lawful. (Whether Gifford had Walsingham's authorization when he first approached Savage to incite him to kill Elizabeth is not clear, but Gifford was subsequently Walsingham's double agent.) When Walsingham learned that Anthony Babington, a young Catholic gentlemen (who had corresponded secretly with Mary before by smuggling letters from others to her), together with some of his friends was plotting to rescue Mary from her imprisonment in Chartley Hall, Walsingham managed to combine the two plots.

But even in an age when the murder of tyrants was often considered morally justifiable, Babington's conscience was troubled about the rightness of assassinating Elizabeth. Therefore in July of 1586 he decided to write to Mary, whom he regarded as his rightful sovereign, to ask her to authorize the assassination. In his letter he wrote of plans of ten gentlemen and a hundred followers who would rescue Mary from her imprisonment and of six gentlemen who would, with Mary's authorization, assassinate Elizabeth. The letter in cipher was smuggled into Chartley Hall. However, before the letter reached Mary, Walsingham's double agent, Gifford, had intercepted the letter and shown it to another of Walsingham's agents, Thomas Phelippes, who deciphered it.

Mary received the letter on July 14^th and on July 17^th replied to Babington in a long letter in which she stressed the necessity of foreign aid if the rescue attempt were to succeed. However, she did not authorize the proposed assassination but instead left the matter to Babington himself to decide what to do. Mary's letter was intercepted by Gifford and deciphered by Phelippes, who was an excellent forger. Phelippes kept the original and sent a forged copy of the letter with a forged postscript and possibly other additions or alterations in the text itself to Babington. In the spurious postscript Mary is made to offer to take an active part in the assassination.

Babington and the other conspirators were caught, tried and executed, even though most of them were opposed to the assassination and wanted only to rescue Mary. Mary's two secretaries, Claude Nau and Gilbert Curle, were interrogated about the correspondence. Nau had taken down Mary's letters in French and then Curle would translate them into English and put them into cipher. Mary herself was tried at Fotheringhay Castle on October 14^th and 15^th 1586.

The proceedings were unprecedented and illegal. Never before had a judicial court tried the crowned head of another country. Mary at first refused to attend the trial on the grounds that an English court had no jurisdiction over her. But when she was assured that she would be allowed to have recorded a protest to that effect, she said that she would condescend to attend the trial so as to clear her name of the charge of plotting to kill Elizabeth. This suggests her innocence, for she must have suspected that her letter to Babington had been intercepted; she obviously did not expect to be confronted with anything incriminating in the letter, or else she could have continued to stand on her royal dignity and to refuse to attend the trial.

At her trial Mary admitted that she had plotted to escape but denied a number of times seeking or consenting to the death of Elizabeth. She demanded to see firsthand evidence of her complicity in the proposed assassination—the presence and testimony of her secretaries, and her notes for her letter to Babington. No firsthand evidence was produced. Nevertheless the verdict was a foregone conclusion. When the commissioners reconvened nine days later at the Star Chamber in Westminster they returned a verdict of guilty, with only one commissioner, Lord Zouche, declaring himself dissatisfied with the evidence. On February 8^th 1587 Mary was illegally beheaded at Fotheringhay.

At her trial Mary had no counsel. She did not see any witnesses against her; her secretaries were not produced at the trial, and Babington was already dead. And very importantly, Mary's original letter was not produced. A copy, possibly with falsifications, was read out. Mary's enemies had probably originally intended to use the forged postscript against her, but by the time of the trial, Walsingham regarded the postscript as a mistake (since at one point he thought that it had apparently aroused Babington's suspicions).

The prosecution argued that Babington had destroyed the original letter, as Mary had instructed him to do. But this was not true. Phelippes had kept the original, and when it had been shown to Curle, Curle had to admit that the document before him was in his own handwriting. But the original letter no longer exists. Since the commissioners were embarking on an unprecedented course, the trial and execution of the imprisoned queen of another nation, one would expect that the original letter, if it really justified the government's action, would have been preserved for the whole world and all posterity to see for themselves. The suspicion is strong, therefore, that not only the postscript was added, but the text itself was tampered with in the copy sent to Babington, which is the form of the letter that we know.

In the letter as we know it, there are two references to the six gentlemen who are supposed to assassinate Elizabeth although the assassination itself is not explicitly so called. The first of these references, "By what means do the six gentlemen deliberate to proceed?", is a direct question that sticks out awkwardly from a list of indirect questions.

The second reference, beginning "...then shall it be time to set the six gentlemen at work", states that if the assassination does take place, it should precede, not follow, the attempt to rescue Mary (as Babington had suggested). But two paragraphs later, Mary mentions the terrible consequences that Elizabeth, apparently still very much alive and on the throne, will bring upon her if the rescue attempt fails.

