1

John Erskine, Earl of Mar Advocate of the Middle Way, 1548-1572

Elizabeth E. Brain

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of M.A. e Table of Contents e 1 The Family of Erskine 2 Between Queen and Congregation 3 Erskine•s Support of the Reformation 4 The Earldom of Mar and the Royal Marriage 5 Mar and the Protestant Opposition 6 The Regencies of Moray and Lennox: Mar Remains Steadfast 7 Mar Becomes Regent -- Outlying Areas and Foreign Affaira 8 The Struggle to Establish a Central Government 9 The Regent Mar•s Maltreatment of the Kirk 10 Morton Takes Control. e Abbreviations Used e A.P.S. Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, London, 1814, II, III. A.T.S. Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland, ed. J.B. Paul';-'Edinburgh, 1911-1916, IX, X, XI.

c.s.P. ca~end~ of Sts.te Papers Rela.ting !Q. Scotland and MBrt sueen of Scots, I, II, ed. J. Bain, Edinburgh, 1 9 -1900; III, IV, ed. W.K. Boyd, Edinburgh, 1903-1905 E.R.S. Excheguer Rolls of Scotland, ed. G.P. M'Neill, Edinburgh, 1898-1899, VIII, XIX, XX. Fore. Eliz. Calendar of State Papers, Elizabeth, I-VII, ed. J. SteVënson, London, 1863-1870, VIII-X, ed. A.J. Crosby, 1871-1876. R.G.S. Register of the Great Seal of Scotland, ed. J.B. Paul, and J.M. Thomson, Edrnburgh, 1883-1886, III, IV. R.P.C. Register of the Pri!l Council of Scotland, ed. J. H. Burton~Edinburgh, 1877-187E; I, II. R.P.S. Register of the Privy Seal of Scotland, ed. D.H. Fleming, and J.~eVëridge, Edinburgh, 1936-1952, III, IV.

e e Preface

Thou~h much has been written about events in Seotland at the time of the reformation, there is still a need for studies of ind.ividuals involved in these events, and their effeet ·on the history of their time. 'l'he ob,iect of this thesis is to trace the eareer of a moderate, John, F.arl of Mar, and show how he influenced the nolitical events in Seotland in the second third of the sixteenth eentury.

I wish to thank m,y director of studies, Dr. w. s. Reid for the advice and encouragement he had t:!'i ven me, and also the staff of

~dpath Library and Mr. John Tmrie of Ree:ister House, F.dinbure:h for the help they have given me in llbtainin!?' source material, and my mother for her painstaking care in proof readine:. ottawa, Ontario,

April, 1965. - 1 - e Chapter I e Family Background

Much has been written about the history of Scotland in the sixteenth century, or rather, much has been written about that roma.ntic, intriguing, mysterious, "tragic", and perhaps, slightly foolish, figure, Mary, Queen of Scots. Despite this large outpouring of literature, much of it polemical, and intended mainly to denigrate, or to exalt, Mary, important aspects and persona of the period have been neglected. The sixteenth century was an important turning point in European history. When it opened all Europe was Catholic; the unified, centralized nation state was growing in importance and power; nationalism was replacing religion as the important factor in the lives of many; in England, after long years of civil discord the Tudor dynasty was establishing itself on the throne. At its close religious unity was gone for ever; Protestantism was firmly established in England and Scotland, parts of Germany, and the northern Netherlands. Religion had once again become a political force, sometimes allying itself with nationalism and reinforcing political loyalty, and sometimes encouraging sedition and rebellion. In England, shortly after the close of the century, a new dynasty, the Stewarts, came to the throne.

In Scotland, as elsewhere, this was a time of religious and political strife. The Protestant, pro-English party - 2 - e had, by the end of the century, gained the upper hand, but e for many years the outcome of the struggle was in doubt. During these years of uncertainty and struggle John Erskine, Earl of Mar pla.yed an important role, in times of criais usually trying to hold the balance between the two parties, and preserve the peace of the country, and always steering his course along the middle way. In the sixteenth century the Erskines had been guardians to infant Stewarts, and Marts father had been governor of the important royal castles of Stirling and Edinburgh. Mar himself played a prominent and rewarding part in the factional struggles in the third quarter of the century, and died as Regent for the infant James VI.

When James V died in December 1542 after the disastrous Battle of Solway Moss, his daughter and heiress, Mary, was only one week old. Scotland was entering on another, and perhaps the worst, in a long series of minorities. There ensued a struggle for power between Cardinal Beaton, advocate of the old faith and the ttauld alliance", and the Earl of Arran, who had leanings towards the new faith and a new alliance--with England. Arran, who was the next in line of succession to the throne, had the beat legal claim to the governorship of the realm, but Beaton produced a forged will in which James V named him e.s head of the government • and joined three of the most powerful of the nobility with him as assessors.l By gifts and promises of gifts he won - 3 - e the support of many of the nobles. To counter this anti­ e English influence Henry VIII sent back to Scotland a number of the lords captured at Solway, who had promised to work for an Anglo-Scottish alliance, and the marriage of Queen Mary with Henry's son Edward. Along with the "assured lords 11 the Earl of Angus and his brother, strong supporters of the alliance with England, were restored to

the country. Beaton 1 s forgery of the will was discovered, and Arran, temporarily at least, won the struggle for the regency. Beaton was seized, and imprisoned by the Douglases; in March 1543 Arran was declared governor of the realm by Parliament. Though he had lost the first round, Beaton was not yet out of the fight. He managed to escape from the custody of the Douglases and began to plot with John Hamilton, Abbot of Paisley, Arran's half-brother.

After the Parliament of 1543, Sir Ralph Sadler negotiated a peace treaty between England and Scotland, including an agreement for the marriage of Queen Mary to Prince Edward. Despite the opposition of the Cardinal and the clergy, the treaty was agreed to by the nobility.2 Treaties with England were distinctly unpopular in Scotland, and Beaton,

no~ joined by Hamilton, Abbot of Paisley, continued to urge the old alliance and the old faith. Arran began to waver--a condition which became continual--conferred with Beaton, e was received back into the Roman Gatholic, church and e associated Beaton and Mary of Guise with himself in a new council of government. A new Parliament annulled the treaties - 4 - e with England, renewed the alliance with France, and re­ e affirmed the laws against heres~r. Beaton became Chancellor. In his search for an ally against Arran Beaton had requested the French government to send Matthew Stewart, 'Earl of Lennox, back to Scotland. Lennox, who was next in line of succession after Arran could urge his claim to the succession as superior to Arran•s on the grounds that the

marriage of Arran 1 s parents was doubtful. Beaton promised Lennox that he would be governor of Scotland and husband of

Mary of Guise.3 By the time Lennox arrived at Court the position had changed and Beaton had won the support of Arran. Realizing at length that he had been deceived, and that all

Beaton 1 s promises to him would never be fulfilled, Lennox withdrew to his own country around Glasgow, then to Dunbarton and raised an army, which was joined by sorne of

Arran 1 s former supporters. In the meantime Henry VIII, angered by the Scottish repudiation of the alliance with England, sent to Scotland, a fleet which took Leith, plundered and burned Edinburgh, and ravaged the surrounding countryside. Lennox was forced to flee the country and take refuge in England, but the "rough wooingtt continued. In 1545 Hertford invaded the border areas, and boasted of burning seven monasteries and over 240 villages and towns.4 In 1547 the Scots were defeated at Pinkie and the English sejzed and. e fortified Haddington. The Scots appealed to France for the e protection of their ki~gdom, and .agreed to send Mary to Fr~nce to be educated there and.to marry the Dauphin, rather \ - 5 -

than have her fall into the hands of the English. In these e years, while Scotland was being invaded almost annually by the English in order to impose by force an alliance which the • invasions only rendered all the more unpopular, the country

was also the scene of virtual civil wa~ between factions of the nobility.

How did the nobles achieve a position in which they were able to disturb the peace of the realm with impunity, not only at this time, but also during the many previous minorities, and even at times under the rule of strong kings? The undue power of the nobles was largely responsible for the difficulties found over the centuries in imposing internal peace and order in Scotland. What was the basis of this power? Following the ;,_/ Wars of Independance there had been large transferences of land; Robert III especially, made sweeping grants of land. An important feature of these grants of land was the extensive powers which accompanied them. A grant of barony made the landowner the military leader and the judge of the men on his estates. A grant of regality gave him the sovereignty of the territory, and set up a separate jurisdiction which often defied the Crown; along with it often went the right of levying, and keeping the great eustoms of the burghs in the regality.5 In addition to the power held by individual nobles, various nobles and lords were bound together by bands of alliance and e ttmanrent". These alliances, particularly those between the most powerful lords, were a formide:ble menace to the Crown. e A close union generally existed between the head of a great - 6 - e house and the cadet branches of his family, all usually devoted e to his support. The superior of the land was held responsible for the conduct of his vassals, and they in turn looked to him for protection and support and so would aid hlm in all his causes.

In return for such extensive powers the nobles had important functions to fulfill. The most important duty for those holding by feudal tenure was military service. Most of the free­ holders were required, by the terms of their charters, to supply a certain quota of well-armed men, and were responsible for bringing all the men on their astates into the field when summoned to do so. If the crown was weak or unpopular it could not make its lieges perform their military service. The most important nobles tended to become the principal officers. Their feudal levies were used to maintain law and arder, and at the same time their powers were increased. Sométimes special commissions were granted; the House of Argyle received many commissions against the Highland clans; Ws.rdenships of the Marches were often given to great border lords. The feudal lords were worked into the national organization, such as it was, for the administration of justice. In many cases they were named hereditary sheriffs of districts in which they held large areas of land. Where they held grants of baronies and regalities the administration of ordinary law was entrusted to them. The nobles often abused their wide powers and neglected to carry out their duties. From the time of Robert III there was hardly a struggle in which one or more disgruntled Scots lords were - 7 - e not actively aupporting the Englj_sh. During roye.l minori ties, e and of these there were me.ny, Scotla.nd was complet ely dependent on the great nobles to defend her against the English and against internal dangers. The great power of the nobles and the way in which they used it restricted the growth of the powers of the crown, and prevented the development of a strong centralized nation state, such as those which arose in other parts of Europe at the time.

As well as hindering the growth of the powers of the crown, this system produced a constant state of petty civil war in Scotland. Whenever they were able the feudal nobles assumed the right to carry on private feuds.6 If one great house were supnorting the royal government, any house with which it had sorne private quarrel would generally oppose the crown. The crown could only gain power by supporting one faction against another, and this at the expanse of increasing the power of the faction which it supported.

It was not only political affaira in which the nobles played a most influential role; their power was also a key factor in the life of the church. Both crown and nobles were interested in using the wealth of the church for their own

ends. The first four ~ameses took active steps to increase their rights of control over preferment to the greater e benefices of the church. To reward the service of a favourite the king could simply name him to a rich benefice; this was e ·an easy way of naying the officers of state, but i t mea.nt - 8 - e e that the duties attached to the benefice usually were not carried out. The great abbeys and priories fell into the hands of illegitimate

sons of the royal house or of younger sons of noble families; their

revenues were used to support the nobles. Often a lord held a

church office in çommendam, delegating the spiritual duties to

others. High offices in the church were filled with men concerned

very much for the revenues of the office, and very little for the

care of souls. Once a member of a noble family had an important

office in the church, others of his family were generally given

offices under him. Certain priories and abbeys became regarded

by great families as hereditary possessions. With the increased

burden of taxation which the church had to bear in the 1530's,

feuing became commonly used as a means of raising money. The real

ownership of the church's property passed from its hands and into

the hands of those, mainly the nobles, to whom it feued its lands.

The church had other problems as weil. Not only was much of

its land passing into the hands of the nobles, but the manifest

corruption in the church in Scotland was bringing it into contempt

all over the country. Money paid to Rome could obtain dispensations

for many irregularities -- a priest could purchase permission

to hold several livings, legitimation of illegitimate children could 7 be bought, as could a release from vows. Bishoprics and monasteries

had become very wealthy, and because of this wealth hig~ office

in the church became attractive to unworthy men. Not

only were unsuitable persons attracted to church posts, but - 9 - e benefices were.often bestowed ~ çommendam. Ecclesiastics e were given pluralities of livings; church positions were bestowed on laymen. Parish churches had often been assigned

to bishoprics and monastries~ with part of the revenues of

auch a parish going to the cathedral or monastry 1 and the living thus being impoverished. Many parishes became served

by illiterate and ill-paid priests, who~ because of their

poverty~ pressed for payments their parishioners could little affàrd • Little or nothing was available for the poor of the parish or the upkeep of the parish church. Most of the bishops

and abbots, b~ mid-sixteenth century, led secular and often disreputable lives. neglecting their spirituel offices and bringing their whole order into disrepute. Little care was

taken for the parish clergy, who were often illiterate~ and underpaid, and who led lives little different from those of their parishioners. At this time the church in Scotland possessed almost half the landed wealth of the Kingdom. This was during a period when the financial situation of the crown was deteriorating and there was an urgent need for new sources of revenue. One of the obvious sources would be the great wealth of the church, which could be tapped by ts.xation on church property, or by the stronger methode which Henry VIII

was urging on his nephew. By means of subsidies the church retained James v•s allegiance. In the winter of 1534-35 a

permanent settlement was made. A yearly sum of~ 1400, for the support of a College of Justice, was to be payable out of

certain benefices set aside for the purpose; the king was v e - 10 - e to enjoy the revenues of bishoprics for a year when they fell

vacant, with the right of nominating the successors to fill the

vacant posts, which could be used as an additional source of

revenue; the clergy agreed to supply the king with a sum of 8 f72,000 Scots, to be paid over a period of four years. This

meant that the Scottish king had access to the wealth of the

Church without recourse to auch drastic measures as those used

by Henry VIII.

