Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9.djvu/820

 MART

765

MART

siblc. This coufusion, however, is largely due to prepossessions. Of late, with the diminution of Protestant rancour and ot enthusiasm for the Stuarts, the conflict of opinions has tauch. diminished. The tendency of moaem schools is to regard Mary as a participant, though in a minor and stUl undetermined degree, in the above-mentioned crimes. The argu- ments are far too complicated to be given here, but that from authority may be indicated. There were several well-informed representative Catholics at Edinburgh during the critical period. The pope had sent Father Edmund Hay, a Jesuit; Philibert Du Croc was there for France, Rubertino Solaro Moretta represented Savoy, while Roche Mamerot, a Domini- can, the queen's confessor, was also there. All these, as also the Spanish ambassador in London, represent the BothweU match as a disgrace involving a slur on her virtue. Her confessor only defends her from par- ticipation in the murder of her nusband (see Pollen, op. cit., cxxix). The most important documentary evi- dence is that of the so-callect '' casket letters", said to have been written by Mary to BothweU diuing the fatal crisis. If, on the one hand, their authenticity still lacks final proof, no argument yet brought for- ward to invalidate them has stood the test of modern criticism.

The defeat at Carberry Hill and the inmrisonment at Lochleven were blessings in disguise. The Protes- tant lords avoided a searching inquiry as much as Mary had done; and she alone suffered, while the others went free. This attracted sympathjr onoe more to her cause. She managed to escape, raised an army, but was defeated at Langside (13 Biay. 1568) and fled into England, where she found herself onoe more a prisoner. She did not now refuse to justify herself, but made it a condition that she should appear before Elizabeth in person. But Cecil schemed to bring about such a trial as should finally embroil Mary with the king's lords, as they were now called (for they had crowned the infant James), and so keep the two parties divided, and both dependent on England. This was eventually accomplished in the conferences at York and Westminster before a commission of English peers under the Duke of Norfolk. The casket letters were then produced against Mary, and a thousand filthy charges, afterwards embodied in Buchanan's " Detectio ". Mary, however, wisely refused to defend herself, unless her dignity as queen was respected. Eventually an open verdict was found. ''Nothing has been sufficiently proved, whereby the Queen df England should conceive an evil opimon of ner good sister" (10 January, 1569). Cecil's astuteness had overreached itself. Such a verdict, from an enemy- was everywhere regarded as one of Not Guilty, ana Mary's reputation, which had everywhere fallen after the BothweU match, now quickly revived. Her con- stancy to her faith, which was clearly the chief cause of her suffering, made a deep impression on all Catho- lics, and St. Pius V wrote her a letter, which may be regarded as marking her reconciliation with the papacy (9 January, 1570).

Even before this, a scheme for a declaration of nul- lity of the marriage with BothweU, and for a marriage with the Duke of Norfolk, had been suggested and had been supported by what we should now call the Con- servative Party among the English peers, a sign that they were not very much impressed by the charges against the Scottish queen, which they had just heard. Norfolk, however, had not the initiative to carry the scheme through. The CathoUcs in the North rose in his support, but, having no organization, the rising at once collapsed (14 November to 21 December, 1569). Mary had been hurried south by her gaolers, with orders to kill her rather than allow her to escape. So slowly did posts travel in those days that the pope, two months after the collapse of the rising, but not having yet heard of its commencement, excommuni-

cated Elizabeth (25 Feb., 1570) in order to pave the way for the appeal to arms. Both the rising and the excommunication were so independent of the main course of affairs that, when the surprise they caused was over the scheme for the Norfolk marriage re- sumed its previous course, and an Italian banker. Ridolfi, promised to obtain papal support for it. Lord Acton's erroneous idea, that Ridolfi was employed by Pius V to obtain Elizabeth's assassination, seems to have arisen from a mistranslation of Gabutio's Latin Life of St. Pius in the Boliandists (cf . ** Acta SS.", May, IV, 1680, pp. 657, 658, with Catena, ''Vita di Pio V^', Mantua, 1587, p. 75). Cecil eventually discovered the intrigue; Norfolk was beheaded, 2 June, 1572, and the Puritans clamoured for Mary's blood, but in this par- ticular Elizabeth would not gratify them.

After this Mary's imprisonment continued with great rigour for yet fourteen years, under the Earl of Shrewsbury and Sir Amias Paulet, at Sheffield Castle, Tutbuiy, Wingfield, and Chartley. But she had so many sympathizers that notes were frequently smug- gled in, despite aU precautions, and Mary's hopes of eventual release never quite died. The frequent plots of which our Protestant historians so often speak are empty rumours which wiU not stand historical investi- gation. Elizabeth's life was never in danger for a mo- ment. Plans for Mary's liberation were indeed oc- casionaUy formed abroad, but none of them approached within any measurable distance of realization. Her eventual faU was due to her excessive confidence in Thomas Morgan, an a^nt, who had shown ^at skill and energy in contriving means of passing m letters, but who was also a vain, quarrelsome, factious man, always ready to talk treason against Elizabeth. Wal- singham^s spies therefore frequently offered to carry letters for him, and eventually the treacherous Gilbert Gifford (a seminarist who afterwards got himself made priest in order to carry on his deceits with less suspi- cion) contrived a channel of correspondence, in which every letter that was sent to or from Mary passed through the hands of Elizabeth's decipherer Tnomas PhelUps, and was copied by him. As Morgan was now in communication with Ballard, the only priest, so far as we know, who fell a victim to the temptation to plot against Elizabeth, Mary's danger was now grave. In due course Ballard, through Anthony Babington, a young gentleman of wealth, wrote, by Gifford's means, to Mary. It seems that the confederates refused to join the plot unless they had Mary's approval, and Babinffton wrote to inquire whether Mary would re- ward tnem if they " despatched the usurper", and set her free. As Walsingham had two or three agents provocateurs keeping company with the conspirators, the suspicion is vehement that Babington was per- suaded oy them to ask this perilous question, but posi- tive proof of this has not yet been found. Against the advice of her secretaries, Mary answered this letter, promising to reward those who aided her escape, but saying nothing of the assassination (17 July, 1586). Babington and his feUows were now arrested, tried and executed, then Mary's trial began {14 and 15 October). A death sentence was the object desired, and it was of course obtained. Mary freely confessed that she al- ways had sought and always would seek means of es- capes As te plots against the life of Elizabeth, she protested *'her innocence, and that she had not pro- cured or encouraged any hurt against her Majesty", which was perfectly true. As te the allegation of bare knowledge of treason without having manifested it, the prosecution would not restrict itself to so moder- ate a charge. Mary, moreover, always contended that the Queen of Scotland did not incur responsibUity for the plottings of English subjects, even if she had known of them. Indeed, in those dajrs of royal privi- lege, her rank would, in most men's minds, have ex- cused her in any case. But Lord Burahley, seeine how much turned on this point of privilege, refused