Though both astonished and shocked at this ‘proud and blasphemous

answer,’ Glencairn and Campbell maintained their self-restraint. They

contented themselves with representing to her that her former tolerance

had given such strength to the Reformed religion, that she could no

longer hope to repress it; and with appealing to the promises which she

had herself made to her Protestant subjects. At this her anger burst

forth again; and she told them that ‘it became not subjects to burden

their Princes with promises, further than it pleased them to keep.’ The

deputies firmly replied by pointing out the disastrous consequences

that would inevitably ensue from such high-handed action, and by

warning the Regent that the responsibility for them would fall upon

her. This produced a salutary effect; and Mary so far relented as to

promise that she would give the matter further consideration.

At this juncture, the spontaneous development of events brought about

new complications, and made it evident that an amicable settlement of

the quarrel between the two parties was no longer possible. The town of

Perth openly embraced the Reformed religion--a measure which, in the

words of the chronicler, ‘provoked the Queen-Regent to a new fury.’

She at once sent orders to Lord Ruthven, who was Provost at the time,

to take the most rigorous means for the suppression of the heretical

outbreak. He replied that he could oblige the citizens to bring their

bodies to her Grace, and to prostrate themselves before her, till she

was satiate with their blood, but that he could not undertake to make

them do anything against their consciences. On receiving the ‘malapert’

answer, Mary of Guise commanded that the summons issued to the

preachers should take effect, and that they should appear at Stirling

on the 10th of May.

The leaders of the Protestant party still hesitated to abandon their

conciliatory policy; and even though it was thought advisable that

the most influential gentlemen in Angus and Mearns should assemble

in Perth to express their sympathy with the ministers and to give

them their moral support, it was prudently resolved that they should

appear unarmed, and that the Regent should be informed that their

intentions went no further than ‘giving confession with the preachers.’

Intimidated by this peaceful but suggestive demonstration, Mary thought

it wise to meet the ‘fervency’ of the people with craft. Through the

Laird of Dun, who had been sent to her, she expressed her willingness

to stay the trial of the ministers, if they and their sympathisers

consented to disperse at once. When, after some hesitation, her terms

had been accepted, instead of keeping faith with the Protestants, she

caused the preachers to be put to the horn for not having appeared in

Stirling in obedience to the summons, and all men to be forbidden under

pain of rebellion to assist, comfort, receive, or maintain them in any

sort.

The Queen-Regent’s duplicity aroused a storm of indignation in Perth,

where it became known within a few hours. Next day, John Knox, who

had but lately returned to Scotland, ascended the pulpit. It does

not appear that he made any direct reference to the treachery of

which Mary had been guilty, or that he intended further to excite the

resentment of the people. He inveighed against idolatry; set forth the

commandments given by God for the destruction of everything connected

with false worship; and denounced the Mass as an abomination of the

grossest kind.

It is a very striking illustration of the strange confusion of the

time, that this discourse was delivered in the parish church, and

that immediately after it, and before those who had been stirred by

the preacher’s fervid eloquence had retired, a priest came forward,

and made preparation for the performance of the very function against

which Knox had directed his bitter invectives. This ill-timed zeal,

or imprudent defiance, called forth an indignant protest from a youth

who was near the altar at the moment. ‘This is intolerable,’ he cried,

‘that when God, by his word, hath plainly damned idolatry, we should

stand and see it used in despite.’ The rash priest replied with a

violent blow. Rushing out of the church, the young man seized a heavy

stone, returned to the altar, and flung the missile with all his might

at the aggressor. The stone missed the priest, but struck a statue,

and broke it to pieces. This was the signal for a scene of uproar and

violence. In a few moments the church was wrecked, and the mob was on

its way to the other religious buildings in the city. The tumult lasted

for two whole days, during which the monasteries of the Blackfriars, of

the Greyfriars, and of the Carthusians were so completely pillaged and

destroyed, that ‘the walls only of those great buildings remained.’

Mary of Guise vowed to be avenged; and marched against Perth with a

powerful body of troops. But the gentlemen of Fife, Angus, and Mearns,

and the burgesses of Dundee were assembling to meet force with force;

and though, at first, she affected to despise the rebels, the accession

to their number of two thousand five hundred men, under Glencairn,

induced her to consent to negotiations. On the 28th of May, a truce

was agreed upon. The conditions were that ‘no inhabitants of the town

should be troubled for any such crimes as might be alleged against

them, for the late change of religion, abolishing of idolatry, and

downcasting of the places of the same; and that her Grace would suffer

the religion begun to go forward, and leave the town free from the

garrisons of the French soldiers.’

On the 29th of May, the ‘Congregation’ departed from Perth; and on

the same day, the Queen-Regent, the Duke of Chastelherault, the Earl

of Athole, and several prelates, together with d’Oysel and his French

troops, entered it. From the very first, it became evident that Mary

of Guise had no intention of allowing the conditions of the truce to

interfere with her policy. Indeed, she is reported to have said, that

she did not consider herself bound to keep her promises to heretics.

As for retaining four hundred of d’Oysel’s soldiers as a garrison, she

justified that step on the ground that, though in the French service,

and in the receipt of French pay, they were Scotsmen.

One of the results of this further act of perfidy was to alienate the

Earl of Argyle and Lord James Stuart. As long as they thought that the

Regent’s object was only the restoration of order, they remained on

her side; but now, judging that she was bent on doing all in her power

to suppress the Reformation, they departed for St Andrews, where the

‘Professors’ had retired after leaving Perth.

It does not appear that Sir William Kirkcaldy took any open and

prominent part in the events which occurred in the early months of

1559. But there is evidence that he was at St Andrews in the beginning

of June. It was there that John Knox first proposed to him that they

should endeavour to obtain assistance from Queen Elizabeth. ‘If England

would but see her own advantage,’ the Reformer said, ‘Yea, if she would

consider the dangers wherein she is standing herself, she would not

suffer us to perish in this quarrel; for France hath decreed no less

the conquest of England than of Scotland.’ As the result of their ‘long

reasoning,’ it was resolved that Kirkcaldy should open negotiations

with the English.

If, as Calderwood states, this interview did not take place till after

the assembling of the forces of the Congregation on Cupar Moor, on

the 13th of June, Kirkcaldy had already, on his own responsibility,

communicated with Elizabeth’s agent. On the 24th of May he had written

to Sir Henry Percy, informing him that although the Queen-Regent of

Scotland promised she would be content that all such as favoured God’s

Word should have liberty to live after their own conscience, yet, in

the conclusion of the peace she had uttered her deceitful mind, having

since declared that she would be an enemy to all those who did not live

after her religion. ‘Therefore, I pray you,’ said Sir William, ‘let me

understand what will be your mistress’s part if we desire to be joined

in friendship with her; for I assure you there was never a better time

to get our friendship than at this time. Therefore make labours and

lose no time when it is offered.’

About a month later, on the 23rd of June, Kirkcaldy, who by this time

had returned to his own house, wrote to Cecil. The natural love which

he bore to his native country, he said, and the unfeigned desire which

he had long cherished, that the inhabitants of the whole island might

be united in perpetual amity, compelled him to declare their present

state, and to require of him counsel and comfort in their danger. Twice

already, he informed Cecil, had the Professors of God’s Word shown

their faces for defence of their brethren, whose blood was sought for

the cause of religion; and, at that moment, they were in the field

for the deliverance of Perth, which the Queen had taken and, contrary

to her promises, garrisoned with her troops. Of the Catholic party in

Scotland itself, there was no cause, he believed, to be afraid; for the

greater part of the nobility and commonalty had openly defied the Pope;

but the Queen and the Papists were plotting to bring in a French army.

If this should happen, it was the desire of all goodly men to know

what support they might look for from England, with which they were

anxious to be one in religion and friendship. The number of these was

already great and seemed likely to increase daily, if no foreign nation

interfered to coerce them; and Cecil was warned that, if he allowed the

latter contingency to take place, he would be preparing a way for his

own destruction.

Although Percy’s answer to Kirkcaldy has not been preserved, it

appears to have been rather an inquiry for direct information as to

the objects which the leaders of the Congregation really had in view,

than a promise to afford the help so earnestly solicited. It drew from

Grange a further communication, written on the 1st of July, the day

after the triumphant entry of the Protestant forces into Edinburgh,

and containing a distinct exposition of the policy of his party. ‘I

received your letter this last day of June,’ he wrote, ‘perceiving

thereby the doubt and suspicion you stand in for the coming forward

of the Congregation, whom I assure you, you need not to have in

suspicion; for they mean nothing but reformation of religion, which

shortly throughout the realm they will bring to pass, for the Queen and

Monsieur d’Oysel, with all the Frenchmen, for refuge are retired to

Dunbar. The foresaid Congregation came this last of June, by three of

the clock, to Edinburgh, where they will take order for the maintenance

of the true religion and resisting of the King of France, if he sends

any force against them. The manner of their proceeding in reformation

is this: they pull down all manner of friaries, and some abbeys which

willingly receive not the Reformation. As to parish churches, they

cleanse them of images and all other monuments of idolatry, and command

that no masses be said in them; in place thereof the Book set forth

by godly King Edward is read in the said churches. They have never as

yet meddled with a pennyworth of that which pertains to the Church,

but presently they will take order throughout all the parts where they

dwell, that all the fruits of the abbeys and other churches shall be

kept and bestowed upon the faithful ministers, until such time as a

further order be taken. Some suppose the Queen, seeing no other remedy,

will follow their desires, which is a general reformation throughout

the whole realm, conform to the pure Word of God; and the Frenchmen to

be sent away. If her Grace will do so, they will obey her and serve

her, and annex the whole revenues of the abbeys to the Crown; if her

Grace will not be content with this, they are determined to hear of no

agreement.’

In the minds of the English statesmen, there was still some doubt as

to the position taken up by Kirkcaldy. They remembered that, shortly

after his return to Scotland, he had acted as the Queen-Regent’s

agent; and they had before them the fact that he had not yet openly

declared himself to be on the side of the Congregation. Under such

circumstances, Cecil thought it prudent not to write directly to the

Laird of Grange, whom, as yet, he had no reason for treating otherwise

than ‘as a private man, not before known otherwise to them but as one

in good grace with the Dowager.’ He instructed Sir Henry Percy to

obtain an interview with Sir William, to thank him privately for his

letter and the sentiments to which it gave expression, and at the same

time, to tell him that the English Government desired to be more fully

informed as to the purposes of the Earls and other Protestants; as to

the cause they meant to adopt; and as to the means at their disposal

for the accomplishment of their designs. Above all, there was to be a

clear understanding as to ‘what manner of amity might ensue between

the two realms,’ if assistance were sent from England, ‘and how the

same might be hoped to be perpetuated, and not to be so slender as

heretofore, with other assurance of continuance than from time to

time had pleased France.’ Lest Kirkcaldy should think that Cecil’s

unwillingness to negotiate directly with him arose from any doubt as

to his good faith and honesty, Percy was further commissioned to tell

him that all promises communicated through the English agent would be

considered just as binding as though they had been made immediately to

himself. Considering, however, the very guarded nature of the answer

which Sir Henry was to make to the Scottish Laird’s advances, the

assurance thus given did not commit the English minister too much.