The contempt felt by many for a corrupt church was

quickened with the public performance of plays, and circulation

of books and broadsheets, satirizing the state of affaira in

the church. Since the beginning of the sixteenth century

anti•papal sentiment had been growing in Scotland; since 1520 9 Lutheranism had been becoming increasingly popular. Men had

appeared who preached reform, and who appealed to the mood of

the people. The clergy began to see that there must be some

effort at reform from within if the church were to survive. In

1549, 1552 and 1559 Provincial Councils of the Roman Catholic Church

in Scotland sought to correct the multifarious abuses. In 1549

they stated what seemed to be the main causes of anti-clericalism

andberesy -- corruption of morals and lewdness of life in churchmen,

and the ignorance and lack of education of many of the clergy --

and set themselves to remedy them. One of the statutes ordered e - 11 - e parish priests and bishops to preach in person at least four times 10 a year. The Council of 1552 admitted that neither the bishops

nor the lower clergy bad sufficient knowledge of the Scripture

to be able to instruct the people in the Catholic faith. A

Catechism in the Scots tongue bad been prepared, and it was

decreed that this should be put into use. The catechism did

not improve matters, for its only effect was to call attention to

the ignorance of the clergy.

While these rather ineffectual attempts were being made to

correct some of the most galling abuses in the church, heresy

bad become more than just an attack on corruption in the church;

it bad become an attack on the doctrines themselves. Reliance on

scriptural warrant rather than the traditions of the church was a 11 cardinal point in the preaching of the Scottish reformers.

Among the middle and lower classes especially, the new movement

was adwancing rapidly.

In this setting John Erskine would play an important part.

Members of the Erskine family had played an influential role in the

political affairs of the sixteenth century. Part of their influence

was due to the key position of their lands. In Aberdeenshire they

held the barony of Kellie, in Kincardinshire they had lands on the

North Esk. They held the lordships of Brechin and Nevar and also

the burgh of Brechin in Angus. Their main seat was the castle of

Alloa in Clackmannanshire; as well they owned the lands across e - 12 - e the Forth from Alloa in Stirlingshire, and various other lordships along the Forth below and above the burgh of Stirling. The

Erskines appear to have derived their name from the lands of

Erskine, of which they had been in possession at least since 12 the reign of Alexander 11. As well as the lands of Erskine,

on the Clyde below Glasgow, the Erskines also held the barony of Ovir and

Nethir Dalnottir, directly across the Clyde from Erskine. Erskine

was an important crossing point on the Clyde. The Erskines also

held lands in Berwick, Roxburgh, and Selki~k. 13 The abbeys of

Dryburgh, Cambuskenneth, and Inchmahome were under the influence

of the Erskine family; their abbots in this period were usually

younger sons of the Erskines. And so, in this way, the Erskine

family controlled important lands right across the centre of the

country, especially on the Forth and Clyde, and also had lands in the

north-west, and south-west.

John, 5th Lord Erskine succeeded to the· title after his father's

death at Flodden. Be married a daughter of Archibald, second Earl

of Argyle. By a grant of May 15, 1525, he was made hereditary 14 captain of Stirling Castle, for which he received f8U annually.

In 1528, when James V escaped from the hands of the Douglases, it

was to Stirling Castle that he fled, where the captain was one of

his supporters. Earlier Erskine's daughter Margaret had married

Douglas of Lochleven, but loyalty to the crown seems to have been • e - 13 - e stronger in Lord Erskine than loyalty to his daughter's husband's

family. Perhaps also Lord Erskine had a higher future in mind for

his daughter, for she became the king's mistress for a time, and

in 1536 James consulted the Pope on the possibility of getting 15 a divorce for her so that he could marry her. When James V was

negotiating to marry the daughter of the Duke of Vendôme, Lord

Erskine was sent to France as ambassador to arrange the wedding,

and Lord Erskine's son accompanied James on his trip to France 16 for the marriage. When James saw the lady in question he changed

his mind, and married the daughter of the King of France instead.

During the struggle between Arran and Beaton for the government

of Scot1and after the death of James V, Erskine was regarded by

both aides as a man who could be trusted. When Arran decided to

treat for peace in the spring of 1543, it was agreed that the Queen

should be taken to Stirling on condition that four of the principal

nobility should be chosen as her guardians. Among those chosen 17 was Lord Erskine. Sir Ralph Sadler, the English ambassador,

regarded Erskine as belonging to the Cardinal's party, and feared

that if he wanted to take the Queen away from Stirling Castle, Lords

Livingston and Lindsay, two of the guardians, would be unable to 18 prevent it. Lord Erskine had custody of the Queen's persan till

1548, when she was sent to France. Along with Lord Livingston he

accompanied her to France, where he remained for several years, despite 19 1"11 h ea 1 t h , 1n . 1oya 1 serv1ce . upon h"1s queen • Loyalty to the • royal family seems to have the keynote of his public life. - 14 - e e Other members of the Erskine family played their parts in the political affairs of the day. Among the prisoners taken

at Solway MOss was Robert, Master of Erskine, eldest son of John,

5th Lord Erskine. Robert was released along with the other

Solway prisoners in 1543. In the open agreement signed by all the

Solway prisoners Henry VIII was asked to take Mary under his

protection and marry her to Prince Edward; the signera promised

to aid him in this. In addition to this a secret article,

obliging the subscribers, in the event of Mary's death, to help

Henry assume the whole rule of Scotland, was signed by Cassilis,

Glencairn, Maxwell, Fleming, Somerville, Gray, Robert Master of 20 Erskine, Oliver Sinclair, and the lairds of Craigy and Kerse.

While his father was being entrusted with the keeping of the young

Queen, Robert 1 s activities were running along other, and less loyal,

lines. Robert Erskine was married to Lady Margaret Graham, daughter

of the Earl of Montrose. Montrose, who was also one of the lords

entrusted with theGuardianship of the Queen, was regarded by Sadler

as being a member of the Cardinal's party along with Lord Erskine, 21 and so, ant1-. En g 1.18 h • Like many of the Selway prisoners, Robert

Erskine seems to have forgotten his promises to ~enry VIII fairly

soon after he was safely across the border into Scotland. He was

killed fighting the English at the battle of Pinkie.

With the death of Robert Erskine, his next brother Thomas became

Master of Erskine. Before the death of his brother Thomas Erskine • had been Commendator of Dryburgh Abbey • As early as 1544 the • e - 15 - e Commendator of Dryburgh was in correspondence with the Queen . 22 Mot h er a b out government b us1ness. He was regarded as an

adherent of the Dowager's faction. Thomas Erskine had good

reason to support the anti-English faction. He was for sorne time 23 a prisoner in England, and as well, on one of the Eng1ish

incursions into Scot1and his Abbey of Dryburgh had been burnt.

In 1550 the Master of Erskine was sent on an embassy to Eng1and.

He conveyed to the Eng1ish Privy Council the ratification of

Scot1and 1 s inclusion in the Treaty of Boulogne, which conc1uded

a peace between England and France, and he de1ivered certain 24 requests of the Queen and Council of Scot1and. After becorning

Master of Erskine, Thomas rnarried Margaret Fleming, widov of

Robert, Master of Graham, who was killed at Pinkie. He died

sorne tirne in 1551; Boisdauphin, in a letter to Mary of Lorraine,

1 11 25 October 26, 1551, sent news of the death of "M. d Asquin ,

probably referring to the Master of Erskine. . This meant that John,

the third son, was now Lord Erskine's heir.

John Erskine, third son of the fifth Lord Erskine, became

Commendator of the priory of Inchmahome, probably in 1537, succeeding 25 his elder brother Robert. He was able to make use of his position

for the benefit of his family, as when, in 1555, he set in feufarm

to Alexander Erskine, his brother, a large number of lands of the 27 Abbey. Inchmahorne Abbey, on an island in the loch of Monteith, 28 was founded for the ca~.ons of Cambuskenneth. At the tirne of the

Battle of Pinkie Queen Mary was rnoved, for safety, to Inchmahorne, where - 16 - e e she spent the winter months. The choice of Inchmahome was p obably influenced par~ by the safety of the location of the

ey, and partly by the fact that the abbot was the son of one

Mary's guardians. The Erskines were keeping watch over the

en at all times. Soon after Thomas Erskine became Master of

kine he resigned his commendatorship of Dryburgh to his younger

ther, John. As Commendator of Dryburgh, John Erskine was

ive in the service of the Queen Mother. In July, 1548 a licence,

to last for three years, was given to John Erskine, prior of

In hmahome, to go to France and other countries beyond the sea, 29 in the royal service and for doing his other lawful business.

Be ore this John, Commendator of Dryburgh had been trying to raise

mo ey for the Dowager's uses, and to induce the nobles to stand

fi m in their support of her. He was careful to point out what great . h . 30 e enses h e h a d b een put to 1n er serv1ce. He seemed determined

t royal service should not mean financial loss to him, and this

an attitude he was to retain the rest of his life.

John Erskine, who had been destined for a position in the church,

now heir to the lands, titles and position of theErskines of

Erskine. He inherited from his Erskine ancestors their loyalty

to the crown, and time was to show that from his Campbell ancestors

he had gained a certain knack of never ending a struggle on the

losing side • The time was soon to come when he would play a much • larger role in the affaira of his country than he had done so far. e - 17 - e Footnotes

1. George Buchanan, History of Scot1and (Glasgow, 1827), II, 25. 2. ibid, II 329. 3. R. Lindsay of Pitscottie, Chronicles of Scotland (Edinburgh, 181~, 419. 4. W. C. Dickinson, Scotland from Ear1iest Times to 1603 (London, 1961), 318. 5. Isabel F. Grant, Social and Economie Development of Scotland Before 1603 (Edinburgh, 1930), 174. 6. ibid, 175-184. 7. Dickinson, op cit, 271. 8. Grant, op cit, 226. 9. W. S. Reid, "Clerical Taxation", The Catho1ic Historical Review (July, 1948), 135. 10. Dickinson, op cit, 313. 11. ibid 315. 12. w. Douglas Simpson, Earldom of Mar (Aberdeen, 1949), 63. 13. E.R.S., XVIII, 593-6. 14. R. Sadler, State Papers, ed. A. Clifford (Edinburgh, 1809), I, 203n.; E.R.S., XV, 538. 15. R. K. Hannay, D. Hay, ed. Letters of James V (Edinburgh, 1954), 320. " 16. Lindsay of Pitscottie, op cit, 361. 17. Buchanan, op cit, II, 334. 18. Sadler, op cit, I, 263. 19. M. Wood ed., Foreign Correspondence of Mary of Lorraine (Bdinburgh, 1925), 26, 199. 20. D. H. Fleming, Mary Queen of Scots (London, 1897), 18ln. 21. Sadler, op cit, I, 263. 22. A. I. Cameron, ed., Scottish Correspondence of Mary of Lorraine (Edinburgh, 1927), 100-101. 23. Foreign Correspondence of Mary of Lorraine, 307. 24. J. R. Dassent ed. Acts of the Privy Council of Eng1and (London, 1891), III, 29. 25. Foreign Correspondence of Mary of Lorraine, 103. 26. Letters of James V, 338. 27. R. G. S., IV, 230. 28. G. Chalmers, Ca1edonia (Paisley, 1902), VII, 181. 29. R. P. s., III, 456. BO. Scottish Correspondence of Mary of Lorraine, 219, 231, 252 • • • - 18 -

Chapter II

Between Queen and Congregation

John Erskine bad begun his political career in the service

of Mary of Guise, who, after the murder of Cardinal Beaton in

1546, bad come to play a more and more prominent part in the

affairs of the realm. She was warmly attached to the French

interest, which she took every opportunity to promote. By 1 1548 large amounts of French aid bad begun to arrive in Scotland.

Although Queen Mary bad been promised to Edward of England,

Arran, the Governor of the kingdom was persuaded, by French

pressure and the gift of a French dukedom, to agree to ber

marriage to the Dauphin. In July 1548 the Scottish parliament

assented to the French proposals, including the request that

Mary be sent to France to be educated at the French court. As

saon as possible a French fleet carried Mary to France. The

Scots granted to the French, from a thirst for vengeance against

the English, what they bad refused to yield to the English for any

considerations of their own safety.

In April 1550 a peace, on terms favourable to France and

Scotland was concluded with England. This was a decided victory

for the pro-French policy of Mary of Guise, and increased ber

influence in Scotland. Mary began to work for the removal of

Arran, now Duke of Châtelherault, from the Regency, and his 2 • replacement by herself . The Duke's vacillations bad aroused • e - 19 - e much enmity among both nobles and people, which the Dowager

was at pains to encourage. The Protestant party, which was

growing in power and which the Duke had deserted, began to

feel that the Queen Dowager, with her promises of protection,

might be preferable to the Hamiltons, with their known

greed and untrustworthiness. The King of France was making

appeals, and threats, on behalf of Mary of Guise. At last

the young Queen, who was entering her twelfth year, claimed,

probably on the prompting of the Guises, the right to choose

her own regent. Chltelherault finally decided that the time

had come to give up his office peacefully. 3 In a Parliament

at Edinburgh on April 12, 1554, he resigned the regency to the

Queen Dowager. With Mary of Guise as Regent, French influence

in Scotland increased. Much of the real administrative power was

given to French officiais, and Hamilton appointees particularly

were removed from important posts. Sir William Hamilton of Sanqhar,

who had for same years been governor of Edinburgh Castle was

dismissed from his post, and the keeping of the castle was

entrusted to John, fifth Lord Erskine, perhaps in reward for his

services to Mary, on condition that it be surrendered to no one, 4 except by order of the Estates. This castle, perhaps the most

important fortress in Scotland, and one of the strongest, was kept

from the hands of the French, and given to a lord who already held • Stirling Castle, and who was known for his service to the Queen • • e - 20 - e John, fifth Lord Erskine, did not live to enjoy this new honour, and responsibility for long. Some time between March

1554/5, when he granted a charter to his son Alexander Erskine, 5 and November 1555, he died. Soon after the death of his father,

John, sixth Lord Erskine, married Annabella Murray, daughter of

Sir William Murray of Tullibardine.

