That Mary was so persistently attacked and importuned about this, first by Gorges, then by Paulet, Bromley, and Burghley, without proof, indicates pretty clearly:—
1. That she was ignorant of the so-called assassination plot.
2. That the interpolations on her letter to Babington were the work of Walsingham.
3. That the importunity of Elizabeth's ministers was by Elizabeth's express command, and was part of a deliberate plan to incriminate Mary, in order to justify her execution.
4. That this course was considered the most politic in order to defend their action before the crowned heads of Europe.
To the unlearned in those times a charge of this kind instituted by the Queen of England would, as already stated, be calculated to raise great suspicions against the Queen of Scots.
There is some similarity between the murderers of Darnley meeting solemnly at the Privy Council and resolving to prosecute and punish the murderers, and this trial at Fotheringay, when Elizabeth, who was responsible for the conspiracy against her own life, resolved to punish the authors of that conspiracy. In view of this, the speech of the Lord Chancellor in opening the case is an extraordinary exhibition of the corrupt morality of the period. The scheme to incriminate Mary was not a secret one. Its execution by Walsingham and others would make it universally known at the English court. Of the conduct of Elizabeth's ministers in this matter there is only one explanation, and that was their fear of death. They were presumably terrified by such a bloodthirsty woman, and were glad to do anything rather than irritate her. Mary told them that Babington's plot was simply to release her, and she demanded to see any letter of hers referring to a conspiracy against Elizabeth. But no such letter could be produced; only copies, and these interpolated.
It would appear from Bourgoyne that during the trial the manner of the prosecutors was “to keep reading or speaking, in order to persuade the lords that she was guilty.” All this was doubtless prearranged. When the Queen returned to her chamber she said to Bourgoyne that the trial put her in mind of that of Jesus Christ. They did to her in her place as the Jews did to Him: “Away with Him, crucify Him.” She saw that she was practically condemned, and that nothing could save her. She appealed to Almighty God as the judge of her innocence, and demanded a public trial. This they refused, and this must be regarded as a proof of the weakness of their case.