Page:The American Cyclopædia (1879) Volume XI.djvu/247

 MARY STUART 235 mitted to Lochleven castle, where on July 24 she signed an act of abdication in favor of her son, and other acts arranging the government, of which Murray was to be the head as re- gent. These acts were extorted from her, and depended for their validity entirely upon the power of the confederates to maintain their position. On Murray's return from France, he visited Mary, and by working on her fears he had the art to make her request him to accept the regency. Parliament passed an act vir- tually dethroning the queen, and charging her with being privy to Darnley's murder. On May 2, 1568, she made her escape from Loch- leven, and rallied a powerful force to her sup- port, which was defeated at Langside, May 13, by Murray. Mary fled to England, which she entered May 16. There was no occasion for this, course, which was the most unwise she could have adopted. At first she was treated with some consideration by Elizabeth, but the latter assumed the part of judge between Mary and her opponents, and affected to decide on her guilt or innocence of the charges preferred against her. The examinations were unfairly conducted, and injured Mary's reputation. Du- ring the early years of her residence in Eng- land she was variously treated, and it was not till 1573, when her party in Scotland was finally overthrown, that she lost all hope of deliver- ance from that quarter. She was concerned in various attempts against Elizabeth's govern- ment, and sought to marry the duke of Nor- folk. She intrigued with the king of Spain, and with other foreigners of eminence, for her liberation. The northern rebellion, headed by the dukes of Northumberland and Westmore- land, which was the last open effort made by the Catholics to restore the old faith, she dis- couraged. At one time, in 1571, Elizabeth was on the point of restoring her; but in 1572 she engaged in a treaty with the Scotch gov- ernment for the surrender of Mary, who was to have been tried, condemned, and put to death. This plan failed through the death of the regent Mar, as it had previously failed through the deaths of the regents Murray and Lennox. Her hand was sought by Leicester, by Sir George Carey, a near relative of Eliza- beth, and by Don John of Austria. She was confined in various places, her chief custodian being the earl of Shrewsbury. In most cases her treatment was outrageous, and shows the extent of Elizabeth's personal hatred of the woman she had wronged, and that she desired to effect her destruction. Mary was both feared and hated by the reformers, who de- manded her death through the ministers of Elizabeth and through parliament. She was believed to be the principal person in all the numerous conspiracies against Elizabeth, though with most of them she could have had no con- nection. An "association" was formed, di- rected not only against those who should do violence to Elizabeth, but also against those for whose benefit the crime should be com- mitted. Parliament sanctioned this association in 1585. Babington's conspiracy was formed in 1586, one of the objects of which was to liberate Mary, who had some correspondence with Babington, in which no encouragement, however, was given to his designs against Eliz- abeth. This conspiracy early became known to Elizabeth's ministers, who nursed it, until even the queen became alarmed, and compelled the arrest of the assassins. It was then re- solved to proceed against Mary, who had been removed to Fotheringay castle, Sept. 25, 1586. A commission, composed of 46 persons, was appointed to try her. At its head was the chancellor, Bromley, and the treasurer, Bur- leigh, was one of its members. The other members were all persons of eminence, either state officers, or peers, or lawyers. This com- mission, of which 11 members refused to act, met at Fotheringay castle on Oct. 11, 1586, and, after overcoming Mary's original deter- mination not to acknowledge its jurisdiction, proceeded with the trial on the 14th. She defended herself with skill and success against the great array of talent on the other side, and the commissioners durst not come to a decision in her presence. They adjourned to West- minster, after sitting two days, and on Oct. 25 they unanimously declared her guilty. It was not until Nov. 19 that Mary was informed of their decision, and she heard it with calm- ness. Efforts to save her life were made by the governments of France and Scotland. The publication of the sentence of death, Dec. 4, in London, was received with extravagant de- monstrations of joy. Parliament urged execu- tion. Elizabeth, however, seemed reluctant to proceed to extremities, and for six weeks the warrant for her execution remained unsigned in the hands of Davison ; nor is it certain that she ever signed it. A warrant purporting to bear her signature was given by Burleigh and his associates to Beale, Feb. 3, 1587, but there is evidence that it may have borne that signa- ture in consequence of a forgery effected by one Harrison, a clerk in the service of Secre- tary Walsingham, the most implacable and dis- honest of Mary's enemies. An attempt to induce her jailers to poison her, in which Walsingham and Davison were the principal instruments, had failed. On Feb. 7 the earls of Kent and Shrewsbury proceeded to Fother- ingay castle, and informed Mary that she must prepare to die the next morning, at 8 o'clock. She was taken by surprise, but bore herself with characteristic firmness. She made^ all her preparations for death with deliberation, and at the appointed time proceeded to the scaffold, which had been erected in the ban- queting hall. She was denied the presence of her almoner, and was rudely importuned to change her faith by the bigoted dean of Peter- borough, and by the brutal earl of Kent, whose efforts she quietly but firmly repulsed. She died with heroic bravery ; and even when the executioner at first struck her on the skull, in-