The new Lord Erskine, though he and his family had gained

much from the old church, had close ties with members of the fast-

growing Protestant party, and perhaps also a leaning toward their

faith. Lord James Stewart, the prior of St Andrews, who became

leader of the Protestant party, was his sister Margaret's son;

the Earl of Argyle was a cousin. In 1555 John Knox was allowed

to return to Scotland from Geneva. Knox visited Erskine of Dun,

a relative of Lord Erskine, at his home in Dun for a time; when

he returned south he stayed most of the time at Calder House, the

home of Sir James Sandilands. While staying at Calder Knox was

visited by many of the Scottish lords, including Lord Erskine, Lord

Lorne, and Lord James Stewart, who, according to Knox, "heard, and

11 7 so approved his doctrine that they wished it to have been public •

In 1556 Knox returned to Geneva to care for his English flock

there, having strengthened the resolve and numbers of the Protestants

during his brief stay in Scotland. The lords soon felt that another

visit was needed and possible. In March 1557, a letter was sent • from Stirling to Knox in Geneva, by the Earl of Glencairn, Lord James, - 21 - e e Lord Lorne, and Lord Erskine, telling him that the faithful wished his return to Scotland, and that they were ready to risk their lives 8 and goods in the advancement of their religion. After consulting

Calvin and the other ministers, Knox travelled to Dieppe, where he

received news from Scotland that sorne of the lords had begun to

repent of the invitation they had given him, for many of the

Protestants now seemed fainthearted. At this news Knox decided

to return to Geneva. Erskine, it seems, had adopted the new faith,

and become, for a time, one of the leading members of the

Protestant party.

Though a Protestant, Erskine was not a member of the group

which wanted immediate action against Mary of Guise, for Erskine

was always an advocate of moderation. He was, in fact, still

serving the Regent. In April 1558 Mary sent a basty message to

Morton and Lord Erskine, who were in the Merse, presumably on . 9 government b us~ness. By this time the group favouring action

against the Regent was becoming stronger and feelings were running

high. September 1, 1558, the celebration of St Giles Day was broken 10 up by a Protestant mob in Edinburgh. The Regent, angered by

demonstrations against Catholicism, and the intransigence of the

Protestants decided to abandon her policy of concessions and toleration.

The Provincial Council of the Church, meeting in March, 1559, was

uncompromising in its opposition to the new doctrines, and Mary of • Guise had severa! of its statutes proclatmed publicly. Soon after • - 22 - e e this she ordered four of the leading Protestant ministers to 11 come to S t1r. 1"1ng to answer f or t h e i r d"1sregar d o f t h ese proc 1 amat1ons. .

The ministers resolved to go to Stirling, but not alone; Protestants

began to assemble in Perth in order to accompany them. Erskine

of Dun was sent to Mary of Guise to explain the reason for the

gathering. He returned with the news that the Regent had agreed

to postpone the summons if the mob dispersed, but, when the

ministers failed to appear on the appointed day, Mary declared

them outlawed.

An open conflict was approaching. Following anti-Catholic

rioting in Perth the Regent summoned the nobles to help her reduce

Perth to obedience. With her French troops, and what Scottish

forces she could muster she marched to Perth in hopes of taking the

Protestant leaders by surprise before they had time to assemble

their followers. Many of the Protestants including Erskine and

his nephew Lord James, remained with the Regent. There did not seem

to them to be sufficient reasons to justify taking up arms against

the government. After agreeing to certain conditions, such as one

that no French troops would be billeted in the town, Mary was al1owed 12 to enter Perth. She garrisoned the town with Scottish troops in

French pay, and replaced Protestant officials in the government of

the town. Lord James and Argyle considered this as a breach of the

spirit, if not the letter of her agreement, and so sufficient

provocation for them to 1eave her service. Lêaving the court, they • - 23 - e joined the Lords of the Congregation, and called on their friends e 13 to meet them at St Andrews on June 4. Lord Erskine was not among

those who responded to the call. There may be many reasons for his

decision not to follow his friends and relatives into opposition

to the regent. In the first place Erskine was never one to abandon

lightly his loyalty to the government. The Regent's actions did

not seem to him sufficient justification for disloyalty. Erskine

always opposed extreme measures, and he may have hoped that

Mary of Guise might be induced to follow a path of moderation.

Quite possibly Erskine also hoped that if he remained with the

Regent he might act as mediator between the two sides. Erskine

always wished to avoid bloodshed whenever he could. He put the

welfare of his country ahead of the preservation of his religion,

and hoped to avoid civil war, if at all possible. When at last

armed conflict could not be avoided, Erskine retired from the fray

and endeavoured to hold a middle position.

After Lord James left the Regent to join the Congregation, a

short truce was arranged to allow time for negotiations at St 14 Andrews. When the Regent failed to send commissioners to St

Andrews, the Protestant party began to prepare to besiege Perth.

Mary then sent Huntly and Lord Erskine to the lords to ask them to 15 abandon the siege. Erskine was still trying to prevent armed

conflict, and patch the ever-widening breach between his friends

of the Congregation, and the Regent. Despite his efforts the siege

continued, and on June 25 Perth surrendered. - 24 -

Though he supported her in negotiations, Erskine does not seem to have aided the Regent in her military manoeuvres. Following the surrender of Perth, Mary hoped to seize Stirling, which commanded the only bridge over the Forth, but was forestalled by the swift 16 action of the Congregation in taking control of Stirling themselves.

From Stirling, Argyle, Lord James, and the other members of the

Congregation, moved on to Edinburgh where they were greeted by many 17 of their friends, including Lord Erskine. Erskine was no longer accompanying the Regent, and may have been considering joining the Lords of the Congregation. His support would certainly have been most valuable, to the Congregation or to the Queen Regent, for, holding Edinburgh Castle he could exercise a great deal of control over the capital city. Erskine may have hoped that if he joined the Congregation, they would have sufficient strength to end the conflict in the country swiftly, and restore peace, but if such were his hopes, they were soon shattered. Many of the soldiers in the Protestant army, thinking their work done, returned to their homes. The Regent, meanwhile, spun out negotiations, waiting 18 for the forces of the Congregation to melt away. A conference was arranged, to which Mary sent Châtelherault, Huntly, Lord Erskine and others, all of whom she seemed to consider her supporters, to confer with members of the Congregation, but they failed to come to 19 an agreement. Mary's choice of deputies seems strange if she were negotiating in earnest, for these men were lukewarm in their - 25 -

support of her, and two of them at least had strong leanings toward the Protestant party. Indeed, Châtelherault joined 20 the Congregation for a short time, in July. But Mary' s negotiations were intended only to take up time.

After prolonging these fruitless negotiations for a time,

Mary decided that her forces were strong enough to take action. She marched to Edinburgh, and on July 23, took possession of Leith. The Congregation hoped that with the aid of Lord Erskine, wha, they thought;, would be their friend or at least stand neutral, in Edinburgh Castle, they cou1d prevent the Regent's entry into Edinburgh. But the Queen's troops felt themselves safe from any attack by Erskine, who had promised a 21 f ew d ays ear 1~er. to up h o ld t h e roya 1 aut h or~ty. . The Lords of the Congregation sent Lord James to Erskine to ask for his support, which he refused, threatening to fire on the lords and the town if 22 they resisted the Regent. The Lords of the Congegation now decided that their wisest course was retreat, and accordingly agreed to leave Edinburgh, and allow the Regent to take control of the city, on condition that the inhabitants were to be permitted to follow the religion of their choice. By his action Erskine bad, while safe-guarding the religion of the capital, avoided bloodshed, and maintained the royal authority.

The commissioners named by the Regent to ascertain what religion the citizens of Edinburgh wished to follow were Châtelherault, 23 Huntly, and Lord Erskine. Erskine was having a band in seeing that - 26 -

his policy was carried out this may have been one of the

conditions for his support of Mary, or she may have felt that he

would be best able to deal with the people of Edinburgh. The

other commissioners were none too reliable, and if these were the

best Mary could muster, her position was indeed shaky.

On leaving Edinburgh the Congregation retired to Stirling to

gather strength. They sent a formal appeal for aid to Elizabeth, who replied by sending Sadler to Berwick with permission to spend 24 f3,000 in the interests of the Congregation. At about this time

they also persuaded Châtelherault to join them once again. Mary,

too, was increasing her strength, with the addition of more French

troops, who were fortifying Leith. Châtelherault and the lords wrote to Mary asking her to cease this, and also to Erskine, beseeching him not to meddle in "that ungodly enterprise", the fortification of

Leith. They promised him assistance in resisting any attempt against 25 the castle. If Erskine surrendered the castle to the Regent,

the Congregation would have to postpone indefinitely any plans for

re-occupying Edinburgh. But Erskine would not give up his independent position, and his hopes of bring peace to Scotland, by surrendering Edinburgh

Castle.

In view of the fact that Erskine had not handed the castle over

to Mary, the lords began to have hopes of his support. They wanted

to return to Edinburgh, in order to hinder the designs of the French,

and before they would attempt this they wanted to be assured that

the castle would not be hostile. Lord Erskine was sounded out, - 27 -

in hopes that he might show some signs of friendship toward them.

He promised that he would not give up the castle, but, although many thought he would remain neutral, he avoided committing himself . . 26 on t h ~s po~nt. Erskine had, indeed, no thought of surrendering the castle, but the more important question -- would its guns fire on the Protestants if they attempted to enter Edinburgh -- was still unanswered. Perhaps even Erskine~did not know the answer to that question. He had been active in negotiation, but would he ever take up arms against one side or the other. Both sides had a claim to his loyalty. He was drawn to one side by ties of family and religion, and to the other by his loyalty to the

Stewarts, and a dislike of rebellion. If the Protestants showed that they could govern the country, and bring peace, or if Mary proved that her gpvernment was dangerous to the welfare of Scotland, or to his own safety Erskine might reconsider his position.

Somewhat reassured by Erskine 1 s promise not to surrender the castle, the Lords of the Congregation entered Edinburgh again.

On the Regent 1 s refusal to cease fortifying Leith~ they declared her deposed, and set up a committee to govern the realm. Among the list of those from whom the councillors were chosen, was the 27 name of Lord Erskine. At this time the Lords of the Congregation were trying to persuade Erskine to join them, but he resisted all pleas, saying that he would support those who could support and

28 defend h •~m. Ab ove a 11 e 1 se Ers k.~ne was d eterm~ne· d not to put himself in danger. - 28 -

The Lords of the Congregation bad declared Mary of Guise

deposed, but they were unable to put this into effect. They

could get no help from Edinburgh Castle; many of the Protestants

refused to take part in the struggle; the Regent bad doub1ed

the nurnber of ber French troops. On November 5 the Lords of

the Congregation decided to leave Edinburgh. This plan was

opposed by Arran, Lord James, and Lord Maxwell, who offered to

remain in the town if they might have 1000 men and the support

of the castle. Erskine and Morton had conferred on the subject

of ending the conf1ict by compromise, which always seemed to

Erskine the best method of so1ving disputes -- he must have

realized the devastation which years of civil war had a1ready

caused in Scot1and. Hearing of this the lords a11 agreed

that it would be better to depart than to trust to the kindness 29 of those two, especial1y Morton.

The night of November 11, 1559, the Lords of the Congregation

1eft Edinburgh, leaving their artillery behind. Erskine, never

being one to let things go to waste, bad the artillery brought 30 into the castle the next morning. The cast1e arti1lery was

being greatly strengthened at this time. The council of

Edinburgh decided that the artillery of the town should be taken to

the castle for safe-keeping, and kept there till the town authorities

decided it should be brought out again. Lord Erskine promised to

return the artillery when requested to do so, although when the • - 29 -

time came he showed some reluctance to carry out his promise, 31 and the guns were brought into the castle. Lord Erskine

was now in a very strong position, and he would not do anything

which might limit his independence of action.

Both sides in this struggle recognized the importance of

Edinburgh Castle, and were working to win the support of its

governor. Archbishop Hamilton, seeing that if the Castle were

in Mary's service the lords would not dare come to Edinburgh,

suggested to the regent that some reward to Erskine would be 32 advisable, for he might do good service. Taking heed of this

advice, Mary sent word to Erskine that she wished to have

Edinburgh Castle. Lord Erskine replied politely, but firmly,

that he had been entrusted with the castle by Parliament, and

would deliver it only at the request of Parliament. Mary next

sent the Deans of Glasgow and Restalrig to demand the castle.

While they were talking to the Governor, friends of his who were

bringing artillery to the castle were attacked by the French.

The ambassadors left without receiving a reply, glad to escape

Ersk 1.ne. ' s anger. 33 The Dowager attempted, by promises of reward,

and by threats to obtain control of Edinburgh Castle, but with

no success. The Regent's threats, and the quarrels which broke

out between the castle and the French only drove Erskine farther

away from the Dowager's party; so far in fact, that he asked the

Lords of the Congregation to draw near Edinburgh, so that they might 34 • help him if necessary. - 30 -

Lord Erskine was becoming less and less sympathetic to the

Regent's cause, perhaps because of her reliance on the French troops, with whom his relations were worsening. He disliked foreign interference in Scottish affairs strongly, and he may have been coming to feel that the French were now as objectionable as the English had been earlier. In the fall, while the lords were still based in Edinburgh, Arran and Lord James left the capital to attack Bothwell, who had seized a large sum of money which

Elizabeth was sending the lords.· While they were absent the Regent sent out French troops from Leith, who eut their way into the

Canongate, and retired only when Lord Erskine began to fire on them from the castle. When the Regent reproved him for this action, 35 Erskine replied that he would fire on anyone annoying the town.

Erskine seems to have considered one of his chief duties as governor of Edinburgh Castle to be the protection of the town, which was reaping full value from the artillery it had entrusted to him.

The Lords of the Congr~gation began to hope once again of winning the support of Lord Erskine. In an effort to win him over, Arran and Lord James planned to meet Erskine at Lochleven, which was the home of Lady Margaret Douglas, Lord James' mother 36 and Erskine's sister. Lady Margaret, a very determined woman, would certainly use all her influence with her brother in favour of her son. This meeting had sorne effect on Erskine, for, far from - 31 -

retreating into vague generalities, and promises to do that which

he had never had any thought of not doing, he began to show

more interest in keeping the French cooped up in Leith, where

they could do little harm to the country as a whole. In

December, 1559, French troops set out from Leith towards Stirling.

When they had travelled as far as Linlithgow, orders suddenly

reached them to return to Leith. It was suspected that Erskine

had had sorne part in bringing about this sudden change in plans.