As soon as Kirkcaldy learnt from Percy the reasons put forward by

Cecil in explanation of his cautious hesitation, he at once promised

to supply, within a few days, the information required by the English

statesman with regard both to the ‘foundation’ on which the Protestants

meant to work, and the ‘amity’ they were ready to offer. He further

undertook to get himself duly acknowledged ‘under the hands of some of

the nobility.’

Although less than a week elapsed between Kirkcaldy’s interview with

Percy and Crofts and the formal recognition of his negotiations by the

Lords of the Congregation, the delay appears to have suggested fresh

doubts, and possibly suspicions, to the minds of the English agents.

On the 20th of July, Crofts wrote from Berwick, informing Cecil that

Grange, though expected the day before, had not yet arrived, and

suggesting reasons for the delay.

‘Kirkcaldy,’ he wrote, ‘has not yet discovered himself plainly to be of

the Protestant party, nor does he come to the Queen-Regent, but feigns

himself sick. Money is owing him for serving in the late wars, in hope

whereof he drives time. The man is poor and cannot travail in these

matters without charges, wherein he must be relieved by the Queen, if

these proceedings go forward, and so must as many as be principal doers

have relief. They all be poor, and necessity will force them to leave

off when all they have is spent, and you know, in all practices, money

must be one part.’

A few days later, however, on the 26th of the month, the same writer

was able to announce that Kirkcaldy had now ‘declared himself plainly,’

and was with the Protestants. That pecuniary considerations, even if

they had influenced him at all, as Crofts had previously stated, had

not been allowed to deter him from the course of action which his

conscience pointed out to him, was proved by the fact that, as Crofts

himself acknowledged, in a later communication, his declaration cost

him fifteen or sixteen months’ pay, which he should have received from

France.

Kirkcaldy’s object and ambition had been the formation of a Protestant

alliance, and he had fervently declared that all Europe should know

that a league, in the name of God, had another foundation and assurance

than factions made by man for worldly commodity. But the result of his

negotiations fell very far short of his sanguine hopes. He was obliged

to be content for the time with a vague promise of assistance.

_VII._ HARASSING THE FRENCH

WHILST the heads of the Protestant party were corresponding with

England, the Queen-Regent, on her side, had also been preparing for

the struggle which she was now determined to force on, though in order

to gain time, she had not discouraged the negotiations entered upon

with a view to a peaceable settlement. In answer to her appeals for

assistance, the French Court sent her a body of troops, to oppose the

forces which the Lords of the Congregation were raising. About the

middle of August 1559, a thousand men, under the command of an officer

named Octavian, landed at Leith, which they at once began to fortify.

Protests and proclamations on the part of the Lords having failed to

prevent the operations of the French from being actively carried on,

under the eyes of the Regent herself, Leith was invested by the forces

of the Congregation.

Sir William Kirkcaldy was one of the military leaders on whose skill

and experience the party mainly relied. It is scarcely possible to

determine with what official rank he was invested; but there is not

wanting evidence to show that, whether by actual appointment, or

by virtue of his zeal and of his valour, he stood in a position of

considerable importance. When Maitland of Lethington, Secretary to

the Queen-Regent, ‘perceiving himself to be suspected as one that

favoured the Congregation, and to stand in danger of his life if he

should remain at Leith, because he spared not to utter his mind in

controversies of religion,’ determined to join the Protestant party,

it was to Sir William Kirkcaldy that he surrendered. Such indeed, was

his recognised influence with his associates, that, as Throckmorton

informed Cecil, the Regent ‘weighed him more than a great many of the

rest,’ and made strenuous, but vain efforts to gain him over to her

side.

Of Sir William’s personal exploits, the records are only casual and

incidental; but they invariably bear testimony to the dashing courage

which had won distinction for him in foreign wars. It was conspicuously

displayed in one of the most important engagements between the opposing

forces. On the 5th of November, a body of French troops was sent from

Leith to intercept a convoy of provisions intended for Edinburgh.

Arran and Lord James, being ‘more forward than circumspect’ in their

attempt to drive them back, allowed themselves to be hemmed in, and

forced into a ‘very narrow corner,’ between the low-lying swamp near

Restalrig, and the wall that enclosed the park of Holyrood. But for

the Laird of Grange and Alexander Whitelaw, who rode up at the head

of a few horsemen, and who succeeded in keeping the enemy in check

for a time, the whole escort would have been surrounded, and either

killed or taken. Even as it was, the loss was serious; and, together

with the capture of the expected provisions, led to the abandonment of

Edinburgh, which was at once occupied by the French. Kirkcaldy, who had

been in the front of the fight, was in the rear of the retreat; and,

according to Killegrew’s report of the event to Queen Elizabeth, he

only ‘very narrowly escaped over the walls.’

Another of Kirkcaldy’s sallies from the camp before Leith is narrated

in a dispatch to Cecil by Sir Henry Percy, who also took part in

it--for this was in April 1560; and by that time Elizabeth had at

length sent a small contingent of troops to reinforce the army of

the Congregation. Dunbar being but a short distance from Leith, and

on the highroad to Berwick, it frequently happened that messengers

and straggling parties, on their way from the camp to the English

Border, were intercepted by pickets from the garrison. To check this,

and to teach the French caution, Lord Grey and Sir William devised a

stratagem. The latter, with Sir Henry Percy and three hundred troopers,

left the camp at dead of night and took up a carefully chosen position,

about half a mile from Dunbar. Next morning, at nine o’clock, when

there was every probability of detection, a detachment of a dozen men

was sent forward as though for the purpose of riding to Berwick. As

soon as they were perceived, Captain Hayes, with an equal number of

cavalry, started in pursuit, whilst Captain Perrot, at the head of

fifty footmen, also marched out so as to be at hand to reinforce him,

if necessary. Feigning to be taken at unawares, the decoys turned and

made for the camp, managing their flight in such a manner as to lead

the pursuers into the ambush. Grange made no attempt to meet the enemy;

but as soon as they had all passed by, he rode out with his three

hundred men, and cut off their retreat. Charging the French before they

had time fully to realise their position, he overwhelmed them and took

most of the footmen prisoners. The cavalry were able to take refuge in

the neighbouring mansion of Innerwick, but a very brief siege obliged

them to surrender also; and Kirkcaldy returned to the camp after having

killed thirteen of the enemy and captured forty-five, including the two

leaders, Hayes and Perrot, and without having suffered any loss himself.

On the eve of the last but still unsuccessful assault made against

Leith, on the 7th of May 1560, by the combined forces of the

Congregation and of England, it was Sir William Kirkcaldy who, with

Sir Ralph Sadler and Crofts, went forward to examine the breach which

the besieging artillery had made in the works. Had his advice been

followed, the next day’s failure would have been avoided, for he

reported that the attack ought not yet to be made. But, either owing

to a misunderstanding or, as was commonly reported subsequently, to

treason on the part of Crofts, who was instructed to communicate

Kirkcaldy’s opinion to Grey, the assault took place, and was repulsed

with heavy loss to the besiegers.

Whilst the siege of Leith was going on, the skirmishing was not

confined to the southern side of the Forth. Crossing to the other

shore, the French established themselves at Kinghorn and, sallying

forth, laid waste all the adjoining country, sparing neither Papist nor

Protestant, and even pillaging the estates of their own confederates.

Amongst the chief sufferers from their depredations and wanton

destruction of property, was Sir William Kirkcaldy, whose house was

deliberately blown up. Next day he sent a characteristic message to the

French leader, d’Oysel. He told him that, up to that hour, he had acted

considerately towards the French, and saved their lives when he might

have allowed their throats to be cut. But he warned him not to expect

such treatment for the future. ‘As for Monsieur d’Oysel,’ reports

the chronicler, ‘he bade say to him, he knew he would not get him to

skirmish with, because he knew he was but a coward. But it might be he

should requite him in full, either in Scotland or in France.’

The French soon learnt to their cost that Kirkcaldy had not been

indulging in mere braggart threats. At the head of a thousand horse,

and accompanied by the Master of Sinclair, he lay in wait for them

day and night, and made it unsafe for them to venture out of Kinghorn

except in large bodies. One of his exploits was the capture of three

ships, laden with victuals, and the slaughter of some sixty Frenchmen

that were on board. Another, of which the details have been recorded,

resulted in the death of the French Captain, L’Abast, and of forty

or fifty of his men. L’Abast having sallied out from Kinghorn, was

plundering as usual, sparing ‘neither sheep, oxen, kye, nor horse.’

When he and his men got sufficiently far inland to make it impossible

for reinforcements to come to them from the main body, Grange, who

had been following their movements, charged down upon them with a

company of his horsemen. The French beat a hasty retreat as far as

Glennis House, into which they threw themselves. Whilst some occupied

the mansion, others took up their position within the courtyard. The

assailants were at considerable disadvantage, for they were armed

with spears only; and their horses were useless to them in an attack

against men posted behind stone walls. The French, on the contrary, all

had arquebuses. Undeterred by the odds against him, Kirkcaldy ordered

his men to dismount, and led them to the assault. As they advanced,

they were met with a sharp fire that injured several of them, amongst

others, Sir William’s brother, David. There was one critical moment of

hesitation, which would probably have been followed by a disordered and

disastrous retreat but for the courage of the Scottish leader. ‘Fie!’

he cried to his men, ‘Let us never live after this day, if it is to

be said we recoiled before French skybalds!’ Then, rushing forward

with the Master of Sinclair, and followed by others whom his words had

roused, he succeeded in forcing his way into the courtyard. The death

of L’Abast, who, though borne down by the impetuous inrush, refused to

ask for quarter, threw the French into confusion. Few of those outside

the house escaped the fierce slaughter that followed; whilst those

within it were glad to surrender at discretion. From that day, as the

chronicler drily remarks, ‘the French were more circumspect in straying

abroad.’