So it is possible that these two references were the work of Walsingham.

However, they may be genuine. But if they are, they are not incriminating. In her letter, Mary clearly declines to authorize the assassination, as Fr John Pollen has shown in the following points:³

1. Babington asks Mary to reward the six gentlemen who "undertake that tragical execution" (Paragraphs 8 and 9 of Babington's letter).

   Mary promises rewards, but not for the six or a particular work by them. She assures rewards by any means she may ever have for "my delivery" (Paragraphs 9 and 15 of Mary's letter as we know it).

2. Babington asked for Mary's authority to assure the six that they will be "honorably rewarded" (Paragraph 9).

   Mary replies "To yourself in particular I refer [italics added], to assure the gentlemen above mentioned ['our principal friends'] of all that shall be requisite on my part for the entire execution of their good-wills" (Paragraph 9). Later she says "I do and will think myself obliged, as long as I live, towards you, for the offers you make to hazard yourself, as you do, for my delivery" (Paragraph 15).

1. Mary promises rewards for her delivery, which was not the work of the six;
2. Mary promises rewards to "the gentlemen above mentioned", that is, all active friends;
3. Babington may not give Mary's royal assurance of reward, but only his own ("to yourself in particular I refer...");
4. Babington may not attach rewards to definite acts; Mary's rewards will be "as shall be requisite".

If these references are genuine, it should be remembered that Walsingham considered them unincriminating and invented the postscript. Those that argue that the letter as we know it implicates Mary in the proposed assassination have to answer the question, Why did Mary's Walsingham invent the postscript? By doing so he risked being caught out as a fraud when he put before Babington a copy of the letter without the postscript to attest even though of course Babington had seen a version of the letter with the postscript. Babington apparently did not notice the omission, or did not think it worthwhile to point it out, and attested the copy of the letter put before him.

If the passages are forged, it may be asked why Walsingham did not invent something more incriminating, or why he did not include the words of the postscript in the main text itself. He probably originally intended to rely on the postscript, but he also could not make very large interpolations or drastic changes because he wanted Mary's secretaries, Nau and Curle, to attest to the genuineness of the letter, or rather a copy of the letter. The first reference the "six" is a very short one. Changing "ten" (the number of gentlemen supposed to rescue Mary) to "six" (the number of gentlemen supposed to assassinate Elizabeth) and adding or changing a few other words would turn the second passage into a reference to the proposed assassination.

Mary's original letter was shown to the two secretaries to prove that it had been intercepted and to frighten them into confessing. However, the two secretaries attested a deciphered copy of the letter—not the original—apparently doubtfully and hesitantly. (It was the same copy that Babington had attested).

Even this attested version has not been allowed to survive, but we know the attestations from copies.

Babington's attestation was:

"This is the verie trewe coppie of the Queenes letter laste sente vnto me. Anthony Babington."

Curle's attestation was:

"The lyke I think of this was written in frenche by M^r Nau, and translated and ciphered by me, as I have mentioned in the ende of a coppie of M^r Babington's letter, where M^r. Naw hath firste subscribed, Gilbert Curle, Quinto Septembris 1586" (italics added).

Nau's attestation was:

"Je pense que cest la lettre escripte per sa Ma^te à Babington comme il me peult souvenir, Sexto Septembris 1586. Nau ('I think that this is the letter written by Her Majesty to Babington as far as I can remember, Sexto Septembris 1586. Nau.' [Italics added])".

Since the secretaries words here show some uncertainty, it is probable that they are an accurate transcription of the secretaries' original attestations. So it is strange that the attested copy was not allow to survive. Later at Westminster (where Mary was not present, just as the secretaries had not been present at her trial), to counteract the doubtfulness and hesitation of the secretaries' first attestations, Walsingham had the secretaries attest individually six extracts or alleged extracts of the letter. This was done two months after the letter had been written when the secretaries could not be expected to remember such a long letter verbatim. They may have doubtfully attested passages with some insertions or changes.

Yet the copy of the letter attested by Babington and the two secretaries, which in theory should have helped to justify the government's case, is not extant. And the original ciphers of Babington's and Mary's letters are not extant although all the ciphers of other letters that Mary wrote the same day she replied to Babington are extant. Nau, when he made his attestation, declared that he had received from Mary a "minute" (notes, or rough draft), written in Mary's own hand, for him to polish and copy out. He declared that his interrogators must have Mary's minute and his own French draft. Nau evidently thought that Mary's own writing would prove her innocence. Yet even then, these documents were declared to be "not extant." A few days later, Nau made a "Declaration", in which he declared that Mary, upon receiving Babington's letter, had decided to accept the offer of escape and give advice for obtaining foreign aid, but did not wish to meddle in any way with the proposed assassination. Mary, said Nau, did not consider herself bound to reveal that part of the plot, which was "never by her desired, invented, proposed or practiced".