He had threatened that if the French made any attack on Stirling 37 Castle he would fire on the Queen at Holyrood House. Stirling

Castle was held for the crown by Lord E~ine, who would certainly

oppose any attempt to take it from him, but he may also have had

the added reason of wishing to prevent the French from increasing

their power.

In arder to continue this course of action, and in particular

to maintain his hold on Edinburgh Castle, Lord Erskine needed more

than his resources could supply. He had asked the Lords of the

Congegation to draw nearer to Edinburgh so that they might be

able to help him if the need arase. He requested also sorne

financial assistance so that he might supply the castle with

sufficient soldiers and victuals to keep the French at bay. He

said that in spite of the French control of the surrounding countryside he could, because of the friendship of the town and countryside, take

supplies into the castle, if he had sufficient money to buy them. - 32 -

38 Th e 1 or d s prom1se. d h'1m t h e a1 . d h e requ1re . d . The problem now

was where to get the money Erskine wished; in fact it was really

where to find any money to carry on their campaign. The answer

was of course, from England. Sadler and Croft, Elizabeth's

commissioners, sent to the Lords of the Congregation f2,000, to

use in advancing their cause, and advised the lords to use all

their efforts to keep Edinburgh Castle out of the bands of the

French. They also advised the lords not to let Erskine lack

assistance of money, men, and victuals if he would keep the 39 castle from Mary of Guise and the French. In reply to a question

about what offer might be made to Erskine if he would come

out openly on the side of the Lords, Cecil said that they might

promise him that he would have as good provision as he had from 40 France. It appears that Erskine was obtaining money from both

sides, from each on the promise that he would not surrender the

castle to the other. It is no wonder that he did not wish to come

out openly on the side of the lords -- for by this he would certainly

forfeit whatever the French were giving him. From this it would

appear that his motives were purely mercenary, but though financial

considerations certainly entered into his calculations there were

other considerations, too. In his present position, he could continue

to exert much. influence in favour of a negotiated peace, which he

seemed to feel would be more beneficia! to the country than a • decided victory by one side or the other • - 33 -

In April of 1560 a new development increased Lord EYSkine's

power. As early as February it had been rumoured that, despite

his bickerings with certain Frenchmen in Leith, he would receive 41 the Queen Dowager into Edinburgh Castle. These fears proved

well grounded, for, on April 1, the Regent retired into the castle.

The governor of the castle, whom Buchanan called "a man of approved

integrity and circumspection", showed his caution in this matter by 42 ensuring that bath Regent and castle should remain in his power.

She was permitted to enter the castle with only a few servants, and

was given no voice in the governance of the castle. There were

varying interpretations of Erskine 1 s motives in this action. Sorne 43 considered this proof that he was a supporter of the Regent.

Others regarded it as rather an act of kindness tempered by his . 44 usua1 caut~on. It seems more likely that Erskine acted, not out

of kindness to theQueen in her last illness, or to show political bias,

but in arder to strengthen his own power. Now, not only did he

hold two of the most important fortresses in Scotland, giving him

partial control over two of the key towns in the country, but he

also had under his control the Regent of Scotland, leader of the pro-

French party. He would noWbe able to exert greater pressure than

before in bringing a peaceful solution of the struggle between the

Region and the Con8Egation.

Erskine's chief motive in his efforts to end the fighting in

Scotland by sorne form of compromise settlement seems to have been

a wish to forestall any further foreign intervention. Throughout his life one of Erskine's chief aims seems to have been to keep - 34 -

Scotland as free as possible from foreign interference and influence. This may have been the cause of his reluctance to join his nephew's party, which was constantly turning to England for aid. In March he had asked Lord James to confer with him, about the possibilities of peace, for he thought that the Regent would agree to anything reasonable. He neglected to mention the likelihood that the Congregation's idea of what was reasonable, and the Regent's would be far apart. Erskine felt that the intervention of an English army would greatly increase 45 Scotland's troubles. The only result of this overture was the delaying of the arrival of the English army for a month 46 wh 1c. h may h ave b een Ers k.1ne 1 s c h.1e f a1m.·

At the same time as Lord Erskine was trying to persuade Lord

James and the Congregation to negotiate, Lord James was trying to win Lord Erskine over to the Congregation. In response to a request by Lord James, Erskine sent two of his men to confer with the lords.

According to a French chronicler of the siege of Leith the Regent had ordered Erskine to send these men, chiefly in order to learn as much as possible about the English army. This same chronicler also reports that Erskine promised the Regent that he would take no one into the castle, and would communicate with no one except at her connnand. Erskine seems to have been adept at conveying to all concerned the most favourable impression of his actions. The two men whom Erskine had sent out reported that Lord James' words - 35 -

seemed to be designed to bring Erskine into suspicion. One 47 of his requests had been that he might speak to Erskine in person.

His wish was granted shortly afterwards when Lord Erskine spoke with

Lord James, Erskine of Dun, and Maitland of Leithington, who

protested against his having received into the castle so many 48 people, including the Bishops, and other enemies of the Congregation.

Little else was reported of this conversation -- the information

given out by Erskine would compare favourably with the most non-

committal and innocuous of modern press releases -- but it is likely

that matters of greater interest were also discussed • • In further negotiations with his nephew Lord Erskine seemed

to be leaning more and more toward the Congregationrs cause.

He informed Lord James of the dissensions within the Regent's

party, telling him that the Bishop of Valenèe opposed the Queenrs

resolve to let all the men in Leith perish rather than give up her 49 authority. In May Lord James and his friends came to speak

to Lord Erskine, who ended the conversation by saying that he could

easily dislodge them from their position, but he had to be careful

because the castle was not well-provided with ammunition -- or at least 50 this was the version of the conversation that the French heard.

Erskine managed to convey the impression that he would continue to

support the French, and also that he was very much in need of aid.

But despite the seeming breach·with Lord James, Erskine continued, in

his own way, to keep the Lords of theCongregation well informed • - 36 -

about what was going on in the castle. At the beginning of

May one of his servants was sent from the castle, ostensibly on Lord Erskine's affairs but also carrying secret letters from

Mary of Guise. By sorne strange chance he was halted by the

Lords of the Congregation, who discovered that he carried letters in cipher to the Duke of Guise and the Cardinal of

Lorraine, with a copy of the treaty between the Queen of England and the Lords of the Congregation. The lords returned the man, minus the letters, to Lord Erskine, who was not at all angered by the way in which his servant had been treated.

In fact he protested that he knew nothing of the letters in cipher, but suspecting something, wished the lords to open his 51 letters. His explanation to Mary of Guise was probably far different.

A new, and most important factor had, by now, entered on the scene. Elizabeth had at last decided to aid the Scots with something more substantial than occasional small gifts of money and a constant stream of advice. In January 1560 Admiral Winter arrived in the Forth with an English fleet, and the French, who had ventured beyond their fortifications to harry Fife, retreated to

Lei th. In February the Treaty of Berwick, between Elizabeth and the Congregation was signed. The English agreed to help the

Scots protect their country from the French and to safeguard the rights of Châtelherault as heir to the throne. The Scots were to - 37 -

assist the English in case of a French attack on England, and 52 to give the English six hostages for the duration of the treaty.

In April the English army met the Congregation at Prestonpans. 53

The English commander, Lord Grey immediately suggested that their

first task should be the besieging of Edinburgh Castle, for,

since the Regent was there, its capture would mean the end of

the struggle. Many of the Scottish lords were agreeable to 54 t h e p 1 an, b ut Lo r d Ers ki ne' 1 s ki n d re d were 1n . oppos1t1on. . .

Grey asked Norfolk 1 s opinion of the plan, but Norfolk thought

it inexpedient. Queen Elizabeth might not approve of taking

such extreme measures against Mary of Guise, and, too, Norfolk ' 55 was st1ll in hopes of winning over Lord Erskine. The idea of attacking the castle was abandoned, and the Anglo-Scottish

army settled down to besiege the French in Leith.

While Leith was being besièged, negotiations between French and English continued, now at the site of the military operations.

The Regent named as her representatives MM. de Villeparisis, de

la Brosse, and Amiens, the Archbishop of St Andrews, the Earl of Morton, and Lord Erskine; for the other aide Sir James Croft,

Sir Henry Percy, Lord James Stewart, the laird of Pittarrow, and 56 Maitland of Lethington were named as negotiators. The Regent still seemed to believe Erskine and Morton favourable to her cause.

Despite Mary 1 s trust, Erskine was showing his interest in the welfare of the Congregation. He sent Lord James a message to beware - 38 - the French, and fear more the danger to come than that which 57 was present. Either Lord Erskine was setting himself up as a fortune-teller, or he was betraying his knowledge of French plans.

The Lords of the Congregation were beginning to have hopes of

Huntly, who arrived in Edinburgh in late April. Huntly's brother made great promises of him, and said that he had refused to speak with Lord Erskine unless two of the Lords of the Council were 58 present. By Huntly at least, Lord Erskine seems to have been regarded as not entirely above suspicion, but then neither was Huntly.

Discussions between the two sides, with Erskine as one of the chief negotiators on the Queen's part, continued while, within the

Castle, Mary of Guise was slowly dying. She made a last effort before her death, to end the struggle by negotiation. The

Protestants were invited to send a deputation to Edinburgh

Castle to confer with her. Before meeting Mary, the Protestant delegates, Lord James, Lord Ruthven, the Master of Maxwell, 59 and Lethington, dined with Lord Erskine. When they had seen

Mary the Protestants realized that she had not long to live; they asked Erskine to detain all the bishops and others in the Castle 60 till it was decided what should be done with them. On June 10,

Mary died. Now there was no French authority left in Scotland.

Queen Elizabeth decided finally to send Cecil himself to conduct the negotiations in Scotland. At Haddington Cecil was 61 met by Lord Erskine and the French negotiators. With Cecil in charge, and the Regent dead, a settlement seemed much closer. Cecil - 39 -

persuaded the French to promise that Francis and Mary would

cease using the English title and arms. On the issue of the

Treaty of Berwick the French were more reluctant, but at length

they gave in, agreeing to a clause stating that Francis and

Mary were making an agreement with their subjects because of

the intercession of Elizabeth. This implied that Elizabeth was

justified in dealing with the Congregation. After this the 62 other points at issue were quickly settled.

On July 6, 1560, the Treaty of Edinburgh, including the

Ang1o-French, and Franco-Scottish agreements, was proclaimed.

The treaty with England confirmed that of Cateau-Cambrésis.

It then provided for the removal of French and Eng1ish troops

from Scot1and, except for 120 French troops in Dundee and

Inchkeith; Francis and Mary were to cease using the English

title and arms. Although many requests of the Congregation

were granted, the re1igious question was left unsettled. Par1iament

was to meet on July 10, when it would be adjourned till August

1, so that the consent of Francis and Mary might be obtained;

business was not to be conducted till August 1. The Estates

were to select twenty-four persons out of whom Mary was

to choose seven, the Estates five, to be a Council. to govern the 63 country • • - 40 -

The Lords of the Congregation had won the first round

of the struggle. The French had been driven from Scotland,

and in place of Mary of Guise, the country was ruled by a

group of nobles whose leaders were Protestants. Scot land

was once more in the hands of its nobles; the triumphant

nobility had won because of the aid of a foreign

Protestant and anti-French state, whose obvious policy

would be to keep its Scottish Protestant friends in power

by all means at its disposai. The important question was

how these nobles would use their power. How would Lord

Erskine be repaid for the ambiguous part he had played

in the late conflict?

Footnotes

1. M. Lee, James Stewart, Earl of Moray (New York, 1953), 17. 2. ibid, 18. 3. William Robertson, History of Scotland (London, 1824), I, 112. 4. A,T,S., x; 212; Buchanan, op cit, II, 385. S. R.P.S., IV, 511; E.R.S., XVIII, 593-595. 6. R.G.S., IV, 256. 7. John Knox, History of the Reformation in Scotland, ed., W.C. Dickinson (London, 1949), I, 121. 8. John Knox, Works, ed. D. Laing (Edinburgh, 1864), IV, 257; A. Lang, History of Scot1and (Edinburgh, 1902), II, 34. 9. A.T.S,, X, 348. 10. Lee, op cit, 32. 11. ibid, 33. 12. ibid, 37-38. 13. ibid, 40. 14. Robertson, op cit, I, 150. 15. Knox, History, I, 188. 16. Robertson, op cit, I, 151. 17. C.S.P. Bain, I, 220, Ju1y 1, 1559, Kirkca1dy to Percy. 18. Robertson, op cit, 154. - 41 -

19. R. Keith, History of the Affairs of Church and State in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1894), I, 217; Knox, History, I, 177. 20. Lang, op cit, II, 57. 21. Knox, History, I, 201, Keith, op cit, I, 220; A.Teulet, ed., Papiers d 1 Etat relatifs a l'histoire d'Ecosse (Paris, 1851), I. 326. 22. Lee, op cit, 43. 23. Extracts from the Burgh Records of Edinburgh, 1557-71 (Edinburgh, 1875), 46. 24. Lang, op cit, II, 60. 25. Fore, Eliz., I, 565. 26. ibid, 475. 27. c.s.P. Ba1n, I, 255; Keith, op cit, I, 235. 28. Knox, History, I, 264. 29. Sad1er, op cit, I, 564, Rando1ph to Sadler and Crofts, November, 1559. 30. Diurnal of Remarkable Occurrents (Edinburgh, 1833), 54. 31. Extracts from the Burgh Records ot Edinburgh, 1557-71, 58, 107, 115. 32. Scottish Correspondence of Mary of Lorraine, 425. 33. Fore. E1iz., II, 153, John Wood to Randolph, Nov. 30, 1559. 34. Sad1er, op cit, 624, Sad1er and Croft to Cecil, Dec. 5, 1559. 11 35. C.S.P. Bain, I, 262, "Intelligence from Scot1and , Nov. 10, 1559. 36. ibid, I, 270. 37. Sadler, op cit, I, 674, Randolph to Sad1er and Croft. 38. ibid, I, 624, Sadler and Croft to Cecil. 39. ibid, 626. 40. Fore. Eliz., II, 180. 41. Sadler, op cit, I, 702. 42. Buchanan, op cit, II, 426. 43. Lord Herries, Historical Memoirs of the Reign of Mary Queen of Scots (Edinburgh, 1836), 48. 44. Buchanan, op cit, II, 426. 45. C.S.P. Bain, I, 339. 46. Lee, op cit, 57. 47. G. Dickinson, ed., Two Missions of Jacques de la Brosse (Edinburgh, 1942), 93. 48. ibid, 97. 49. c.s.P. Bain, I, 395, 400. 50. Two Missions of Jacques de la Brosse, 173. 51. C.S.P. Bain, I, 395, 400. 52. Lee, op cit, 56. 53. Lang, op cit, II, 67-68. 54. C.S.P. Bain, I, 346, Grey to Norfolk, April 4, 1560. 55. ibid, 349, Norfolk to Cecil. 56. Two Missions of Jacques de la Brosse, 109. 57 • C.S.P. Bain, I, 34, landolph.to Cecil. • - 42 -