At Tullybodie, too, there was some sharp fighting for the possession

of the bridge. But, though Kirkcaldy succeeded in cutting it down, the

check to the advance of the French was only temporary. They retired to

Doune, where they crossed the river by means of a bridge, which they

built of timber torn from the roof of the parish church.

Kirkcaldy and Sinclair did not carry on this harassing mode of

warfare without considerable danger to themselves. On one occasion

the Master had his horse slain under him, and barely got off with

his life. On another, Grange was nearly captured in his own house at

Halyards. Referring to these narrow escapes, Maitland of Lethington

bears testimony to the estimation in which the two dashing leaders

were held, and to the value set on their services by the Lords of the

Congregation. ‘If at this time they should have lost the said two men,’

he wrote, ‘it would have been to them more hurt than to the Frenchmen

to have lost a thousand soldiers; it would have been more skaith than

to have had all the Frenchmen in Scotland slain.’ John Knox, in a

letter to Mrs Anna Locke, also makes admiring and grateful mention of

Kirkcaldy’s achievements. ‘God will recompense him I doubt not,’ he

says; ‘for in this cause and since the beginning of this last trouble

specially, he hath behaved himself so boldly, as never man of our

nation hath deserved more praise. He hath been in many dangers, and yet

God hath delivered him above man’s expectation. He was shot at Lundie,

right under the left pap, through the jack, doublet, and sark, and the

bullet did sticke in one of his ribs. Mr Whitelaw hath gotten a fall,

by the which he is unable to bear armour. But, God be praised, both

their lives be saved.’

Whether Kirkcaldy was actually wounded, however, seems rather doubtful.

That, if he was, his hurt cannot have been serious, may be gathered,

not only from the fact that no interruption of his activity at this

time is recorded, but also from the following passage, which occurs

in one of Sadler’s letters to Crofts: ‘Kirkcaldy hath no such hurt as

we wrote of, which arose of another Scottishman that was indeed hurt

in the same sort as we did write; and before that Kirkcaldy slew a

Frenchman, whereby the Protestants had the first blood, which they do

take for good luck.’

By the beginning of 1560, both contending parties had grown tired of

the desultory, and practically useless fighting which had now been

going on for months. Negotiations had again been entered upon with a

view to the cessation of hostilities, when, on the 10th of June, the

death of the Queen-Regent took place. Although there is reason to

believe that this time she was really sincere in her wish for peace,

it is probable that her demise accelerated rather than retarded the

conclusion of the treaty. That it secured for the Protestant party more

favourable terms than she herself would readily have granted, scarcely

admits of a doubt.

_VIII._ AT CARBERRY

THE cessation of hostilities, and the departure from Scotland of the

French and English contingents which had helped to carry on the war,

inaugurated a period of comparative rest and tranquillity in Sir

William’s adventurous life. During the next four years there is but

rare and incidental reference to him in the correspondence of the

time. A letter from Randolph to Maitland states that Grange was one of

the leaders of a small force sent into Renfrewshire for the purpose

of reducing the rebellious Master of Semple to subjection. The only

notable feature of this very unimportant expedition was the difficulty

experienced in bringing the artillery to bear on Castle Semple, which

was situated in a small lake. It took seven days to get the guns into

position. Twenty-four hours later Semple capitulated.

Another letter from the same source shows that Kirkcaldy’s friendly

relations with the English Court were still maintained. It informs

Cecil that when the agent wished to take special means for the safe

delivery of his dispatches to the Government, he availed himself of the

services of the Laird’s retainers. The young Queen of Scots, on the

other hand, in spite of her dying mother’s injunctions to secure the

good-will of ‘Kirkcaldy of Grange, whom the Constable de Montmorency

had named the first soldier in Europe,’ still looked with suspicion on

the man who had so largely contributed to the success of the Reformers.

Indeed, her objection to him was expressed with sufficient plainness

to attract the attention of Throckmorton, who was ‘nothing sorry’ for

it, and who did not think the circumstance too insignificant to be

communicated to Elizabeth.

Closer acquaintance with the gallant soldier, however, appears to have

altered Mary Stuart’s opinion of him after her return to Scotland. In

1562, when she undertook an expedition to the North, against the Earl

of Huntly, he was one of the leaders whom she appointed to serve under

Lord James, the commander of her forces. A few days later, he was

at Strathbogie, at the head of a body of horsemen sent to apprehend

the Earl. His progress had been so rapid, that Huntly was taken by

surprise, and only narrowly avoided capture. ‘Without boot or sword

he conveyed himself out at a back gate, over a low wall, where he

took his horse.’ Being better acquainted with the country, and better

mounted than his pursuers, who had already ridden twenty-four miles

that morning, he succeeded in making good his escape, but only to

fall at the battle of Corrichie. It was, doubtless, as a reward for

Kirkcaldy’s services during this expedition that the act of attainder

passed against him and his family, for the murder of Cardinal Beaton,

was reversed by Parliament in the following year. His lands were also

restored to him a few months later.

In the year 1564, the project of a marriage between Mary Stuart and

Darnley again roused dissatisfaction amongst the Protestant leaders.

The matter was one with regard to which Kirkcaldy was not likely to

remain indifferent; and a letter written to Randolph, on the nineteenth

of September, shows that he had already entered into negotiations

with the English Court, for the purpose of offering the support

and co-operation of his party to Elizabeth, who was known to look

upon the intended marriage with great disfavour. As might have been

expected from this preliminary and early step, the Laird of Grange was

amongst those who, with Lord James at their head, openly expressed

their disapproval of Darnley, as one more than suspected of being

ready to adopt and forward Mary’s views in favour of the Catholic

religion, and who consequently disobeyed the Queen’s commands to come

to Edinburgh, ‘Weill bodin in feir of weir, furneist to remaine the

space of fifteen dayis efter thair cuming, for attending and awayting

upon her Hienes.’ Although no record exists of his individual action,

testimony is borne to the importance which Mary and her Council

attached to it, by a proclamation issued on the 2nd of August 1565,

only four days after the celebration of the obnoxious marriage. It

commanded Andrew, Earl of Rothes, and William Kirkcaldy of Grange to

enter themselves prisoners within the Castle of Dumbarton. On the 14th

of the same month, Kirkcaldy was denounced as a rebel, and charged,

under pains of treason, to deliver up the fortalice of Halyards. Next

day a proclamation, setting forth that the Earls of Murray and Rothes,

Grange, and Provost Haliburton, were riding and going about the Realm

where they pleased, and were being entertained as if they were good and

true subjects, forbade the lieges to supply those rebels with meat,

drink, munition, or armour. Another of the numerous proclamations

issued at this time--its exact date is the 24th of August--gave

commission to the Earl of Athole to pursue them with fire and sword.

This was on the eve of the Queen’s departure from Edinburgh, at the

head of five thousand men, to take part in what is known as the Round

About Raid.

The ill-advised and ill-managed rising afforded Grange no opportunity

of distinguishing himself or even of doing justice to the reputation

which he had already acquired. He hurried with the rest of his party

from Paisley to Hamilton, from Hamilton to Edinburgh, then back

again, through Lanark to Hamilton and thence to Dumfries. There the

insignificant force of some thirteen hundred horsemen was disbanded;

and Kirkcaldy, with a number of the leaders, sought safety across the

Border.

From letters written by Bedford immediately after these events, it

seems justifiable to conclude that he, at least, attributed the failure

of the Protestant rising to neglect of the advice given by Kirkcaldy.

Not only does he speak of him in special terms of praise, which would

have been quite out of place if he had done no more than flee before

the Queen, and style him ‘as able a man in war or peace as any in

Scotland or France;’ but he also particularly ‘bemoans’ his fate and

significantly adds that he will not speak of ‘what services Grange

might have done.’

As early as the beginning of January 1566, steps were being taken to

procure an amnesty in favour of Sir William Kirkcaldy, and to enable

him to return to Scotland. They were not successful, however, and two

months later he was still in England, and according to a communication

made by Bedford and Randolph to Cecil, was one of those who were privy

to the plot for the assassination of David Rizzio. That he knew of it

can scarcely be doubted. It may even be admitted that he entertained

no special scruples with regard to the removal of an officious and

obnoxious foreigner, whose influence on the Queen was being exercised

to prevent her receiving the exiles into favour, and whom it was,

moreover, originally intended to bring to trial, not, it is true, in

a formal and legal manner, but with some sort of judicial proceeding

sufficient to make his death appear an execution rather than a brutal

murder. But there is no evidence to prove that his complicity went

any further; on the other hand, it is noteworthy that his name does

not appear in the list of ‘such as were consenting to the death of

Davy,’ forwarded to Cecil within a fortnight after the occurrence.

Nor can this omission be explained by the fact that Grange was known

not to have returned to Edinburgh, with Murray and his company, till

twenty-four hours after the murder. Knox has never been accused

of being actually present at the grim tragedy either, and yet his

name figures on the black roll. Finally, it is not unimportant to

note that as early as the 4th of April, less than a month after the

assassination of Rizzio, Bedford was able to announce to Cecil that the

Laird of Grange was now restored to favour. If that did not refer to

the remission of the pains and penalties he had incurred through his

connection with the Round About Raid, it may be taken as evidence that

his complicity with the murderers of the Secretary was not thought to

be very direct.

Not many months elapsed before events far more startling and far more

momentous in their results again called upon Sir William Kirkcaldy to

play a prominent part both as a politician and as a soldier. On the

10th of February 1566, Darnley was murdered under circumstances which

led many to believe not only that Bothwell was the murderer, but that

Mary was his accomplice. Such was the view adopted by the Laird of

Grange. When the mock trial of the Earl convinced him that the law of

the land was powerless to inflict punishment on the perpetrator of the

foul deed; and when, in addition to this, the subservience of five and

twenty bishops, earls, and barons, who affixed their signatures to

the notorious Ainslie Bond, showed him that a union with Mary would

probably be the unscrupulous adventurer’s next step, he made an earnest

appeal for help from England. ‘It may please your Lordship to let me

understand,’ he wrote to Cecil, ‘what will be your sovereign’s part

concerning the late murder committed among us; for albeit her Majesty

was slow in all our last troubles, and therefore lost that favour we

did bear unto her, yet nevertheless, if her Majesty will pursue for the

revenge of the late murder, I dare assure your Lordship she shall win

thereby all the hearts of all the best in Scotland again. Further, if

we understand that her Majesty would assist us and favour us, we should

not be long in revenging of this murder. The Queen caused ratify in

Parliament the cleansing of Bothwell. She intends to take the Prince

out of the Earl of Mar’s hands, and put him into Bothwell’s keeping,

who murdered the King, his father. The same night the Parliament was

dissolved, Bothwell called the most part of the noblemen to supper, for

to desire of them their promise in writing and consent for the Queen’s

marriage, which he will obtain; for she has said that she cares not to

lose France, England, and her own country for him, and shall go with

him to the world’s end in a white petticoat ere she leave him. Yea, she

is so far past all shame, that she has caused make an act of Parliament

against all those that shall set up any writing that shall speak

anything of him. Whatever is unhonest reigns presently in this court.