At her trial, Mary, unaware that Nau had made either of these statments, likewise expressed her confidence that nothing could be found written in her own hand that could prove her complicity in the proposed assassination. She demanded that the minute of her letter be produced. The government had in fact taken every last scrap of paper from Mary's room at Chartley but did not produce the minute. The minute, like Mary's genuine letter and the secretaries' attestations, is not extant.

At Westminster a few weeks after his attestation Curle declared that his English copy of Mary's letter had been locked in a trunk in Mary's cabinet. In the official records of the proceedings of Westminster it was written that Mary had ordered Curle's draft to be burned!

Therefore, none of the firsthand evidence—Mary's original letter, the minute of that letter, the two secretaries' rough drafts, and the version of the letter attested by Babington and the secretaries—is extant.

Ironically, a copy of the forged postscript, of which we know from Babington's confession, survives on a stray sheet of paper endorsed by Phelippes himself and preserved in the Record Office.

In a letter to the Archbishop of Glasgow, Mary wrote "As to my having plotted, counselled, or commanded [Elizabeth's] death, I had never done so." These claims are perfectly true. Even if the version of Mary's letter to Babington that we know be genuine, nowhere in it does Mary plot, counsel, or command the death of Elizabeth.

In a letter to Bernardino de Mendoza, the Spanish ambassador in France, Mary wrote that she had not wanted to get involved with the assassination but left that part of the plot to Providence. But to have admitted even this much, in the highly charged atmosphere of a mock trial by a kangaroo court of prejudiced Englishmen, would have been as fatal as if Mary had confessed to wanting personally to slit Elizabeth's throat. So at her trial Mary at first denied everything, even having written her letter to Babington, and forced the government to try to prove what it could. She would have felt no compunction about doing so as she did not recognize the court's jurisdiction over her. From her point of view her dealings with Babington were Scottish affairs of state. As for calling foreign aid into England, again from her point of view her situation would have justified even an act of war.

It is sometimes said that Mary was guilty of "plotting to kill Elizabeth". She did not. Walsingham perhaps instigated, certainly orchestrated, the vague assassination plot (such as it ever was) of Savage and Ballard and foisted it onto Babington, who felt scruples about the morality of tyrannicide and asked Mary to authorize the killing, and this Mary declined to do but left the matter up to Babington himself. She promised only to reward her rescuers. It is true that she did not explicitly forbid the assassination (or if she did, her words were removed from the letter); her words could have been twisted around, at the very least to prove that she was at least privy to the plot while failing to bring it to the government's attention, and would also have laid her open to a cynical charge of usurping Elizabeth's authority over English subjects. Mary wisely refrained from acknowledging Babington's recognition of her as his rightful sovereign (in her letter she addresses him as "Trusty and well-beloved", not "Our trusty and well-beloved subject"). Babington had asked for authorization to assassinate Elizabeth, and Mary declined to give that authorization. It was not the duty or responsibility of the Queen of Scotland to inform an English subject of something that he ought to know perfectly well: that murder is a crime. And Babington obviously did know that, or he would not have asked for authorization, which Mary did not give. Even if Mary had declined to answer the letter at all, Walsingham could have proved that she had received it (since the smuggling of the letters was under his close scrutiny), that she was concealing the letter from the government, and that she was privy to the proposed assassination. ⁴

The main text of Mary's letter may or may not have been tampered with. If it was not, it is difficult to explain the internal inconsistencies and the document's utter disappearance. But even if the text was tampered with, it was not implicative, and so Walsingham invented the postscript.

Some might say that Mary deserves censure for failing to notify Elizabeth of a proposed attempt on her life. But heads of state are not required to notify one another of plotting in their own state. Mary's enemies tried to excuse her unjust and illegal nineteen years' imprisonment by claiming that somehow, in some sense, the Queen of Scotland and the Queen of England had always really been at war.⁵ But if this be true, Mary was completely without obligation to warn her enemy of internal danger. Mary's enemies may have been correct in saying that a state of war existed between the two queens. But if so, it was a war that Elizabeth had declared by unjustly and illegally imprisoning a sovereign with whom she had been at peace (and whom she had in fact offered to aid). It is important not to lose sight of the forest because of the trees and to regard the Babington Plot as a whole. The plot was not only about the possible murder of Elizabeth, but also (supposedly) certainly about the rescue of Mary from imprisonment. Whether or not a state of war really already existed between Mary and Elizabeth, Mary (so she thought) now was on the brink of real, declared war against Elizabeth. There was to be an invasion and an outbreak of real hostilities. Now was not the time for Mary to inform her enemy that one of her subjects had considered assassinating her, especially since that same subject was the one who now offered to rescue from her illegal imprisonment. Whether or not it is true that "all is fair in love and war", Mary now could choose between informing Elizabeth that a subject had contemplated killing her, or accepting Babington's offer to rescue from her illegal imprisonment. Mary chose the latter.