58. ibid, 377, Randolph to Norfoik. 59. Two Missions of Jacgues de la Brosse, 151. 60. Fore. Eliz., III, 109. 61. Two Missions of Jacgues de la Brosse, 63. 62. Lee, op cit, 60-61. 63. Lang, op cit, II, 67-68; Lee, op cit, 61. - 43 -

Chapter III

Erskine's Support of the Reformation

In accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Edinburgh

Parliament opened on July 10, and met to begin business on

August 1. Few lords came to the meeting of the Estates till the 1 eighth of the month. ÂS well as the important lords, who were

tardy in their arrival, the Parliament was attended by over

a hundred lesser barons and lairds, all ardent Protestants, who

had not been accustomed to sit in earlier Parliaments of the

century, but who claimed the right to sit as freeholders of the 2 crown. Parliament was ready to begin business when a

difficulty arose concerning the legality of the meeting. No

commissioner appeared in the name of the King and Queen, and no

indication of their consent had been received. In reply to these

doubts the exact words of the Treaty of Edinburgh were put forward,

by which this assembly was declared to be as valid as if called

by the express command of the King and Queen. As the supporters

of the Congregation greatly outnumbered their opponents, the 3 latter opinion prevailed. The terms of the Treaty of Edinburgh

had provided that between the opening of Parliament on July 10,

and its first meeting to conduct business on August 1, envoys

should be sent to Francis and Mary to obtain their consent to the

holding of Parliament. These terms were not fulfilled. It was

not until much later that James Sandilands of Calder was sent to • France to obtain the King and Queen's consent to what Parliament - 44 -

had already done, and ratification of the Treaty of Edinburgh.

The outcome could not have been unexpected by the Congregation; 4 Sandilands 1 mission was a complete failure.

One of the chief reasons for Queen Mary's refusal to give

her consent to the proceedings of the Parliament, aside from

the dubious legality of its sitting at all, was the religious

settlement which it attempted to make. The Treaty of Edinburgh

had provided that religious problems were to be dealt with by

the King and Queen, in consultation with representatives of the

Estates. Even before the Estates began to transact business,

action had been taken to establish the Protestant religion in

Scotland. On July 19 the Congregation appointed five "superintendents"

for the Kirk; these were regarded as purely temporary officials,

made necessary by the lack of an adequate supply of ministers. 5

A strongly anti-Catholic petition was delivered to the Parliament

of 1560, demanding the abolition of the Roman Catholic Church, and

the establishment of the reformed faith. Not everyone was in

favour of taking too drastic a step at this time, especially among

those who had profited from the feuing of church lands. Parliament

condemned the objectionable doctrines of the Catholic Church

mentioned in the petiti·on. They also approved a Confession of

Faith presented to them by the ministers. Many, including Lord

Erskine, spoke in Parliament on the Confession of Faith, all 6 • concluding that this was the faith in which they ought to live and die. - 45 -

Though not always firm in his alliances, Erskine seems to

have been firm in his Protestantism. By another act the

jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts was abolished, and cases

which had formerly fallen under their authority were transferred

to the civil courts. All papal jurisdiction in Scotland was

abolished; all laws favourable to the Catholic Church were

repealed; and the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion was 7 forbidden, on pain of death for the third offense.

A group of ministers was asked by Parliament to draw up a

treatise on Church discipline, and related matters the Book of

Discipline. In January 1561 Parliament was again convened;

at this meeting the Book of Discipline was presented. In

addition to regulations for ecclesiastical discipline and

jurisdiction, the Book of Discipline included a plan for the

recovery of the patrimony of the church; it set forth the

stipends to be paid to superintendents, their widows, ministers,

and readers. Knox and his colleagues insisted that the property

of the Catholic Church, except that of the monastic foundations,

be turned over to the new church, in order to pay the ministers'

salaries, set up schools in the parishes, and support the poor. 8 This did not sit well with those in possession of church lands.

One of the chief Protestant lords who refused to subscribe to the

Book of Discipline was Lord Erskine, for if the poor, the schools,

and the ministers had what Knox regarded as their rightful share,

"his kitchen would lack two parts, and more, of that which he now 9 • unjustly possesses". Erskine would not allow his religion to - 46 -

interfere with his finances.

After Queen Mary 1 s return ta Scotland the question of church property was again brought up. At the General Assembly in December 1561, the demand that the property of the Catholic

Church be turned over to the Kirk was renewed. A request was made to the Queen that she make some provision for the reformed clergy. The Privy Council at last came ta a decision on the question. Those in possession of the benefices of the Church were to keep two thirds of the income of these benefices; the other third was ta be turned over to the royal treasury. Part of the money was to be used for royal expenses, and part was ta go to the ministers. The ministers opposed this settlement, particularly

Knox, who said, "I see two parts freely given to the Devil, and the third must be divided betwix God and the Devil. Well, bear witness to me that this day I say it, ere it be long the Devil shall have three parts of the Third; and judge you then what God's portion shall be. 1110 The government appointed collectors, responsible to the Comptroller, who collected all the revenues of the benefices and then handed back two-thirds ta the holders of the benefices. This arrangement did not work very well. The collectors were not always able ta collect the revenues from the benefices, and many remissions of the thirds were granted ta ho1ders of benefices. In 1561 there should have been paid t2276.12s.Od. for the third of money and victuals of the abbeys of Cambuskenneth, - 47 -

Inchmahome, and Dryburgh, which were in the bands of John, Lord

Erskine. Lord Erskine's refusal to pay the third of these benefices to the collectors was rewarded in the following year by a remission to him of the thirds of the Abbeys of Cambuskenneth, 11 Inchmahome and Dryburgh, and of the sum which he owed for 1561.

Although he was present at the meeting of the Privy Council which decided on the division of the revenues of the benefices, Erskine seems determined not to heed any act which was detrimental to his . 12 own 1nterests.

For a year after the Treaty of Edinburgh Scotland had no regularly constituted government. The Queen was still in France; no new Regent had been appointed to replace Mary of Guise; the government of the country was in the bands of the victorious

Lords of the Congregation. On the twenty-fourth of August the nobles and lords attending the Parliament went to the Tolbooth and there chose twenty-four councillors to govern the country. . 13 Am ong t h ose c h osen was Lo r d Ers k 1ne. At this time Lord Erskine was playing an important part in the governing of the realm, although he bad not joined the Lords of the Congregation before their victory and the Treaty of Edinburgh. The Lords of the

Congregation felt that to ensure their position theynust maintain the English alliance. How could they be sure of retaining English support? They decided that the best solution was to ask Elizabeth to marry the Earl of Arran. Mary was sickly; the lords thought - 48 -

it likely that she would die childless; Arran was, after his

father, next in line of succession to the throne. It was

decided to send an embassy to Elizabeth to propose this marriage

alliance, and to thank her for her good will to Scotland. Among 14 those signing the commission for the ...assy was Lord Erskine.

Randolph was, as usual, muttering spiteful remarks about Erskine,

saying that he had given the keeping of Edinburgh Castle to his

brother Alexander, a worse Papist even than himself (this

though Erskine was a known Protestant), but it was only to be

expected, as there was never any goodwill to be looked for at 15 the hands of Lord Erskine. When Sandilands of Calder, whom

the Estates had sent to France, returned to Scotland, with an

answer from the Queen to Qe delivered to the Estates, it was

decided to call another meeting of Parliament, to confer on the

Queen's answer and other matters, on the fifteenth of January.

The summons to the burgh representatives to attend this Parliament was signed by Châtelherault, Arran, Lord James, ~teith, Rothes,

Erskine and Boyd. 16 It was at this session of Parliament that

the Book of Discipline was passed. Parliament also, considering

the death of their sovereign 1 s husb~d, resolved to send a deputation

to France to ask the Queen to return to Scotland. Those chosen to

go to France were Lord James, the Abbot of Kilwinning and Lord . 17 Ers k ~ne. The Estates apparently bore Lord Erskine no ill will

for his refusal to support the Book of Discipline. - 49 -

Lord Erskine did not suffer financially for the ambiguous position he had taken during the Wars of Congregation, either during the period of government by the Protestant nobles, or after Mary 1 s return to Scotland. The arrangement concerning the thirds of benefices did not reduce his income from the benefices he1d by the Erskine fami1y as might have been expected, for, after his refusa! to pay in 1561, he was granted a remission of 18 the thirds of the abbeys of Cambuskenneth, Inchmahome, and Dryburgh.

As keeper of Edinburgh and Stirling Castles Lord Erskine also received certain not inconsiderable sums from the crown. For keeping Edinburgh Castle he received 100 marks per month, which 19 came to f800 a year. After the Earl of Arran was imprisoned in

Edinburgh Cast1e, Lord Erskine was granted 40s. per day from the 20 thirds of benefices for Arran's food and clothing. As captain of Stirling Castle he received victuals from the royal revenues in 21 Stirlingshire for the maintenance of the castle. Even after

Mary's return Lord Erskine continued to reap financial r~ards; from the Queen he received a grant of certain lands which had been 22 forfeited to the crown. No matter who was in power Lord Erskine gained financially.

In August 1561, the widowed Queen Mary left her beloved France to return to her native Scotland, which she regarded only as a stepping stone to some greater position. She had managed to avoid ratifying the Treaty of Edinburgh, and had made no statements, one way or the other, on the religious question. What was Lord - 50 -

Erskine's position on the return of his sovereign? When she arrived in Scotland Mary was guided in political matters by her half-brother, Lord James Stewart, who was Erskine's nephew, and leader of the Protestant party, of which Erskine was at times a member. On the sixth of September Mary convened the nobility, and chose those who were to be members of the Privy Council.

Among those chosen were Chatelherault, Huntly (the most powerful of the Catholics in the Council), Argyle, Morton,

Glencairn, Lord James and Lord Erskine. Lord Erskine was not 23 present among those who came·to be sworn in as Privy Councillors.

All those who had signed the letter of 1557 asking Knox to return to Scotland were members of the Council. Throughout the winter of 1561-62 Lord Erskine was fairly regular in his attendance at Council meetings in Edinburgh, but otherwise he seems to have remained out of public affaira at this time.

There were various signs of royal favour shown to Erskine.

In 1562 he was one of the auditors of the Accounts of the Collectors

9f the Thirds of Benefices.24 That same year, in July, the 25 Queen v !1. s~te• d h'~m at All oa, on h er way to St~r · l'~ng. In a meeting of the Privy Council at Stirling in August 1562, the Lords of the

Council decided that since it was necessary for the security of the Queen, and for giving her advice on matters concerning the affaira of the realm, that part of the Council should be with her at all times, four of the Lords of the Privy Council should reside with her - 51 -

for two months at a time. The first four were Argyle, Marischal,

Athol and Bothwell, whose term was to begin Septèmber 1, and continue to the end of October; the next four were Huntly,

Morton, Erro~ and Lord Erskine. In this grouping

Lord Erskine seems to have been associated with some rather dubious companions, perhaps in hopes that he would be a steadying influence.

One important problem which had to be dealt with soon after Mary 1 s return was that of the Borders, which for years had gone their own way, unmindful of royal authority, or of any authority other than that of their own local lords. November

14, 1561, Lord James set out from Jedburgh with full authority from the Council to do whatever he thought best to bring order to this area. His commission declared that whatever things

Lord James, by the advice of the majority of the members of the

Privy Council who were with him, should do for the welfare of the 26 country, would be held as lawfully done. Among those accompanying 27 Lord James was Lord Erskine. In this excursion to the Borders a large number of thieves were caught and hanged; several of the leading Borderers were forced to sign an agreement pledging themselves to stand surety for the production of criminals at future Border courts. One of the great hindrances to restraining the lawless of the Borderers had a!ways been the existence of a state of almost cpntinual hostility with England; criminals were able to slip - 52 -

across the Border and be assured of protection from the courts

of their native land. With the coming of peace and amity between

the two countries, there was now a possibility of reducing the

Borders to obedience to royal authority. In arder to take

advantage of this new state of affairs Lord James began a policy

of co-operation with the English Border Wardens, which led in 1563,

to a comprehensive agreement on methods of enforcing the law . h' 28 ~n t ~s area.

The Border was not the only area which had to be dealt with

in this period. The north too posed a problem. Huntly, the

"Cock of the North", though he had been made a member of the

Privy Council, was not regarded as one of the most loyal servants

of the Crown, and his· great power in the north was detrimental

to the royal authority. During the late struggle his conduct

had been dubious and variable. While the Regent's party seemed

the stronger he assisted her in her efforts to crush the Congregation;

when the strength of the Congregation increased, and they seemed

the likely winners of the struggle, he pretended to join them,

though he never fully supported their cause. In arder to reward

the services of Lord James since her arrival, Mary granted him the

title of Earl of Mar, and the lands of the earldom of Mar. These

lands, though part of the royal demesne, had for sorne years been in

the possession of the Earls of Huntly, who bad come to regard them • as part of their hereditary lands. Soon after this, in consequence - 53 -

of a dispute over some land with Lord Ogilvy, and a street fight which ensued, Huntly1 s third son, Sir John Gordon, was imprisoned. Gordon escaped from prison and, fleeing to

Aberdeenshire, complained loudly of the indignity he had suffered, which he blamed on the new Earl of Mar.