God deliver them from their evil!’

Before any answer could be returned to Sir William, his worst

anticipations had been verified. With or without her consent, Mary had

been carried off by Bothwell. Two days later another letter was sent

from the Grange to the English agent in Berwick. It ran as follows:

‘The Queen will never cease till she has wrecked all the honest men of

this realm. She was minded to cause Bothwell ravish her, to the end

that she may the sooner end the marriage which she promised before she

caused murder her husband. There is many that would revenge the murder,

but that they fear your mistress. I am so suited to, for to enterprise

the revenge, that I must either take it upon hand or else leave the

country, which I am determined to do, if I can obtain license; but

Bothwell is minded to cut me off ere I obtain it. The Queen minds

hereafter to take the Prince out of the Earl of Mar’s hands, and put

him in his hands that murdered his father. I pray your Lordship let

me know what your mistress will do, for if we seek France we may find

favour at their hands, but I would rather persuade to lean to England.’

That Kirkcaldy’s determination to go abroad was not merely empty and

exaggerated talk was proved by the two plain facts reported by Sir

William Drury--that Grange had sold all his corn and moveables, and

that he had obtained a license to leave Scotland for seven years. It

might have been well for him if his purpose had been carried out; but

events shaped his conduct differently.

Sir William’s communications were duly forwarded to Elizabeth. The

tone adopted by a subject in writing of his sovereign was highly

displeasing to the English Queen, and shocked her exalted notions of

regal dignity and prerogative. She consequently vouchsafed no reply to

them; but she took occasion to express her indignation to Randolph, who

thus reports to Leicester the substance of her remarks to him on the

subject of Kirkcaldy’s plainly-worded arraignment of Mary’s conduct:

‘Her Majesty also told me that she had seen a writing sent from Grange

to my Lord of Bedford, despitefully written against that Queen, in such

vile terms as she could not abide the hearing of it, wherein he made

her worse than any common woman. She would not that any subject, what

cause soever there be proceeding from the prince, or whatsoever her

life and behaviour is, should discover that unto the world; and thereof

so utterly misliketh of Grange’s manner of writing and doing, that she

condemns him for one of the worst in that realm, seeming somewhat to

warn me of my familiarity with him, and willing that I should admonish

him of her misliking. In this manner of talk it pleased her Majesty to

retain me almost an hour.’

In the meantime, discontent at the Queen’s treatment of Bothwell

had been spreading through the country, and was gradually assuming

the tangible shape of a coalition having for its avowed object the

punishment of Darnley’s murderers. The leading men of the movement were

Argyle, Athole, and Morton. They made Stirling their headquarters; and

it was there the Laird of Grange joined them in the early days of

May. On the eighth of that month he again wrote to Bedford, no longer

as a private individual, but with the authorisation, and in the name

of the confederate Lords. ‘All such things as were done before the

Parliament, I did write unto your Lordship at large,’ said he. ‘At

that time the most part of the nobility, for fear of their lives, did

grant to sundry things, both against their honours and consciences,

who since have convened themselves at Stirling, where they have made

a “band” to defend each other in all things that shall concern the

glory of God and commonweal of their country. The heads that presently

they agreed upon is, first, to seek the liberty of the Queen, who is

ravished and detained by the Earl of Bothwell, who was the ravisher,

and hath the strengths, munitions, and men of war at his commandment.

The next head is the preservation and keeping of the Prince. The third

is to pursue them that murdered the King. For the pursuit of these

three heads they have promised to bestow their lives, lands, and goods.

And to that effect their lordships have desired me to write unto your

lordship, to the end they might have your sovereign’s aid and support

for suppressing of the cruel murderer Bothwell, who, at the Queen’s

last being in Stirling, suborned certain to have poisoned the Prince;

for that barbarous tyrant is not contented to have murdered the father,

but he would also cut off the son, for fear that he hath to be punished

hereafter. The names of the Lords that convened in Stirling were the

Earls of Argyle, Morton, Athole, and Mar. These forenamed, as said is,

have desired me to write unto your Lordship, to the end that I might

know by you if your sovereign would give them support concerning these

three heads above written. Wherefore I beseech your lordship, who I

am assured loveth the quietness of these two realms, to let me have a

direct answer, and that with haste; for presently the foresaid Lords

are suited unto by Monsieur de Croc, who offereth unto them, in his

master, the King of France’s name, if they will follow his advice and

counsel, that they shall have aid and support to suppress the Earl

Bothwell and his faction. Also he hath admonished her to desist from

the Earl Bothwell, and not to marry him; for if she do, he hath assured

her that she shall neither have friendship nor favour out of France,

if she shall have to do:[2] but his saying is, she will give no ear.

There is to be joined with the four forenamed lords, the Earls of

Glencairn, Cassillis, Eglinton, Montrose, Caithness; the Lords Boyd,

Ochiltree, Ruthven, Drummond, Gray, Glammis, Innermeith, Lindsay, Hume,

and Herries, with all the whole West Merse and Teviotdale, the most

part of Fife, Angus and Mearns. And for this effect the Earl of Argyle

is ridden in the West, the Earl of Athole to the North, and the Earl of

Morton to Fife, Angus, and Montrose. The Earl of Mar remaineth still

about the Prince; and if the Queen will pursue him, the whole Lords

have promised, upon their faiths and honour, to relieve him. In this

meantime the Queen is come to the Castle of Edinburgh, conveyed by the

Earl Bothwell, where she intendeth to remain until she have levied some

forces of footmen and horsemen, that is, she minds to levy five hundred

footmen, and two hundred horsemen. The money that she hath presently

to do this, which is five thousand crowns, came from the font your

Lordship brought unto the baptism; the rest is to be reft and borrowed

of Edinburgh, or the men of Lothian. It will please your Lordship also

to haste these other letters to my Lord of Moray, and write unto him to

come back again into Normandy, that he may be in readiness against my

Lords write unto him.’

This time Queen Elizabeth deemed it expedient to take notice of

Grange’s communication; and on the 17th of May, she instructed Bedford

as to the answers which he was to return in her name, with regard to

the three points indicated in the letter. As to the first of them--to

have their sovereign delivered from bondage--Elizabeth pointed out that

Mary’s own statement to herself was at variance with that of the Lords,

and that the Scottish Queen attributed their hatred of Bothwell to the

anger and disappointment which they felt at his having ‘in her distress

recovered her liberty out of their hands.’

Respecting the preservation of the young prince, Elizabeth professed

not to understand what was intended--whether the Lords merely wished

to entrust him to the care of his grandmother, Lady Margaret Lennox,

or whether they had some other object in view. She did not hide her

anxiety to get him into her own keeping; and suggestively added that if

she could not be trusted with his protection, she thought intermeddling

with the rest of the matters would prove more hurtful than profitable.

The notion of placing the Crown on the child’s head in the event of his

mother’s marriage with Bothwell, was one which Elizabeth altogether

refused to entertain--‘it was a matter for example’s sake, not to be

digested by her or any other monarch.’

With reference to the pursuit of the murderers of the King, the English

Queen confined herself to the diplomatic remark that she saw great

difficulties in the way of undertaking it if Bothwell were to marry

Mary.

Two days before this letter was written, the marriage had actually

taken place. This was the signal for open and direct action on the part

of the ‘Associators.’ With two thousand horse, which they had collected

in all haste, they set forth from Stirling intending to seize Mary and

Bothwell in the Palace of Holyrood. But this plan was frustrated by

the sudden retreat of the Queen and her husband to Borthwick Castle.

Thither the confederates followed them; but information of their

advance having preceded them, they were again disappointed. Bothwell

made good his escape, and betook himself to the stronghold of Dunbar,

which Mary ‘in men’s clothes, booted and spurred’ also succeeded in

reaching some hours after him, for, to ensure safety, they had found

themselves obliged to part company.

On the 14th of June, the Queen and the Duke of Orkney, as Bothwell was

now styled, marched out of Dunbar with an army of some four thousand

men and six field pieces of brass, and reached Prestonpans in the

evening. On receiving intelligence of these movements the Associators

set out from Edinburgh, to which they had advanced from Borthwick; and

about mid-day on Sunday the 15th of June, the opposing forces came into

view of each other at Carberry Hill, eight miles from the Capital.

The royal troops having taken up their position on the hill, whilst

the Lords had halted on the lower ground at its foot, Kirkcaldy of

Grange, together with Douglas of Drumlanrig, Ker of Cessfurd, and Home

of Cowdenknowes, was sent, at the head of two hundred horse, round

the hill, towards the east side, for the double purpose of cutting

off Bothwell’s retreat, and of securing more favourable ground for

an attack. The men, who in obedience to the Queen’s command, had

gathered round her standard, were but half-hearted in her cause; and

Bothwell’s conduct had not increased their sympathy with her. As soon

as they found themselves hemmed in between the infantry on the one

side, and Kirkcaldy’s horse on the other, they began to desert in great

numbers, and it is asserted that Mary and Bothwell were left with only

sixty gentlemen and the band of arquebusiers. Seeing this, the Queen

asked who led the cavalry. On learning that it was Grange, she sent

Cockburn of Ormiston to summon him to an interview with her. After

having informed the Lords of the message, and obtained their consent,

Sir William rode forward. Although the Queen had pledged her word for

his safety, it is asserted by Sir James Melville, that Bothwell had

instructed a soldier to shoot him. Mary perceived the man, as he was

taking aim, and uttering a loud cry, she exclaimed, ‘Shame us not with

so foul a murder!’