Furthermore, even if Mary had wanted to warn her enemies about the plot, she had no guarantee that they nonetheless still would not ruthlessly and cynically seize the opportunity to kill her. For under the terms of the Act of Association, Mary's life was forfeit merely if she was privy to a plot on her behalf. Mary was trapped in a cruel predicament.

It has been said that Mary was justified in the course she took, and might even perhaps have been justified in approving the assassination, because her own life had been in danger from the drawing up of the Bond and Act of Association, let alone since 1572. In fact, from the moment Mary received Babington's letter and therefore was privy to his plot, let alone when she responded to it—or even if she had not responded to it—she knew that her life was forfeit under the Act of Association. Therefore whatever Mary wrote or did not write, did or did not do, she acted in self-defense, in which all means are lawful.

At any rate, Mary denied three times at her trial that she had sought the death of Elizabeth. The day before her death she solemnly declared with her hand upon Scripture that she had never instigated or approved a conspiracy against Elizabeth's life. And she made the same assertion the next day, shortly before her execution. It was among the last words of a devout Catholic who was minutes away from meeting her Maker.

¹John Hungerford Pollen, S.J., Mary Queen of Scots and the Babington Plot (Edinburgh: Printed by T. and A. Constable ltd. for the Scottish history society, 1922), p. xiii.

² she was next in line to the throne: That is, according to the normal rules of the succession, but not according to the will of Henry VIII, which had been authorized by Parliament. Henry's will excluded from the succession the descendants of his sister Margaret, whose heiress Mary Stuart was. The validity of the will has been contested on two grounds. One is that Parliament had required the will to be signed by Henry's "own most gracious hand", and the will may instead have been stamped with a signature stamp. The other objection is that the will was, or may have been, simply unconstitutional. The will gave Elizabeth a place in the succession after her sister Mary I (Tudor). The Catholic Church considered Elizabeth illegitimate. The Church of England and Parliament had declared Elizabeth illegitimate. Elizabeth depended for her place on the throne solely on her father's will and nothing else (unless Mary Tudor's recognition of her as heiress, made shortly before Mary's death when Mary was in a state of mental depression, counts for anything other than a mere formality). Since Elizabeth's claim to be queen rested on her father's will, which excluded Mary Stuart from the succession, Elizabeth obviously considered her father's will as valid and binding at least as far as her own rights were concerned. It is therefore remarkable that despite her father's will Elizabeth nonetheless considered Mary Stuart's English claims as something formidable to be reckoned with, and Elizabeth eventually recognized as her heir Mary Stuart's son, James VI of Scotland. The Wars of the Roses, which had been caused ultimately by the usurpation of the throne by someone not the lineal heir, may have made the English leery of tampering with the doctrine of succession by strict primogeniture.

³ Ibid., pp. 33f.

⁴ For these and other observations about the fatal and apparently insoluble dilemma in which Mary found herself simply by receiving Babington's letter, see Alan Gordon Smith, The Babington Plot (London: Macmillan, 1936), pp. 247-9.

⁵ Ibid., p. 249.

The Bond of Association (1584)

The Act of Association (1585)

Anthony Babington's letter to Queen Mary

Queen Mary's letter to Anthony Babington

Hosack, John, Mary Queen of Scots and her Accusers. 2nd ed., much enl. Edinburgh : Blackwood, 1874.

Pollen, John Hungerford, S.J., Mary Queen of Scots and the Babington Plot. Edinburgh: Printed by T. and A. Constable Ltd. for the Scottish History Society. 3rd series. 1922.

Smith, Alan Gordon, The Babington Plot. London : Macmillan, 1936.

Mary Queen of Scots' biography in The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913).

A thorough account of Mary's life.

The World of Mary Queen of Scots.

BBC 4's The Science of Secrecy discusses Mary's substitution cipher.

Homepage.

James P. McGill. "Mary Queen of Scots and the Babington Plot." . April 1999, last modified July 23^rd, 2004.