In the late summer of 1562, Mary, despite the doubts of her councillors, decided to make a progress in the north. She was accompanied by the Earls of Mar and Morton, Maitland, and other of that party whom Huntly regarded as his enemies. Mary began her journey in mid-August and reached Aberdeen by the end of the month. Huntly came to Aberdeen to meet the Queen at the head of 1500 men, though he had been forbidden to bring more than a hundred. As a result of this Mary refused to visit Huntly at his home at Strathbogie. Huntly employed his wife to placate the Queen, and to intercede for pardon for their son. For a time it appeared that matters had been smoothed over. Sir John .Gordon made his submission to Mary and was ordered to enter himself into ward in Stirling Castle. The choice of Stirling Castle, which was in the hands of Lord Erskine, angered the Gordons, who considered this a further proof of Mar's power, and his enmity to their house; Sir John, rathern than going to Stirling, as ordered, 29 fled to the north. On September 10 the Privy Council declared that no one was to aid him, and that the property in dispute with 30 0 g~. 1vy was to b e surren d ere d to t h e crown on pa~n• o f f or f e~ture. .

At this time Lord James Stewart publicly assumed the title of Earl of - 54 -

Moray, which the Queen had granted him earlier. This was a

relief to Lord Erskine, who considered his family to be the

rightful heirs to the earldom of Mar, but it was a further

offence to Huntly, who had held the lands of Moray, as well

as those of Mar.

From Aberdeen Mary went northT~nverness, where the

commanding officer of the castle, by Huntly's orders, closed

the gates against her, and refused to allow her to enter.

With the assistance of the neighbouring clans, who gathered

in her defence, she was able the next day to force the castle 31 to surrender. After staying in Inverness about a week, the

Queen began to make her way back to Aberdeen. The castle of

Findlater was called on to surrender, and refused. Troops

were levied and messengers were sent south to summon Moray's

friends to his aid. An attempt was made to surprise Huntly 32 at Strathbogie, but he managed to escape to Badenoch. At

Aberdeen on October 15, a meeting of the Privy Council was held

to decide what action should be taken against the Earl. By

this time Erskine had come north to accompany the Queen and be

present at the downfall of Huntly. The Council decided that if

Huntly did not appear before the Queen on the following day he was to be put to the horn. At a further meeting of the Privy

Council, October 21, various members of the Gordon clan were ordered

to put themselves into ward. The Queen granted a commission to

MOray and to her councillors and noblemen to advance to meet Huntly, - 55 -

if necessary to pursue him and his accomplices in order to apprehend 33 them, so that they might be punished for their treasonable behaviour.

Moray met Huntly 1 s forces at Corrichie and defeated them. Huntly himself died, probably of a heart attack, and his sons Sir John, and

Adam were taken prisoner. The house of Gordon was ruined, and the north was open to a new power.

The most serious problem facing Mary on her return to Scotland was the question of the religious settlement. The Sunday after

Mary's arrivai a demonstration broke out at Holyrood in protest against the mass which was being celebrated in the Chapel Royal for the royal household. Lord James held the door against the mob, and prevented their intrusion on the celebration of the mass. The next day Mary issued a proclamation ordering that the state of religion which she found standing at the time of her arrival should be maintained, and prohibiting any interference with her servants and household for any cause. Mary insisted that the Royal household should be allowed to hear mass, but this was the only mass allowed in the country. It was after Mary 1 s return that the final decision on the fate of the property of the Catholic Church was made. This decision, leaving two-thirds of the revenues of the benefices in the hands of their possessors, and alloting the other third to the treasury to be divided between government expenditures and the ministers' salaries, was made, not by the Estates, but by the Queen's Privy Council, many of the members of which had - 56 -

acquired large amounts of church lands, and revenues. In the s~er of 1562, though warned by Lord James, and Lord

Erskine that the people would dislike such an action, the 34 Queen received a papal envoy. Scottish Catholics, who had taken heart at this, bad their hopes raised even further, when knowledge of Mary 1 s negotiations for a Spanish marriage leaked out. At Easter time in 1563 many Catholics, including

Archbishop Hamilton, celebrated mass. This was a violation of the Proclamation of August 1561, and the ministers, especially

Knox, supported by the Earl of Moray, protested vehemently.

Mary finally consented to do as Knox and Moray wished, and to punish the Catholics. Archbishop Hamilton and severa! of his colleagues were tried and imprisoned. The Bishops were committed to the Castle of Edinburgh, to Lord Erskine 1 s ward, or, as Knox put i t, "The Lady Erskine, (a sweet mors el for the Devil 1 s mouth) 35 got the Bishops for her part. u

The imprisonment of the Bishops was a politic move on Mary's part, for its preceded only shortly the meeting of the Estates. She knew that the question of Parliamentary action on the religious question, and the demand for official establishment of the religious settlement might be raised and she wished to win the confidence of the moderates, and lead them to believe that the religious settlement was in no danger. The meeting of Parliament was the opportunity for establishing the Protestant religion by law, but no attempt was - 57 -

made to secure the Queen's assent to do so. She bad consented to tolerate the reformed religion, and the moderates felt that this would suffice. The ministers denounced the lack of action on the part of the courtiers. They gave vent to their feelings in the pulpit with ringing denunciations of idolatry and the mass. Further fuel was added to the flames whe~lduring the Queen 1 s absence, mass was celebrated in the Chapel Royal in Holyrood House. The citizens of Edinburgh, incensed by this, interrupted the service. The

Queen, angered by this display against ber religion, ordered the arrest of two of the leaders of the mob. A day was appointed for their trial and Knox summoned those who professed the true religion to meet at Edinburgh on this day. Knox was prosecuted for summoning the lieges unlawfully, but was acquitted. Although she had been able to avoid settlementof the religions question by Parliament, Mary bad not succeeded in winning toleration for the exercise of the Roman

Catholic religion.

One of the most important factors influencing the religions settlement was the question of Mary 1 s marriage. If she married a

Scottish noble she would be sure to alienate sorne section of the nobles without any real increase in her power, and if he were one of the Catholic nobles she would arouse the watchful suspicions of the Protestant lords, who would be all the more ready to prevent any interference with the existing religions settlement. If she married a Catholic prince, her position would be stronger, for if he had the support and troops of either France or Spain, Mary might be able to enforce her will on Scotland, and stamp out the reformed religion. Mary's matrimonial object at this time was to increase - 58 -

her power, to strengthen her hold on Scotland in order to use it

as a stepping stone to something better~ to some more important

throne.

Footnotes

1. Diurnal, 61. 2. Dickinson, op cit, 333. 3. Robertson, op cit, I, 194. 4. Lee, op cit, 66. s. ibid, 62. 6. C.S.P. Bain, I, 467. 7. Robinson, op cit, I, 195-6; Lee, op cit, 64-5. 8. Diurnal, 63; Lee, op cit, 65; Robertson, op cit, I, 205. 9. Knox, History, I, 344. 10. ibid, II, 29. 11. G. Dona1dson ed., Accounts of the Co1lectors of the Thirds of Benefices (Edinburgh, 1949), 113, 148. 12. Knox, History, II, 28. 13. Diurnal, 62. 14. C.S.P. Bain, I, 645, Maitland to Cecil. 15. ibid, 486, Randolph to Cecil. 16. ibid, 498. 17. Fore. Eliz., III, 526. 18. Ascounts of the Co11ectors of Thirds of Benefices, 113, 148. 19. E.R.S., XIX, 238. 20. Accounts of Collectors of Thirds of Benefices, 175. 21. E.R.S., XIX, 138, 141. 22. A.T.S., XI, 296-7. 23. Knox, History, II, 20; R.P.C., I, 157-8. 24. Accounts of the Co1lectors of Thirds of Benef1ces, 171. 25. Fore. E1iz., V, 101. 26. Lee, op cit, 93; R.P.C., I, 184-7. 27. C.S.P. Bain, I, 569, Randolph to Cecil. 28. Lee, op cit, 94. 29. ibid, 104-5; Robertson, op cit, I, 233-6. 30. R.P.C., I, 218-9. 31. Robertson, op cit, 236-7. 32. Lee, op cit, 106. 33. R.P.C., I, 219-223. 34. J. Pollen ed., Papal Neogitations with Queen Mary (Edinburgh, 1901), 141. 35. Knox, History, II, 76. - 59 -

Chapter IV

The Earldon of Mar and the Royal Marriage

In the period following Mary's return to Scotland, Lord

Erskine seems to disappear from public view. His name is not

mentioned in the reports of English Ambassadors, or in many of the

other records of the period. He attended most of the meetings of

the Privy Council, though with a few prolonged absences, but he

does not seem to have taken a prominent part in the government of

the country. It is possible that he exerted some behind-the-scenes

influence on political affaira, for Mary 1 s chief adviser was his nephew, the Earl of Moray, but it is more likely that after the

ambiguous part he had played in 1559 and 1560, and wi-th the example

of Huntly's fate before him he preferred to retire into the safety

of comparative insignificance and consolidate his position, awaiting

a suitable opportunity to play a part in government affaira once

ag ain.

The awaited opportunity came with the recurrence of the

question of the Queen's marriage. For a time after her return to

Scotland Mary had maintained a policy of friendship toward England;

she had supported the policy of the Protestant lords in hopes that

this would eventually lead to recognition of her claim to the

English succession, but the succession was no more settled than it had been at the time of the Treaty of Edinburgh in 1560. Elizabeth 1 s

attack of small-pox in 1562 however, made the succession question more urgent than ever in England. During the Queen 1 s illness there was much discussion of who would succeed her, and one fact emerged -- - 60 -

1 almost no one favoured Mary. When Mary realized that her pro-

Protestant policy had not succeeded, she decided that it was

time to try another line; she determined to try a pro-Catholic

policy. As a pro-Catholic policy for Mary meant a Catholic

marriage, she began the search for a suitable husband. The

negotiations for such a match were entrusted ta Maitland of

Lethington. Maitland's chief political goal was the union of

England and Scotland, and he was not concerned with how this 2 was accomplished. Ta him the religious settlement was of secondary

importance. He was prepared to negotiate a Catholic marriage

which might make Mary strong enough to force acknowledgment of her

claims to the English throne; later he was ready to support an

English candidate who would enhance Mary's claims in English eyes.

All Europe was interested in Mary's final decision. Various

possible husbands were suggested, including the Archduke Charles

of Austria and Don Carlos of Spain. Mary decided to explore the

latter suggestion further and Maitland continued negotiations with

Spain. As he feared that Mary might marry Charles IX of France,

Philip came very close ta agreeing to a marriage between Mary and

his son, but when Catherine de Medici informed him that Mary had

never been offered the hand of King Charles, he withdrew the little

support he had given, and indicated that he now wished Mary to wed Archduke Charles.

The person most closely interested in, and most nearly affected - 61 -

by Mary's marriage negotiations was Queen Elizabeth of England.

She realized that any increase in Mary 1 s power by a continental alliance would endanger her throne. By June of 1563, when Maitland was returning from his trip to France, the English knew there was something in the wind which was not in their best interests.

Elizabeth informed Maitland that if his queen married any of the

Hapsburg princes, Elizabeth would feel obliged to regard her as an enemy. If Mary would not remain single, Elizabeth wanted her to wed someone whom Elizabeth could manipulate. Elizabeth warned Mary that a foreign alliance might endanger her rights of succession in England, and intimated that if Mary 1 s choice of a husband were acceptable, her title to the succession would 3 be examined and, if valid, recognized. When asked whom Elizabeth suggested as a suitable husband, Randolph replied that any English noble would do. Mary grew impatient and in 1564 Randolph was ordered to inform her that Elizabeth wished her to marry Lord Robert 4 Dudley. It was obvious that Mary would not marry Lord Robert unless she were given a definite guarantee of the English succession.

If such a guarantee were given, the Protestant party was prepared to support the plan fully, for they felt that it would safeguard

Protestantism and the English alliance. It was a proposai which seemed best for bath Mary and the Protestant cause, and Lord Erskine, who always wished to serve as many interests as possible, and offend the least number of people, supported Moray and the Protestant . 5 party at t h1s stage. - 62 -

While negotiations for the English marriage were dragging on half-heartedly, Mary announced that she would accede to

Elizabeth's request for permission for Matthew, Earl of Lennox to return to Scotland. Lennox, who was married to Mary's aunt, Lady Margaret Douglas, had a son whose claim to the

English throne was second to Mary!s. His claim was enhanced in

English eyes by his apparent Protestant leanings, and by the fact that he had been born in England and thus was not a foreigner, as Mary was. Elizabeth now tried to persuade Mary to withdraw her permission for Lennox's return, perhaps fearing

Lennox's influence on behalf of his son, or perhaps wishing to strengthen Mary's determination by her opposition. Among those in Scotland who opposed the return of Lennox were the Duke1 6 Argyle, Morton, Glencairn and Lord Erskine. In 1545 Erskine's father had been granted sorne of the lands which had been forfeited 7 by Lennox. If Lennox returned to favour the escheat would probably be reversed. In December Mary called a meeting of Parliament which repealed the act of forfeiture which had been carried against 8 Lennox in 1545. He was restored to all the estates of his ancestors.

Negotiations concerning the marriage of the Scottish queen continued, with progress. Mary would marry Dudley, now Earl of

Leicester only if the succession question were settled, and

Elizabeth would consider the succession question only if Mary first married Leicester. Elizabeth at last said that she would allow no - 63 - inquiry to be made, and make no decision herself concerning the question of the succession until she had finally decided whether or not she herself would ever marry. With this, the negotiations ended.

Mary had by now chosen another candidate for her hand.

Elizabeth had given permission to Lennox 1 s son Lord Darnley to go to Scotland. She hoped his arrivai in Scotland would put an end to the foreign marriage negotiations, which Mary seemed to be still carrying on. When he had served his purpose he could be recalled to England, a command which could be reinforced by threats to confiscate his family's valuable English estates, 9 and so could be prevented from marrying the Queen himself.

Now that the idea of the Leicester match was fading away, Darnley could be used to spin out the negotiations for Mary's marriage, and free Elizabeth from fears of a hostile foreign power entrenched on her northern borders.

Darnley himself arrived in Scotland in mid-February 1565.