In his conversation with the Queen, Kirkcaldy assured her that all in

the field were ready to honour and serve her on the condition that she

abandoned the Earl of Bothwell, who had murdered her husband, and who

could not be a husband to her, as he had but lately married the Earl

of Huntly’s sister. Hearing these words, Bothwell, who was standing

near, exclaimed that he was ready to fight, in single combat, any man

who laid Darnley’s death to his charge: ‘You shall have an answer

speedily,’ said the Laird of Grange; and riding back, he obtained the

Lords’ permission to do battle as their champion in the quarrel. On his

return, however, he was objected to by Bothwell, as being neither Earl,

nor Lord, but only a Baron, and consequently not his equal. The Laird

of Tullibardine next offered to fight, but was refused on the same

ground. ‘Then,’ exclaimed his elder brother, Sir William Murray, ‘I at

least am his Peer; my estate is better than his, and my blood nobler.’

Him too Bothwell rejected, on the pretence that Tullibardine was not

his equal in degree of honour, and, wishing he said, to have an Earl as

his adversary, he selected Morton, who at once answered that he would

fight on foot with a two-handed sword. Here, however, Lord Lindsay of

the Byres put in his claim, as a relative of the murdered Darnley, and

begged to be allowed to meet Bothwell. This was granted him, and Morton

presented him with his own sword, a weapon he highly valued as having

belonged to his ancestor, the famous Earl of Angus, ‘Bell-the-Cat.’ But

all those preliminaries led to no result. Whether from pusillanimity,

as some have maintained, or because of the Queen’s interference, as

others have asserted, or, according to a third opinion, because the

Lords, amongst whom were some of his former confederates, wished him

well away, for fear lest being taken he might have revealed the whole

plot, he retired from the field, without having struck a single blow.

Left to herself, Mary again sent for Grange, and told him that if the

Lords would do as he had said, she would renounce Bothwell, and go

over to them. Sir William having obtained their recognition of the

promises which he had made, again rode up the hill to communicate it

to the Queen. In reply, she said to him: ‘Laird of Grange, I render

myself unto you, upon the condition you rehearsed unto me.’ With those

words, she gave him her hand, which the gallant soldier respectfully

kissed. Having helped her to mount, he led her horse by the bridle

down the hill towards the Lords, who received their Queen with ‘all

dutiful reverence.’ Some of the meaner sort, however, behaved in a very

different manner; to check their coarse ribaldry, Grange struck at them

with his drawn sword.

Mary’s ignominious entry into Edinburgh, and the treatment to which she

was subjected after being taken, not to Holyrood, but to the house of

Sir Simon Preston of Craigmillar, did not augur well for the observance

of the conditions which Sir William had been authorised to grant on the

field of Carberry. Indeed, there never seems to have been a serious

thought on the part of any one except the Laird of Grange to keep faith

with the unfortunate Queen. He, however, had been thoroughly sincere

throughout; and his indignation was therefore great when he learnt

that it had been resolved to relegate Mary, as a prisoner for life,

to the island fortress in Lochleven. When he protested against the

violation of the promise which he had made to the Queen, he was told

that on the very night of her return to Edinburgh, Mary had written to

Bothwell, and bribed one of her keepers to get her letter conveyed to

him, but that the man had handed it over to the Lords. In this letter,

it was alleged, she called the Earl her Dear Heart, whom she should

never forget nor abandon, though she was obliged to be absent from him

for the time; she assured him her only object in sending him away had

been to ensure his safety; and she besought him to be comforted and to

remain on his guard.

Even though he does not appear to have questioned the genuineness

of her letter, Kirkcaldy urged that it did not free them from the

obligation contracted by them towards the Queen. In spite of it, she

had, in actual fact, abandoned the Earl; and that she should give

him a few fair words was, he said, no wonder. He expressed his own

conviction that ‘if she were discreetly handled, and humbly admonished

what inconveniences that man had brought upon her, she would by degrees

be brought not only to leave him, but ere long to detest him; and

therefore he advised to deal gently with her.’

To Sir William’s earnest remonstrances, the Lords replied that ‘it

stood them upon their lives and lands; and that therefore, in the

meantime, they behoved to secure her; and when that time came that she

should be known to abandon and detest Earl Bothwell, it would be then

time to reason upon the matter.’ Their arguments did not, however,

satisfy him, and ‘had it not been for the letter, he had instantly left

them.’

In the meantime, Mary had written to the Laird of Grange, complaining

of the harsh treatment to which she had been subjected, and protesting

against the breach of faith of which she was the victim. His answer

was to the effect that he himself had already reproached the Lords

with their conduct towards her, but that they had shown him a letter

of hers to the Earl of Bothwell, in which ‘Among many other fair and

comfortable words,’ she promised never to abandon or forget him.

‘That,’ he said, ‘had stopped his mouth.’ He went on to express his

wonder that her Majesty could consider herself wedded to a man who had

but recently married another woman, and deserted her without any just

ground. He besought her ‘to put him clean out of mind, seeing otherwise

she could never get the love or respect of her subjects, nor have that

obedience paid her, which otherwise she might expect;’ and he added

‘many other loving and humble admonitions, which made her bitterly to

weep; for she could not do that so hastily, which process of time might

have accomplished.’

Judging that the most practical means of destroying Bothwell’s

influence would be to get possession of his person--a measure which had

been strangely and, indeed, suspiciously neglected at Carberry--and

to bring him to justice, Sir William readily accepted the command of

an expedition having for its object the capture of the Earl. After

Carberry, the Duke of Orkney had betaken himself to his dukedom,

which had not yet seen its new master. Having met with a very hostile

reception at the hands of Gilbert Balfour, the keeper of Kirkwall, he

went over to Shetland, where the more friendly bailiff, Olaf Sinclair,

supplied him with provisions. The two vessels with which he had come

from the south being but small, he got possession of two Hanseatic

ships, the _Pelican_ and the _Breame_. After forcibly seizing them and

casting out their cargoes on the shore, as Geert Hemelingk related, he

had obliged the two German skippers to sign a contract, so as to give

his act of violence the appearance of a legitimate transaction, and had

begun a piratical cruise amongst the islands. He was reported to have

killed the Bishop of Orkney’s son and put all his servants out of the

castle.

On the 12th of August, Kirkcaldy, with whom was Sir William Murray of

Tullibardine, received seabrieves, ‘for the seeking, searching, and

apprehension of the Earl of Bothwell and his accomplices.’ Exactly

a week later, he set sail for Dundee, fully determined to give the

pirate Earl no chance of escape. In a letter to Bedford, written

immediately before his departure, he said: ‘And for my owne part,

albeit I be no gud seeman, I promess unto your Lordship, gyf I may anes

encounter hym, eyther be see or land, he shall either carie me with

him, or else I shall bryng him dead or quick to Edinburgh.’

The squadron under his orders consisted of four ships--the _Unicorn_,

on which he himself embarked, the _Primrose_, the _James_, and

the _Robert_. They were all heavily armed, and had four hundred

arquebusiers, besides the respective crews.

Calling at Kirkwall, Grange was informed that Bothwell was at Shetland,

and at once made for the Bressay Sound. There the _Pelican_ and the

_Breame_, with the two lesser craft, were seen lying at anchor. A

number of the men belonging to the crews were on shore, and the Earl

himself was dining with Sinclair. When those who remained on board

caught sight of the squadron as it entered the Sound by the south,

they slipped their cables, and setting all sail, steered for the

northern channel. In spite of the remonstrances of his master-mariner,

Kirkcaldy, bent on carrying out the dashing tactics which he had

so often found successful in his cavalry charges on land, ordered

every stitch of canvas to be crowded on the _Unicorn_, and hastened

in pursuit. His ship sailed well, and was gradually gaining on the

hindmost of the fugitives; but it drew more water than they. Even for

them, the navigation of the rock-strewn channel was difficult and

dangerous. One of them grazed a sunken reef, over which it barely

managed to slip, though not without damage. The _Unicorn_ was less

fortunate. Striking the same rock with violence, it filled and sank so

rapidly that Grange and his men were with difficulty rescued by the

other ships. The rock that caused the catastrophe is still known by the

name of the vessel to which it proved fatal.

When Bothwell heard of Kirkcaldy’s arrival, he succeeded in reaching

the _Pelican_, which, with its consorts, had retired to Unst, the most

northerly of the islands. But before he could get safely away the

pursuers were upon him again. There followed a sharp engagement which

lasted three hours, and in the course of which the mast of his best

ship was shot down. He owed his deliverance to a south-westerly gale

which suddenly sprang up and drove him out to sea, together with two

of his other ships. The fourth was captured; but Grange was obliged to

return to Dundee with a few prisoners of inferior note. The Earl whom

he had promised to take quick or dead, had escaped to Norway.

_IX._ LANGSIDE--AND AFTER

WHILST Sir William Kirkcaldy was cruising in the North, important

events were taking place in the Capital. The enforced abdication of

Queen Mary had been followed by the appointment of her half-brother,

the Lord James, Earl of Murray, to be Regent of the Realm. One of his

first acts was to obtain the surrender of Edinburgh Castle from Sir

James Balfour, who had been made Governor of it by the interest of

Bothwell. That had not prevented him, however, from siding with the

Lords when he saw the success of their arms. But, ‘though they loved

the treachery, they had no great liking for the man.’ And they were

anxious to prevent the possibility of his again turning against them,

if circumstances should seem to favour the Queen’s party. On the 24th

of August, he agreed to deliver the fortress into the Regent’s hands,

subject to certain conditions, of which one was that the Laird of

Grange should succeed him as Governor and should pledge his word for

his safety. When Kirkcaldy returned to Edinburgh, he found himself

appointed to the command of what was then one of the most important

strongholds in Scotland.

For a few months after this, the country enjoyed a brief respite.

But the Queen’s friends had not abandoned her. On the third of May

1568, Murray, who was at Glasgow on justiciary business, received

the unexpected and startling information that Mary had escaped from

Lochleven the day before. The news was soon confirmed by a message

from the Queen herself, who, as soon as she reached Hamilton, ‘sent a

gentleman to the Earl of Murray and the other Lords, to declare that

she was delivered by God’s providence out of captivity, and albeit she

had consented to a certain kind of approving their authority, she was

thereunto, for defence of her life, compelled; seeing God had thus

mercifully relieved her, she now desired them that they would restore

her with quietness to her former dignity and estate, and she would in

like manner, wholly remit all manner of actions committed against her

honour and person.’

Murray’s unconditional refusal to resign the regency and restore Mary,

was followed on both sides by active preparation for war. In answer

to his proclamation some 4,000 men assembled in Glasgow, which he had

made his headquarters. Amongst them was a body of arquebusiers and

archers, who had come from Edinburgh with Sir William Kirkcaldy. The

Queen’s partisans had gathered round her in even greater numbers; and

contemporary accounts estimate the strength of her forces at fully

6,000.

The Regent having received information that it was Mary’s intention to

proceed to Dumbarton, drew up his army outside the Gallowgate Port,

but, at the same time, he sent Kirkcaldy to reconnoitre the ground

lying between the Clyde and Langside. He was thus prepared to intercept

the royal forces, whether the northern or the southern side of the

river were chosen for their line of march.

Early in the morning of the 13th of May, the Queen with her army

started on her march to Dumbarton. From the elevated position which

he held at the Calton, Murray perceived the advancing columns of the

enemy as they neared Rutherglen. As soon as it was ascertained that

the vanguard was not taking a northerly direction, for the purpose of

crossing the Clyde at the Dalmarnock ford, Grange, with an arquebusier

mounted behind each of his two hundred horsemen, rode with all speed

back to Glasgow, forded the river at the east of the old Bridge,

and made for Langside, where the road to Dumbarton lay between a

commanding eminence and the Clyde, and where he had already selected an

advantageous position. On reaching Langside hill, he posted his footmen

at the head of a narrow lane, where cottages and gardens afforded them

shelter and made it impossible for the enemy’s cavalry to dislodge them.

With his infantry and his ordnance, which was carried in carts, Murray

made all haste towards Langside, along the route already taken by

Grange. Although he had further to march than had his opponents, the

comparative slowness of their movements, due partly to their greater

numbers, and partly to the confidence which they felt that no attempt

would be made to hinder their progress, enabled him to reach the

village and to take up his position before they came in view. As soon

as Lord Claud Hamilton, who commanded the 2,000 men of the Queen’s

vanguard, saw that the village was occupied, he made an attempt to

carry the lane in which Grange had posted his infantry. A sharp fire

checked the advance, and threw the assailants into confusion for a

time. Rallying, however, they courageously and fiercely stormed the

hill held by Murray. Grange, to whose experience and discretion it had

been left to ‘encourage and make help where greatest need was,’ was at

this point; and, as the foremost ranks came to close quarters, he gave

his men an order which illustrates the peculiar mode of warfare of the

time. He called out to them, says Melville, who was present, ‘to let

their adversaries first lay down spears, to bear up theirs.’ A stubborn

struggle ensued. According to Buchanan’s account, the two brigades

held out a thick stand of pikes like a breast-work before them, and

fought desperately for half-an-hour, without yielding ground on either

side; insomuch that they whose long spears were broken, hurled pistols,

daggers, stones, fragments of lances, and whatever was at hand, into

the faces of the enemy.’

Another remarkable incident is mentioned by Melville. ‘So thick,’ he

says, ‘were the spears fixed in others’ jacks, that some of the pistols

and great staves that were thrown by them which were behind, might be

seen lying upon the spears.’

In the meantime, Grange perceived that the right wing of the Regent’s

vanguard, chiefly composed of men from the Barony of Renfrewshire, was

beginning to waver. Hastening to them, he called out that the enemy was

already giving way, and besought them to hold out till he returned with

reinforcements. Then riding at full speed to the Regent’s left wing,

which had been standing in reserve, he obtained a body of fresh troops,

with which he dashed at the enemy’s flank. This movement decided the

fate of the battle. The vanguard of the Queen’s army was forced to fall

back upon the main body, which, instead of supporting it and enabling

it to rally, broke into precipitate flight. Grange pursued with the

cavalry; but he ‘was never cruel,’ and moreover, the Regent had issued

orders to save and not to kill, so that there were but few taken, and

fewer slain. No indiscriminate slaughter of his fleeing countrymen was

needed to make the victory complete and decisive. His clever tactics

and his courageous behaviour had secured that already.

On the 8th of May 1568, immediately before his departure to join

the forces of the Regent in Glasgow, Sir William Kirkcaldy, being

obliged to withdraw a considerable part of the garrison on which the

safety, no less of the Capital than of the stronghold depended, took

the precaution of securing the active co-operation of the citizens

themselves, for the repression of any insurrectionary movement in the

Queen’s favour, by means of a mutual bond signed by himself on behalf

of the Castle, and by Sir Simon Preston of Craigmillar, Provost of

Edinburgh, acting for himself, the bailies, Council, and community.

With many protestations of loyalty to the ‘most undoubted sovereign’s

Regent and Governor, James, Earl of Murray,’ and with strong

expressions of indignation at the ‘unnatural and ungodly proceedings’

of those who were convened in arms against him, it bound each of the

contracting parties to assist the other ‘at all times and in all places

needful, against all and sundry.’

After his return from the brief but decisive expedition, to the success

of which he had materially contributed, the Governor of the Castle

was entrusted with the custody of some of the most important of the

prisoners taken at Langside. A few months later, his steady adherence

to the Regent brought him the double distinction of being raised to

the dignity of Provost of Edinburgh, and of being not only denounced

by the leaders of the faction which still looked upon the exiled Mary

as the lawful sovereign, but actually ordered by them to constitute

himself a prisoner, within twenty days, in the Castle of Dumbarton.

When next he appeared as a prominent actor in the politics of the time,

circumstances had worked startling changes in the respective positions

of parties, and were already hurrying public men towards a momentous

crisis, under the influence of which old ties were to be violently

severed, and new sympathies and new aims were to bring former friends

into bitter conflict with each other.

The policy which Elizabeth had adopted from the moment when the

Scottish Queen was in her power, and the discovery of her scheme for

assuming the virtual management of Scottish affairs, after obtaining

possession of the infant prince, had produced a strong revulsion in

the feelings of many who had hitherto looked trustingly and hopefully

towards England; and Murray’s popularity, already shaken by his

severity towards Mary’s adherents, after the battle of Langside,

sank lower and lower as proof after proof of his subserviency to the

English Government was produced by his opponents. Those who, realising

the difficulty of his position, and believing that he was as much the

victim as the accomplice of the unscrupulous policy of Elizabeth and

her astute minister, Cecil, were still inclined to give him credit for

sincerity and honesty of purpose, felt their confidence in him die

away when, to propitiate Elizabeth, he consented to the impeachment of

Maitland. Amongst them was Kirkcaldy. At first, indeed, he could not

bring himself to believe in the Regent’s responsibility for the step.

Writing to Bedford, he confessed that he was unable to give a better

or certain ground for the committing of Lethington to ward but the

malice and envy of some of his enemies, who by means of a faction, had

craftily induced the Regent to do that which he was most unwilling to

do. He was assured, he said, that Murray in his heart sorely repented

that ever he had yielded to their passions; and he felt no doubt that

the trial would result in a declaration of the innocence of Lethington

and the confusion of his enemies.

The confidence which Kirkcaldy still endeavoured to feel in his old

friend Murray, was roughly shaken by a letter which he received from

Lord Doune, and from which he learnt that it was a part of the Regent’s

plan to get possession of Edinburgh Castle, and to entrust it to

the keeping of the Laird of Drumwhazel. So far as he was personally

concerned, Grange was so heartily tired of public life, of the

plotting and counter-plotting which seemed to have become the very

essence of politics, that he would very willingly have surrendered his

command, and have withdrawn altogether from the Court. For the sake of

Lethington, however, whose danger he fully realised, and to whom he

knew that he might be of service so long as he retained the power and

influence which the possession of the Castle gave him, he determined

to remain at his post. At the same time, he thought it his duty to

remonstrate with Murray, and to point out to him the injustice of his

conduct towards the Secretary, as well as towards Sir James Balfour who

had also been arrested, and in whom Kirkcaldy was in so far interested,

that, on taking over the command of the Castle, he had pledged his word

for the safety of the former Governor. In his reply, Murray endeavoured

to throw the whole responsibility upon the Council. The members, he

alleged, were so banded together against Maitland and Balfour, and the

charge of murder brought against both of them was so grave, that he

could not take it on himself to release them from custody. He promised,

however, that, at his next meeting with Kirkcaldy, he would explain his

views and show them to be perfectly honourable. In the meantime, he

besought him to suspend his judgment.

Sir William refused to be satisfied with the obvious evasion, and he

met it with a bold and vigorous measure. Seeing that it was really

intended to bring Maitland and Balfour to trial for their lives he

demanded that Morton and Archibald Douglas should be dealt with in

the same manner. He charged them with being ‘upon the council, and

consequently art and part of the King’s murder.’ In support of the

accusation he offered to meet them in single combat with Lord Herries

as his fellow-champion. This stayed the proceedings against the two

prisoners for a while. Still protesting that he was a helpless and

unwilling agent in the matter of their impeachment Murray informed

Kirkcaldy that he intended to send Balfour to St Andrews, and to bring

Lethington to Edinburgh for the purpose of entrusting him to the

safe-keeping of the Governor of the Castle. At the same time, however,

Grange received information that this apparent concession hid a

treacherous plot against himself. It was intended to make the Secretary

an instrument to draw his friend, the Governor, from the Castle into

the town, under pretence of handing the prisoner over to him; and then

to retain him until the fortress had been given over to Drumwhazel.

Kirkcaldy was subsequently to be sent home, and to be appeased with a

gift of the Priory of Pittenweem.

According to Melville, Morton had devised a more unscrupulous plot,

with a view to revenging himself upon Kirkcaldy. ‘He had appointed four

men to slay Grange at the entry of the Regent’s lodging, without the

Regent’s knowledge.’ But the Governor had a scheme of his own, which

effectually thwarted those of his two adversaries. Arguing that if,

as he declared, the Regent had really been coerced into sanctioning

the arrest of Lethington, he would be glad of his escape; but that if,

on the contrary, he were playing a double game, his disappointment at

losing his prisoner would expose his treachery, the Laird of Grange

resolved to rescue Maitland from the hands of his enemies.

On his arrival in Edinburgh the Secretary was committed to the custody

of Alexander Hume of North Berwick. That same evening, about ten

o’clock, Kirkcaldy went to Hume with an order bearing what purported to

be the Regent’s signature. Hume knew that Murray and the Laird had but

lately been on terms of the closest friendship; but he does not appear

to have been aware of their more recent estrangement and antagonism.

Suspecting no deception, and very possibly unacquainted with the

Regent’s handwriting, he assumed the genuineness of the document

presented to him, and allowed Maitland to be quietly conveyed to the

Castle.

When Murray and his friends learnt that the Secretary was no longer

in their power they were in great perplexity, ‘supposing all their

counsels to be disclosed.’ It was thought best, however, that the

Regent should cover his anger for the time, and that he should take the

earliest opportunity of calling upon Grange at the Castle as though

nothing had happened. This he did the very next day. But in his anxiety

to deceive the Governor he protested too much, and gave him more fair

words than he was wont to do, ‘which Grange took in evil part.’