After meeting Mary in Fife on February 17, he accompanied her back to Edinburgh. He made a good first impression on most people, though some felt uneasy at his coming to Scotland, among them·Glencairn, who had fears for his Protestantism, and Morton, 10 whose fears were for his pocketbook. Erskine may have felt both these fears. It was most of all on Queen Mary that Darnley made a good impression; he was young and attractive, and she was looking for a husband. Soon it became apparent that she intended - 64 -

11 to marry him. Meanwhile Darnley1 s overweening pride antagonized many, and the hatred for him and his family grew daily. Moray began to realise that if Mary wed Darnley, he would lose his influence over ber, and the pro-Catholic party would be likely to rise to power under the leadership of Lennox.

In March Moray, Argyle, and Châtelherault pledged themselves to support each other in all legitimate enterprises, presumably including attempts to persuade Mary not to marry Darnley.

The following month Moray left the court at Stirling, reportedly under a cloud. In May Darnley was made Lord of

Annandale, Earl of Ross and Duke of Rothesay -- titles normally held by members of the royal family. Mary had now isolated opponents of the Darnley match so that, according to Randolph, 13 no one bad the courage to withstand ber wishes.

The Queen was beginning to gather ber supporters. At this time the Earl of Bothwell, who bad been exiled a few years earlier returned to Scotland. Moray, seeing that Bothwell 1 s restoration to favour would mean trouble for him, urged Mary to have him outlawed. When Bothwell was sununoned to attend a "day of law" at

Edinburgh on May 2, Moray decided to use this as the occasion for a show of strength. On May 1, he and Argyle rode into Edinburgh 14 with over 15,000 men. Not daring to appear at Edinburgh in the face of such a force, Bothwell fled to France. But all was not as well with Moray as might appear. Mary had hoped that Bothwell would - 65 -

be useful to her, and she bad prevented MOrton and Emkine, who

were regarded at this time as strong supporters of Moray, from

attendi ng t h e "day o f 1 aw tl • 15 Erskine, though he had been

considered one of theenemies of the Lennox family was being won

over to support Mary's plans.

Before Bothwell's day of law Moray had obeyed his sister's

summons to return to court. He was received rather coldly at

first, but the military power which he showed at Edinburgh

forced Mary to reconsider the matter, and when he returned to 16 Stirling on May 4 his welcome was cordia1. He was present

at a special meeting of the Privy Council on May 15, and again

at the meeting of May 19, when it was decided that a Parliament

should be held at Edinburgh July 20, and a special convention at

Perth June 10 to discuss what matters were to be put before . 17 t h e P ar 1~ament. After this meeting Moray left Stirling again

and retired to Lochleven. He refused all requests to return to

court saying that there were persans attendant on Mary who 18 were plotting his death and he dare not come while they were present. After attending the convention at Perth Mary remained there till July

1, when she rode in great haste to Lord Livingstone's house at

Callendar. Lord Erskine, who was one of those accompanying the

Queen on this journey, passing close by Lochleven, sent a message

to Moray asking what he was doing, and why the Queen had taken such

fear of him that she passed in such haste. Moray, perhaps not

appreciating his uncle's humour, replied that he was ill, and was sorry to see the Queen suspect those she had most cause to trust,

and trust those who were most likely to lead to the ruin of the country. - 66 -

Erskine on receiving this letter showed it to the Queen, which 19 was most likely what he knew MOray intended him to do with it.

MOray and Argyle, fearing for the safety of their party and their religion decided to hold a meeting of their supporters at

Glasgow on July 15. While Moray was at St Andrews, Lord Erskine and the Master of Maxwell came to visit him, on their own initiative rather than at the Queen's request, in an effort to persuade him to return to court. Moray was adamant in his refusal to do so.

Lord Erskine then sent Erskine of Dun on the same errand, but with 20 no more success. Lord Erskine had decided to support the

Queen in the question of her marriage and wished to persuade his nephew to follow the same course. Mary forbade the meeting of

Argyle and Moray's supporters at Glasgow on July 15, and so they 21 obeyed this command to the letter and met at Stirling instead.

On July 17 a special meeting of the Privy Council was held, at which

Erskine was present. The Council decided to send two men to

Argyle and Maray to ask for details about the alleged conspiracy to kill Moray. If they delayed in giving the information, it was intimated that this would prove that they had invented the 22 rumour in order to arouse hatred against the Queen and Darnley.

Two days later, at another meeting of the Privy Council attended by many who were not Councillors, Moray was given an assurance that he might safely come to the Queen on the third day after the receipt of the message. He was requested to deliver in writing 23 the details of the report of the conspiracy for his death. - 67 -

-' Mary realized that mere proclamations and threats were not enough to deal with MOray. On July 22 the Heges were summoned . 24 to attend h er maJesty. On July 28, a new assurance was given

to Moray that he might safely come to the Queen with eighty persons.

But, on this same day Mary made a public proclamation that as it

was her intention to marry Henry, Duke of Albany, he should 25 henceforth bear the title of King. Although Moray had been

granted a safe-conduct, his rivals were raised to such power that

he would profit little by availing himself of it.

Mary's plans for marrying Darnley had been under way for

sorne time. On April 15 Maitland arrived in Berwick on his

way to London with a commission to obtain Elizabeth's consent to

the match. At a consultation held at Westminster to discuss

Maitland's message, feeling was unanimous against granting the . . d 26 perm~ss~on requeste • In reply to Mary's request for her

approval of the Darnley marriage, Elizabeth announced her

intention to send Sir Nicholas Throckmorton to Scotland.

Mary, wishing to present Elizabeth with a fait accompli before

the latter had a chance to show her disapproval in definite terms,

ordered Maitland·~ delay Throckmorton as much as possible, so that

he would not arrive before the Scottish nobles had given their . 27 assent to t h e marr1age. On May 5 Throckmorton left London

with instructions to prevent or delay the marriage with Darnley,

or, if the matter had progressed so far that it could not be halted, - 68 -

28 to declare that it would greatly displease Queen Elizabeth.

He reached Stirling, where the Queen was in residence, on the

morning of May 15. The Master of Erskine (Alexander Erskine,

Lord Erskine's brother), and the Justice Clerk prevented him from

entering the Castle, and asked him to go to his lodging. In

the afternoon he was brought to the Queen by Lords Erskine and

Ruthven. She received the English ambassador accompanied by

Châtelherault, Argyle, Moray, Morton, and Glencairn, the most 29 pro-English of her advisers. After the meeting with Mary,

Throckmorton realized that the Darnley match was settled and there was no likelihood of preventing it. He felt that Elizabeth 1 s best course of action was to make a show of force. She should

deal firmly with her rebellious subjects Lennox and Darnley, and place Lady Margaret under close constraint. He wanted her to

show more favour to Lady Catherine Grey as an indication that Mary's 30 c 1 aims to t h e success~on. were b e~ng . put. ~n . Jeopar . d y b y h er act~ons. .

By June Elizabeth too felt that positive action was necessary;

she ordered Lennox and Darnley to return to England.

Elizabeth's actions came too late, for the damage had already been done. On July 16 Randolph reported to Cecil that the Queen

took advice from no one but Lennox, Darnley, David Rizzio, and

Lady Erskine. Of her former councillors there were left at court only Lord Erskine and Maitland of Lethington, and of these one did 31 not interfere and the other was not consulted. Mary had ridden - 69 -

to Seton with Lady Erskine as her only woman attendant, and accompanied also by Lennox and Darnley, a brother of Lord 32 Erskine, David Rizzio, and Monsieur Fowler. All the Erskines seem to have joined the ranks of the pro-Lennox faction. Lady

Erskine was the most prominent in the move, perhaps seeing in it some prospect of gain for her family. Mary was now determined to marry Darnley, and preparations for the wedding were afoot. The most important preliminary to the solemnization of the marriage was the obtaining of a papal dispensation.

After complicated negotiations the dispensation was granted 33 by the pope in late August or early September. On July 29,

1565, before the necessary dispensation was granted, Queen

Mary married Henry, Duke of Albany.

The Queen's marriage was accompanied by great festivities, and by the distrib~tion of rewards and honours to her most faithful subjects. To honour the marriage many were knighted, among them

Lady Erskine•s brother, William Murray of Tullibardine, who had 34 been comptroller since 1563. At this time also, the Queen gave legal acknowledgment to the claims of the Erskines, by granting John, Lord Erskine the titles of Earl of Mar, and Lord - 70 -

of Garioch.K The earldom of Mar had been inherited in 1388

by an heiress, the Countess Isabell, who married Sir Malcolm

Drummond. Sir Malcolm was killed; it was believed the murderer

was Alexander Stewart, illegitimate son of the Wolf of Badenoch.

Alexander forced the widowed countess to marry him and resign

to him the earldom, though this was not legal without the

consent of the crown. The Regent Albany gave Stewart a charter

securing the earldom to his illegitimate son, despite the

presence of a legal heir to the late countess, who had been

The Erskines' claim to the Earldom of Mar (taken from W. D. Simpson, The Earldom of Mar (Aberdeen, 1949), p. 62).

Donald 6th Earl d.l297

Isabell~-Robert I 1329

1 Marjbrie d.l315/6 Gratney 7th Earl d.ante 1305 Donald 8th Earl d.l332 Helen - Sir John Mentieth d. post 1312 J~n Christidh - Sir Edward Keith osp Sir Thomas - Janet d. 1473 Erskine Th~mas 9th Earl Margaret-William Earl of osp ca. 1374 d.l390 Douglas d.l384

James Earl of Isabella-Alexander Stewart Douglas and Mar d.l408 osp 1435 d. 1388 Robert Lord Erskine Claimant in 1435. - 71 - recognized by an earlier charter. The son predeceased

Alexander Stewart, and on the death of the latter James 1 took possession of the earldom. Sir Robert Erskine tried to secure

the earldom; he was retoured as the nearest heir of Isabel,

Countess of Mar, but, after twenty years of lawsuits, the Crown 35 refused to give up the lands. The Erskines continued to claim

the earldom of Mar as theirs by legal right. In 1565, probably in order to buy the support of Lord Erskine and his family for her marriage, Mary decided to recognize this right. As the first step in the restitution of the earldom of Mar it was necessary

that Lord Erskine's status as heir of Robert Erskine, and the

latter's position as last legitimate tenant of the Earldom and dignity of Mar should be legally established. An inquest was held under the Sheriffs of Aberdeen, Stirling, and Clackmannan, on May 5, 1565. The verdict of the jurors was that Robert, late

Earl of Mar, and Garioch, had died in the peace and faith of the

King, and that John Lord Erskine was legitimate and nearest heir 36 of the said Robert. On June 23, 1565 Queen Mary executed a charter under the Great Seal which, after reciting the descent of

John Lord Erskine from Robert Lord Erskine, said Robert being nearest and lawful heir to Isabel, Countess of Mar in the estates of Mar and Lordship of Garioch, and acknowledging that the said holdings had been unjustly withheld from John, Lord Erskine1 s ancestors, granted to

Lord Erskine, his heirs and assigna, the entire earldom of Mar and - 72 -

3 1 or d s h1p. o f Gar1oc . h as possessed f rom anc1ent· t1mes.· 7 The new

Earl of Mar received, along with the grant of the title, the lands of Strathdon, Braemar, Cromar, and Strathdee, or what had escaped the alienation of the territorium of the old Province of 38 Mar. The earldom of Mar had previously been held for a few months by the present Earl of Moray, who had retained some of the 39 lands. The grant of these lands to Lord Erskine was another means of alienating him from Moray's party.

After the Queen 1 s marriage, she bad still to deal with Moray and Argyle, and their followers. On July 28 a new assurance had been given to Moray by the Privy Council that he might safely come to t h e Qu een w1t. h e1g . h ty persans. ~ Moray, however, did not come to the Queen, or appear before the Council. On August 1 he was 41 ordered to come to Edinburgh, on pain of being put to the horn.

The following day Moray's associates, Rothes and Kirkcaldy of

Grange were ordered to put themselves in ward in Dunbarton Castle.

The Queen decided that the first action to be taken against the insurgents was to reduce the inhabitants of Fife to obedience, and persans of certain areas were summoned to meet with, and accompany 42 the King and Queen for that purpose. Mar was present at further meetings at which the Privy Council denounced Moray, Rothes and

Kirkcaldy of Grange as rebels for disobeying the Queen•s commands, ordered their property confiscated -- Mar would presumably be able to claim the lands belonging to the earldom of Mar which Moray bad had in - 73 -

his possession -- and charged all persona not to receive or aid the 43 rebels. So far the only action taken against Argyle was the

order for him not to receive or aid Moray and the others. Argy le

of course did not obey, and toward the end of August the King

and Queen made Athol their lieutenant in the north, with power 44 to pursue the rebels with fire and sword. This was a commission

Athol would carry out with determination, for, in July, after

Moray and Argyle had separated to gather their forces, Argyle had 45 summoned his levies, and used them to menace the lands of Atho1.

Next the Queen moved to the westward, leaving Edinburgh on

August 26, in pursuit of Moray, who was then at Ayr. The next Friday

Chatelherault, Moray, Glencairn, Rothes and Boyd, with 1200 horse rode into Edinburgh. They were received very coldly~

failing to obtain the support they expected. Mar turned the guns

of Edinburgh Castle on the town, and threatened to fire on them if

they did not leave the town. Mar was showing the same attitude to

them as he had shown in 1559. The lords took the hint and left

Edinburgh forDumfries, conveniently close to the borders in case 46 they had to leave the country. The royal army assembled at

Edinburgh on October 10; Mar was accompanying Darnley. The royal

forces advanced to Dumfries, then withdrew again to Edinburgh, where 47 another Privy Council meeting was held. Realizing that Elizabeth would not give him enough aid, Moray crossed the border on October

6, and entered Carlyle, accompanied by Chatelherault, Glencairn and 48 others. - 74 -

The small pockets of resistance remaining could now be

cleared up. The revoit against Mary's authority had collapsed,

and she seemed more securely placed on the throne than ever.