The Castle was becoming the headquarters of Murray’s opponents. He had,

prior to Maitland’s arrest, induced the Duke of Chastelherault and Lord

Herries to come to Edinburgh with a view to discussing the position of

affairs, and had then handed them as prisoners to the custody of the

Governor. Grange had duly received them, but he treated them as friends

and as guests, and protested against the treachery of which they had

been the victims. John Wood, an ardent partisan of the Regent’s, was

sent to the Castle for the purpose of appeasing and conciliating the

Governor. The substance of their conversation, as reported by Melville,

goes far to explain Kirkcaldy’s attitude towards the party of which

he had once been a zealous supporter. ‘I marvel at you,’ said Wood,

‘that you will be offended at this; for how shall we, who are my Lord’s

dependers, get rewards, but by the wreck of such men?’--‘Yea,’ replied

Grange, ‘is that your holiness? I see nothing among you but envy,

greediness, and ambition; whereby you will wreck a good Regent, and

ruin the country.’

In spite of Murray’s assumed indifference, Lethington’s escape caused

him the most grievous disappointment and annoyance; and it was evident

that he and Grange were gradually being carried further apart. With

a view to preventing an open rupture between them, Melville devised

a plan, which he took it on himself to lay before the Regent. He

suggested that Lethington should retire to France, and that after his

friend’s departure, Kirkcaldy should, of his own accord, resign his

command of Edinburgh Castle. The Regent, however, still protested

that he bore Maitland no ill-will, and had no wish to drive him into

exile. As to Grange, he said he had too many obligations to him, and

too great proofs of his fidelity to mistrust him. It had never been

his intention, he again declared, to take the Castle from him; and if

it were not in his keeping already, he would entrust it to him rather

than to any other. He even went further than that, and denied that he

entertained any suspicion of either Grange or the Secretary. In proof

of the sincerity of his words, he went up to the Castle and ‘conferred

friendly with them of all his affairs, with a merry countenance, and

casting in many purposes, minding them of many straits and dangers

they had formerly been together engaged in.’ But both Kirkcaldy and

Maitland were too well acquainted with him, and had too long ‘been

his chief advisers under God,’ not to detect the violent effort which

this show of friendship cost him. No good to either party resulted

from the interview. Indeed, it is scarcely possible to doubt that

an irremediable breach was only prevented by Murray’s tragic and

untimely end. He was shot by Bothwellhaugh on the 23rd of January 1569.

Political differences were forgotten in the presence of death; and

Kirkcaldy’s grief at his former friend and comrade’s untimely fate was

heartfelt and sincere. When Murray’s body was solemnly carried to its

resting-place in the Cathedral of St Giles, he was amongst those who

came to pay him the last tribute of respect. It was he who, bearing

the banner of the murdered Earl, headed the mournful procession from

Holyrood to the church.

_X._ DEFECTION?

DURING the troubled days that intervened between the death of Murray

and the regency of Lennox, Sir William Kirkcaldy, whilst continuing to

assert his allegiance to the youthful King, maintained his intercourse

with Maitland and the other leading men of the party which openly

favoured the captive Queen. The correspondence of the time bears

evident testimony to the importance which his possession of the Castle

gave him, and to the doubts and fears with which his conduct inspired

Elizabeth’s ministers. On the 7th of April 1570, Randolph, who had

returned to Scotland, wrote to Cecil that he had found in Grange great

honesty and dutifulness to his sovereign. Less than a week later he

repeated the statement, but with a suggestive limitation, and with the

expression of his fears that the Laird of Grange might be ‘enchanted’

by Lethington, whose efforts to bring back his mistress to Scotland

were attributed rather to a desire ‘to spite others than to profit

himself.’ Writing to Cecil on the 21st of the same month, Sussex, the

leader of the English forces that had recently spread devastation

through Teviotdale, informed him that ‘Grange was vehemently

suspected of his fellows;’ and ‘the defection of Grange’ was one of

the indications which, about the same time, he gave Elizabeth of the

gradual falling off of the King’s adherents. In a communication bearing

the date of the 25th, Morton forwarded a scarcely less unfavourable

account. The furthest they could get from the Captain of the Castle,

he told Randolph, was that he should remain neutral. In explanation of

this luke-warmness, the writer repeated a rumour current at the time,

that Kirkcaldy had been bribed by Mary with the gift of the Priory of

St Andrews. That, he added, was the Secretary’s device, for _Judas non

dormit_.

A similar report had reached the Governor’s ears, and he gave it a

direct and emphatic denial, in a letter which he addressed to Randolph

on the 26th of April, and which deserves notice as containing his own

apology for the line of conduct he was following:--

‘BROTHER THOMAS,--I received your writing this Wednesday at nine of

the clock, and perceive thereby of divers and sundry reports ye have

heard of me, and of your desires therefore to be assured, either by

word or writ, what ye may trust unto. Therefore, this is to assure

you, that I remain, and shall continue, the King’s faithful subject,

and shall maintain his authority aye and while the same be taken away

by order of law. As to the pursuit of my Lord Regent’s murder, I shall

be as ready to the revenging thereof as any in Scotland; but I will

not take the deadly feud upon me of all the Hamiltons, as some would I

should do.

‘My grey hair has let me understand what truth and constancy is in our

nobility; therefore, brother, albeit I will not enterprise as I have

done, yet I pray you and others not to have the worst opinion of me;

for since he is dead I mind never to subject myself over-far to any

of them that are left behind, for I know their humour and condition

too well. I am sure it is come to your ears, that I should give over

this house for the Priory of St Andrews, to the Lord Seaton; which,

truly, was never meant nor yet laid to my charge, but is only sown

abroad by them that hate me, and would make me odious to the world.

Therefore, this shall be to assure you, and all others, that I shall

keep this house to the King’s behalf, until an order be taken, or else

the highest house in it shall be the lowest. But now, to be plain with

you, your manner of proceedings make many to suspect ye intend to do

otherwise with us than ye have set out by your proclamation; for so

have ye begun upon the Lord Maxwell, who has never offended you, nor

yet left the King’s obedience, nor yet had to do with your rebels.

‘As I wrote before unto you, seeing that ye have wrecked Teviotdale,

whereby your Mistress’s honour is repaired, I pray you seek to do us

no more harm; for I am sure in the end you shall lose more than you

can gain thereby; for the Queen your Mistress shall spend much silver,

and lose our hearts in the end; for whatsoever ye do to any Scotsman,

the whole nation will think them interested thereby. Amongst other

things, I am sure there come many evil reports of me to you, for the

putting to liberty of my prisoners. But when ye shall understand what

I had for me so to do, I trust ye shall be satisfied. As I spoke to

you and wrote, if your Mistress pleases she may take up this whole

division that is in Scotland, and make the whole to be hers and at her

devotion. I will trouble you no further; but, I pray you, do as ye

would be done to; or else, all the cloaks ye can cover your cause with

will be disclosed in the end. I am preparing this house to resist all

that shall pursue, and to hold you at the gate, whensoever ye put on

your jack. Till farther occasion, I bid you heartily well to fare. At

Edinburgh Castle, 26th April, at eleven hours, in haste.--Your brother

in perpetuum,

W. KIRKCALDY.’

Following closely upon this, Grange dispatched to the Earl of Sussex

a further and fuller explanation of his conduct. It was in reply to a

letter which the Lord-Lieutenant had written a few days earlier, and of

which the substance may easily be inferred from Kirkcaldy’s reply.

‘MY VERY GOOD LORD,--I have received your letter, dated at Berwick,

the 26th of this instant, the sum whereof is to utter unto me such

occurrents as by report have gone to your Lordship of my doings, to

the end that by my affirmation or reproving of them, your Lordship

may understand what credit may be given to the said reports. The

whole matter rests in two heads--the one that I have declined from

mine old friends in this realm, which heretofore have desired the

amity of England; the other that I have given countenance, or gone

further, with others that have showed another course of their doings,

and capitulated with the French. Both the points are general, and

therefore the more difficult for me to answer them particularly. Yet

for your Lordship’s satisfaction, I will not leave you altogether

unanswered. As to the former point--that I have declined from my old

friends--I trust none of themselves will blame me of inconstancy in

friendship; and by the contrary, sure I am such as have of old used

friendly dealings with me, and were worthy of themselves with whom an

honest man might maintain friendship, are yet still with me in the

same degree of amity they were wont to be. No occasion hath proceeded

of me, by my behaviour, to the breaking thereof; as also that all my

friends, so far as I know, are yet still desirous of the amity of

England. If any man in this realm will charge me herein particularly,

when, by his own letter or speech to myself, he will utter his mind,

I shall answer him accordingly. As to the other point, I have not

altered my accustomed form of dealing with the nobility of this realm,

nor used me otherwise towards them than becomes a man of my mean

estate. I have not given countenance to any that, to my knowledge,

mean unhonestly either to Scotland or England; nor yet have gone

either further or nearer with any that in their doings have showed

an undutiful course. Who have capitulated with the French, or after

what sort, I know not. A Frenchman, indeed, was lately here, sent,

as he affirmed, from the King of France. With him I spake, upon his

desire; and therein, I think I have done nothing against my duty. For,

this realm being at peace with all nations, I see no cause why the

subjects of all nations may not freely resort amongst us, and have

communication with us in peaceable manner, principally Princes’ avowed

servants. In all his conference with me, I assure your Lordship, he

used no language with me prejudicial to the amity betwixt these two

realms. How others have in particular dealt with him, I know not. But

for mine own part, I wish no occasion be offered, on either part, to

disturb the quietness of this Isle; and whosoever shall offer best

means for the maintenance thereof, his doings I shall best allow. For

conclusion, as I have ever naturally been affected towards the amity

of England, and, in particular, at my poor power, have borne a special

devotion towards the Queen’s Majesty, as well for benefits received

of her father and brother, by me and my friends, as for Religion’s

sake, and her honourable dealings with this realm, in the beginning

of her Majesty’s reign, so I will wish her Highness shall procure the

union of this nobility, and I doubt not she may bring it to pass, if

it please her. And if your Lordship will take that course in hand, I

trust assuredly it shall be easy for your Lordship to begin and for

her Majesty to end whereby the whole nobility of Scotland may remain

at her Majesty’s devotion; and I, for my part, most earnestly desire

it. And so, leaving to trouble your Lordship further, for the present,

I commit your Lordship to the protection of God. At Edinburgh Castle,

the 29th of April, 1570.

WM. KIRKCALDY.’

Grange’s letters were not agreeable to the English agents. To accept

his explanation would have been to admit that, as he very clearly

hinted, the defection was not on his side, but on that of the English

Government, which, now that it had Mary in its power, was working

as persistently and as unscrupulously as ever the Guises had done,

to reduce Scotland to political dependence and subjection, and was

consequently losing the confidence and alienating the sympathy

of many of those who had been staunch supporters of the English

alliance so long as they recognised in it a guarantee of their own

liberty. Randolph’s reply, written on the first of May, ignored

the important point, and confined itself to the secondary matters

mentioned by Grange. The writer expressed his satisfaction at learning

the Governor’s determination to maintain the King’s authority, but

professed his inability to understand the meaning of the proviso

‘until the same be taken away by order of law.’ He justified the

severe treatment of Maxwell on the ground that he had received and

maintained the Queen of England’s rebels; and, as to the liberation of

the Castle prisoners, he oracularly pronounced that Kirkcaldy would

some day repent it. He avoided expressing either belief or incredulity

in respect of the bestowal and acceptance of the Priory of St Andrews,

which the Laird had directly and emphatically denied, by bantering his

‘brother William’ about his unfitness to figure as an ecclesiastic.

‘It was indeed most wonderful unto me,’ he said, ‘when I heard that

you should become a Prior. That vocation agreeth not with anything

that ever I knew in you, saving for your religious life, led under the

Cardinal’s hat, when we were both students in Paris.’ He concluded with

a sarcastic allusion to Kirkcaldy’s letter to the Lord-Lieutenant.

‘The Earl of Sussex has made me privy to a very eloquent, fine-written

letter of yours, which passes my wit to understand. Either you have

lately altered your hand, your style, your manner, and your meaning,

or used the pen of some fine secretary.’

Sussex’s reply was even less conciliatory. He considered the principal

points raised by him to be utterly unanswered. He was quite aware that

it was lawful for Kirkcaldy to use conference with the French or any

other nation, but he remembered the time when he would not have dealt

with them without the Queen of England’s knowledge and consent. As to

the earnest desire that the Queen should take in hand the union of the

nobility of Scotland, those words were very honourable but general,

and yielded no ground to conceive the writer’s meaning in particulars.

Referring to himself, he said that the course he had hitherto held

consisted of two points: the one, to be revenged on such as had

maintained the rebels of England; and the other, to continue by all

means the good affection borne towards the Queen of England by many of

the nobility of Scotland, of which number he had always accepted Grange

to be a special person to be accounted of.

Perceiving from this that Sussex was not ‘fully satisfied with his last

writing,’ Kirkcaldy informed him that he meant to send a special friend

to let him know ‘his full intentions in all things.’ If this messenger

was ever sent, the result of his mission was not satisfactory; for, on

the 4th of May, the Lord-Lieutenant addressed what he himself called ‘a

plain letter’ to the Lairds of Grange and Lethington. After reproaching

them with the ingratitude of their conduct towards the Queen of

England, he warned them that, if they continued in their course, he

would take the field with all the forces at his disposal, and not fail

to take that revenge which should be honourable for his Mistress.

Neither threats nor blandishments could avail to turn Kirkcaldy

from the purpose which he had set himself. That which, to those who

were anxious and impatient to have the weight of his influence and

the support of his authority on their side, seemed the result of a

halting policy, was due to his earnest and sincere desire to avert, if

possible, an outbreak of hostilities. He still cherished a lingering

hope that Elizabeth might adopt a course of action which would not

oblige him wholly to cast aside his old sympathy with England. As

late as the 5th of July, Randolph was able to say of him that ‘he

doubted not of his honesty.’ If proof were required that the whole

responsibility for the apparently vacillating conduct of those who,

like Grange, put the welfare of their country above mere party

considerations, lay with the English Queen, it could be adduced in

the very words of her own agent. Writing to Sussex, Randolph did not

hesitate to inform him that the public feeling was one of distrust

in Elizabeth, ‘who so often changed her course.’ That, he said, was

in almost every man’s speech, and preached in pulpit plainer than he

listed to write.

About the middle of July, the King’s Lords, as the opponents of

the exiled Queen were now called, took a step which did not augur

well for the pacification of the country. They held a convention in

Edinburgh, for the purpose of conferring the Regency on Lennox, who had

practically been chosen by Elizabeth. He had been for years a pensioner

on her bounty, and he was known to be wholly devoted to her interests.

If Grange had been actuated by the sentiments of hostility which some

chose to attribute to him, he could have struck a decisive blow by

bringing down the Tolbooth about the ears of those who were assembled

within it with the intention of sanctioning and adopting a policy

which he believed to be fraught with danger to Scotland. He contented

himself, however, with absenting himself from the convention, to which

he had been summoned, as a member of the Privy Council,--a dignity

which he held in virtue of his office, as Provost of Edinburgh, and

with refusing ‘to shoot off any piece of ordnance upon request, after

the proclamation.’

Instead of giving Grange credit for his attitude of neutrality,

Sussex chose to take umbrage at it. In another of those letters which

he prided himself on writing ‘somewhat plainly,’ he reproached the

Governor with inconsistency in professing to be ‘at the Queen of

England’s devotion in all matters that might continue the amity between

both realms,’ and yet refusing to join the Lords convened in Edinburgh.

On the very same day, the Earl showed the sincerity of his own desire

for amity by writing to Cecil, to suggest a pretext on which the West

Borders of Scotland might be invaded, and the Scots weakened--a pretext

which Elizabeth admitted that she ‘liked very well,’ and which, before

long, was duly seized upon.

Throughout all this plotting and intriguing, the party which had Knox

and the Presbyterian clergy at its head, still continued, in its

hostility to Mary, to put faith in Elizabeth and her ministers. To

the members of it, Grange’s policy caused the greatest anxiety, and

the remonstrances which they deemed it their duty to address to their

former champion were frequent and vigorous. Verse as well as prose was

brought to bear upon him, and a ‘Hailsome Admonition,’ published by the

balladist, Robert Semple, presumably about the beginning of September,

when the interference of both France and Spain was feared, may serve

to show the spirit of these exhortations. It opens with an ungrudging

recognition of Grange’s services in the past:--

O Lamp of licht and peirless Peirll of pryse!

O worthy Knicht, in martiall deidis most ding![3]

O worthy wicht, most vailzeant, war, and wyse!

O Captaine, ay constant to the King!

O Lustie Lord, that will na wayis maling!

O Barroun bauld, of Cheualry the floure!

O perfyte Prouest, but maik into this Ring![4]

O gudely Grange, but spot vnto this houre!

After recapitulating Kirkcaldy’s exploits, the poet touches on a

delicate subject--the disinterested policy of England--and indicates

by his doubtless sincere belief in it, the real and essential cause of

disagreement between Grange and his former associates.

Quhat neids ye skar, thocht Ingland do support vs,

To puneis sic as proudly dois Rebell?

That tyme at Leith thou knawis they did comfort vs,

And maid vs fre quhen strangers did vs quell,

And never socht na profitte to thame sell:

Thou neids not feir, that hous thay never craifit:

The Regent sayis, sa far as I heir tell,

Wald thow be trew thair can na better haif it.

A threat more sorrowful than angry, of Divine vengeance, if the Captain

abandoned the cause which Semple and his friends still believed to be

that of religion, closes the spirited poem:--

Thocht at this tyme thow haif that warlyke craig,

And is in hart curagious and bald,

God will nocht mys to scurge the with a plaig

Gif in his caus thow lat thy curage cald.

As thow may se, thick scurgis monyfald

Lich vpon thame that proudly dois disdane.

Except the Lord be watche man of the hald,

Quha walkis the same, thair laubour is in vane.

Before the close of the year 1570, an incident which was not directly

connected with the politics of either party, and to which but little

importance would probably have been attached, but for the intense

excitement of the times, brought Kirkcaldy into direct conflict with

John Knox himself. In the beginning of December, Sir William’s first

cousin, John Kirkcaldy, the same in whose quarrel he had fought with

Ralph Evers, was called to attend a justice-court in Dunfermline,

as a juryman on a murder trial. During his stay in the town, he was

attacked, whilst peacefully going to church, by George and Laurence

Durie, brothers to the Commendator of the Abbey, and by several

friends of theirs, amongst whom was a young man named Henry Seton. The

immediate cause of the quarrel is not stated. But the two families

stood on such bad terms that a very slight circumstance may have

sufficed to give rise to it. According to Grange’s statement, the house

of Durie had done many injuries to him and his; and he attributed the

death of his father-in-law, the Laird of Raith, who had been executed

on a charge of treason, to the animosity of the head of that family.

‘Since that time,’ he asserted further, ‘the Duries had continuallie

troubled Raith’s posteritie and friends, in their righteous titles,

native estates and possessions.’ On the present occasion, the actual

aggressor was George Durie, who ‘ignominiously buffeted John Kirkcaldy

with his fist.’ When the latter attempted to defend himself, he was set

upon by Laurence Durie, and Henry Seton, and would, in all probability,

have been killed, if the Provost had not opportunely interfered. A few

days later, Seton, being in Edinburgh, chanced to meet some of the

Laird of Grange’s servants in the streets, and insulted them, not with

words, but ‘with jesting and mocking countenance.’ This having been

reported to the Laird, he resolved to punish the young man for the

double offence of abetting the Duries and affronting the Kirkcaldys.

For this purpose he sent six of his men to Leith, where Seton was to

embark on his return journey to the Fifeshire shore, and gave them

instructions to administer a sound castigation with cudgels, but, on

no account to use their arms. Finding himself suddenly attacked, the

young man drew his sword, and used it to such good purpose that one of

his assailants fell seriously wounded to the ground. At the sight of

his blood, his companions forgot the restriction that had been put upon

them, and continued the fray with sharper weapons. Out-numbered as he

was, Seton might have succeeded in reaching the boat that was waiting

for him, if he had not unfortunately tripped and fallen over a cable.

As he lay helpless, some of the aggressors thrust their swords into

him, and left him dead on the shore. After perpetrating this outrage,

they retreated at full speed towards the Castle, closely followed by a

number of the citizens. One of them was captured before reaching the

North Loch, which was frozen at the time, and over which the other

four succeeded in crossing. Here the pursuers were held in check by

the Captain, who having noticed the chase, had come out with a body of

soldiers, and threatened to fire if any further attempt were made to

molest the fugitives.