William Douglas of Lochlever, who had sheltered Mbray after he

left court, was ordered to put his house at the King's and

Queen's command and he signified his obedience to this order 49 through his uncle, the Earl of Mar. The new Earl of Mar,

who bore this message, had once again shown a preference for

loyalty to royal authority above the claims of his friends

and fellow Protestants. It seemed that his religion had not

been endangered despite the overthrow of Moray's power, for in

August the King and Queen had renewed the proclamation against

any attempts at 1nnovat1ons· · 1n· re 1·1g1on. . SO Mar cou ld congratu 1 ate

himself on having chosen the winning side, and having profited

greatly thereby.

Footnotes

1. Lee, op cit, 111. 2. ibid, 112. 3. Robertson, op cit, I, 243-244. 4. Lee, op cit, 120. 5. Keith, op cit, II, 260. 6. C.S.P. II, 119. 7. R.P.S., III, 206. 8. Lee, op cit, 125; Robertson, op cit, 255-256. 9. Lee, op cit, 130. 10. C.S.P. II, 127. 11. Fleming, op cit. 103. 12. Lee, op cit, 135. 13. C.S.P. II, 157, Randolph to Cecil. 14. Lee, op cit. 136. 15. Knox, History, II, 144. 16. Lee, op cit, 137. 17. R.P.C., I, 334-335. 18. Knox, History, II, 156. - 75 -

19. Keith, op cit, II, 313-314. 20. Knox, History, II, 156. 21. Lee, op cit, 142. 22. R.P.C., I, 339-340. 23. ibid, 341-342. 24. ibid, 343. 25. ibid, 345. 26. C. Read, Mr Secretary Cecil and Queen Elizabeth (London, 1955), 316. 27. Lee, op cit, 138. 28. Read, op cit, 317. 29. C. S.P. II, 162. 30. Read, op cit, 318. 31. J. Stevenson ed., Unpublished Documents Illustrating the Reign of Mary Queen of Scots (Glasgow, 1837), 125. 32. ibid, 119. 33. Papal Negotiations with Queen Mary, lxxvii-lxxviii; xci. 34. Keith, op cit, II, 350. 35. Lord Crawford, The Earldom of Mar (Edinburgh, 1882), I, 374; Grant, op cit, 211. 36. Crawford, op cit, I, 331-333. 37. R.P.S., IV, 389. 38. Simpson, op cit, 80. 39. J. Robertson, ed., The Antiguities of the Shires of Aberdeen and Banff (Aberdeen, 1847), II, 87-93. 40. R.P.C., I, 345. 41. ibid, 346. 42. ibid, 348-349. 43. ibid, 353-354. 44. ibid, 357. 45. Lee, op cit, 147. 46. Fleming, op cit, 113; Diurnal, 82. 47. R.P.C., I, 379-380. 48. Lee, op cit, 151. 49. R.P.C., I, 396, 399. 50. ibid, 356. - 76 -

Chapter V

Mar and the Protestant Opposition

Although after Moray 1 s flight into England Mary's position seemed secure, this stability was not to prevail for long. Soon other threatening clouds appeared on her horizon. The great influence of David Rizzio was provoking the envy and hatred, not only of the Scottish nobles, who always disliked any royal favourite, but also of Darnley, her husband. Darnley himself was proving to be more of a hindrance than the help she had hoped he would be. Swiftly, all the hopes which Mary had founded on her marriage began to fade.

Even before Moray left Court, Rizzio had become Mary's most trusted adviser. He had favoured the Darnley match from the beginning, and had done all in his power to advance it. The influence which he had gained over the Queen before her marriage did not diminish afterwards and he was detested by the Protestants both those who had remained at court and those who had rebelled.

The Protestant lords regard him as an emissary of the Pope, plotting to overthrow their religion, and thus make their lives and possessions liable to forfaiture for heresy. 1 The vehement love which Mary had shown for Darnley soon began to cool, as she realized that she had married a man who was worse than useless to her politically, and who was becoming personally repugnant to her.

Darnley proved himself completely unfitted for public business; a stamp bearing his signature was made and turned over to Rizzio. - 77 -

The excuse given was that the stamp was necessary in arder to facilitate SPVernment business, as Darnley was generally absent from court pleasure-seeking, but, though this was true, the action wounded Darnley's pride. Darnley wanted the Crown

Matrimonial, which Mary appears to have promised him before their wedding. Such a grant would have given him equal authority with Mary in the transaction of public business, and, what was most important to the nobles, especially to the Hamiltons, it would have meant that Darnley would become King in his own right if Mary predeceased him. Mary now refused to grant him such authority. Darnley blamed Rizzio for the cooling of Mary 1 s affections toward him, and for her refusal to grant him the

Crown Matrimonial, though in reality the chief fault lay in himself.

Although he did not receive tb!:Crown Matrimonial, and although the Queen was rapidly cooling toward him, Darnley 1 s position was still one of imp9rtance, and if he had applied himself to public business, rather than giving himself up to complaints and carousing, he might have been able to maintain it. Early in 1566 the

French Ambassador arrived in Scotland to invest the King with the

Order of St Michael. While the ambassador was still at court he and the King and Queen were banquetted in Edinburgh Castle by the 2 Earl of Mar. At this time the principal lords at court were divided into two factions; Morton, the Chancellor, Mar, and

Lethington, the Secretary were on one side, and the Earls of Huntly - 78 -

3 and Bothwell on the other. Mar was becoming alienated from the Queen's favourites. The former group was the one which was angered by Rizzio's influence on the Queen and uneasy about the position of the Protestant church.

The large, and powerful group of Protestant lords who had refused to join Moray were coming to view the development of

Mary's policy with alarm. Unknown to them, there was a cause for even greater alarm. In view of her approaching marriage, Mary had, in May 1565, made a promise to the lords about the public establishment of their religion. The papal dispensation for the marriage had been granted as the result of a promise by Mary and

Darnley that they would defend the Catholic religion to the utmost 4 of their power. The Protestant lords were working for the pardon and recall of Moray, which they considered would be an indication that Mary was not contemplating an attack on Protestantism.

At the end of January 1565/6 Mary refused to listen to any more pleas for her brother's return. Where words had failed, they turned to action. Plotting was rife among them. As early as October

1565 Randolph reported that there were sorne 11wyse men11 who were enemies to the government, chief among them being Lethington, Morton and Lord Ruthven. They were only awaiting the right time to act.

Randolph had heard 11 some good words11 of Lord Erskine, but was not 5 certain of his position. Mar was too cautious to commit himself to any such drastic action as that contemplated by his friends.

But even those among the Protestant lords who had not committed themselves - 79 -

had been alienated by Mary's conduct.

The greatest danger to the Protestant Church was considered to be Rizzio, against whose life a plot was developing in

February 1565/6. By the middle of the month Randolph was reporting that if what was planned was carried out, Rizzio 6 would soon have his throat eut, with the consent of the King.

The meeting of the Parliament which was to forfeit Moray was approaching, but there were plans afoot, in unlikely quarters, to secure Moray's pardon. Lennox went to Argyle with a proposal that if he and Moray would agree to the grant of the

Crown Matrimonial to Darnley, the rebels would be pardoned, and the desired security given for Protestantism. These were all projects which Mary had opposed, when th~ were mentioned to her. It was only on the condition of the restoration of Moray, and the safeguarding of Protestantism that the support of the lords could be obtained for Darnley 1 s wishes. In late February or early March a messenger from Scotland informed Moray of the plot. Bands were drawn up and Darnley promised, in writing, that he would grant Moray and his fellows remission for all crimes they might have committed, would restore their lands to them, would support them in all their just quarrels and would maintain the 7 proclamation of August 1560 on religious matters. Darnley was obliged to put his promises in writing, for his associates, most of whom were his relatives, and knew him only too well, did not trust him. - 80 -

Information about the plot was widespread. On the sixth of March Bedford and Randolph wrote to Cecil about a great attempt which was to be made, and which they had promised to 8 reveal to no one but Elizabeth, Leicester, and Cecil. Moray and the other lords had been summoned to appear in Parliament on Tuesday, March 12. He planned to arrive in Edinburgh on

Sunday, before which time the plot was to be put into action.

There were others who were well enough informed, and cautious enough, to be out of Edinburgh at the crucial time. TheE~l of Mar, though present at the Council meetings early in February, was absent on the twenty-third of the month, and appears to 9 have stayed away from the court till after the murder.

On the evening of March 9, Morton, Darnley, and the other lords entered Holyrood House, and made their way to the Queen's apartments. Mary was taken by surprise while_ supping with Rizzio,. the Countess of Argyle and a few others. Rizzio was slain, and

Mary placed under close guard. That night, Bothwell, Huntly,

Athol, the Laird of Tullibardine, Lethington, and Sir James

Balfoùr fled Holyrood House in fear for their lives. 10 A group of townspeople were roused by the commotion, but Darnley managed to quiet them; he also ordered Parliament dissolved. Mary, though for the moment a helpless prisoner, began to consider how she could escape. She needed someone's help for this, and the most likely candidate was Darnley. She used all her wiles to win him from his - 81 - fellow conspirators, pointing out how criminal and foolish his behaviour had been, listening to his protestations of innoaence, and pretending to believe them.

Meanwhile Moray was on his way back to Edinburgh. He left

Berwick March 10; news of Rizzio's murder reached him at Dunbar.

On reaching Edinburgh he went to Holyrood House, where he saw

Darnley, and later the Queen, who received him with simulated 11 affection. On Monday Darnley and the lords asked for a pardon for their action which Mary promised to sign the next morning, but that night she and Darnley, accompanied only by a few followers, one of whom was Arthur Erskine, Mar 1 s youngest brother, escaped from the palace, and fled to Dunbar. From Dunbar Mary sent Moray an offer of a pardon, while fighting men led by Bothwell and Huntly were gathering around her.

On March 17 the lords who had taken part in the conspiracy fled from Edinburgh. The following day Mary entered the city in triumph.

Moray and Argyle made their submissions and were ordered to retire to

Argyle's estates in the west. On March 19 the persons guilty of the slaughter of David Rizzio were summoned to appear before the Council in six days time. Among those named were William Douglas of Lochleven and 12 Adam Erskine, Commendator of Cambuskenneth, Mar 1 s nephews. Those attending the Privy Council meetings at this time were mainly those who had remained loyal to Mary through all her vicissitudes, although among those present were Moray 1 s father-in-law, the Earl Marischal, and the

Earl of Mar. Darnley made a public proclamation that he was entirely innocent of Rizzio 1 s murder, but anyone naive enough to believe this was swiftly undeceived, for his fellow conspirators sent to the Queen a copy of the - 82 -

bands he had signed. In April, Argyle, Moray, and Glencairn 13 once again took their places at the Privy Council. It was at this time that Mar lost an important guest in Edinburgh

Castle, and a source of income, for Arran was allowed to leave Mar's custody on condition that he promise to remain in ward in Hamilton. The Queenœemed to be leaning toward the

Hamiltons again. Mar, on the other hand, seemed to be losing favour, for it was rumoured that the Queen wanted him to deliver

Edinburgh Castle to her, but that he would not do so without the 14 consent of Parliament.

When she had the reins of power once more firmly in her hands

Mary began preparations for the bi~th of her child. As usual the court was divided into two factions: on one side 15 Huntly and Bothwell, on the other Argyle, Moray, Mar, and Athol.

Mary, feeling after the events of the past year that her brother's faction was to be trusted only conditionally, kept the members of the group around her in arder to maintain their allegiance at this crucial time. Moray, Athol, Argyle and Mar were asked tQ reside in Edinburgh Castle with her, while Bothwell retired to the Borders, in a fit of pique, or to avoid his enemies. Before the birth of her child, Mary, fearing that she would not survive the dangers of childbirth, had a testamentary inventory of her jewels and clothing compiled, including among other bequests several to the Countess of

Mar, who was one of the Queen•s favourites at this time, and also to - 83 -

16 the Earl of Mar as one of the Privy Councillors. On June

19 Mary's son, James, was born. Five days later Killigrew, the English ambassador, was summoned to the Castle, and taken to the Queen 1 s bedchamber by Mar, who seems at this time to have been in great favour.

By July, Moray had, to all appearances regained his old influence in the SPVernment and his party was the most powerful at Court. Recovered from the birth of her son, Mary left

Edinburgh for a time. In July she visited Mar at Alloa, and by the middle of August she was hunting in Megotland, accompanied by Bothwell, Moray and Mar -- a most unusual combination of . 17 compan1ons. In July Mary granted Mar certain lands and offices in recompense for his duties as captain of Stirling 18 Castle. Mar, who did not lose by joining Moray 1 s party, showed a facility for always being on the winning side. According 19 to Guzman da Silva Mary had trusted him in all her troubles.

In the fall of 1566 preparations were being made for the christening of Prince James. Soon after his birth the prince had been.put into the care and keeping of the Earl and Countess of Mar, who presumably conveyed their charge to Stirling, the ancient home of the Scottish kings, where he could be cared for in safety, 20 surrounded by adherents of the Protestant party. Elizabeth agreed to be godmother to the prince, naming as her proxy for the ceremony Mary's half-sister and confidante, the Countess of Argyle. - 84 -

The baptism took place on December seventeenth, at Stirling,

in the presence of the foreign ambassadors and some of the

highest nobles of the land, although, because the rites of the

Roman Catholic Church were observed in the ceremony a number of

lords refused to attend. There was great merry-making, feasting

and dancing in the castle during the visit of the ambassadors.

Darnley, although in residence at Stirling during the whole of

this period of revelry, was present neither at the baptism, nor

at t h e sub sequent f est1v1. 't' 1es. 21 It was rumoured at court

that anyone who wished to retain the Queen's favour should not seek, nor

associate with, Darnley, who, in the midst of the celebrations

and gaiety was left alone to brood. Darnley bad more to worry

him than merely the negligence with which he was treated at court.

His worst, and most feared enemies, his fellow conspirators of the

Rizzio plot, whom he bad most treacherously deserted, were about

to regain power. At the end of December Mary granted to Morton,

Ruthven, and Lindsay, their 11 relaxion and dressen, which was seen 22 as largely the result of Moray's friendly influence. Darnley was

surrounded on all sides by those who bad most reason to hate and

mistrust him.

Morton's pardon, coming as it did, at a time when Darnley was

in greatest disgrace at court was ominous, for a new plot was being

devised • Even before Rizzio 1 s murder Mary bad begun to regret her • - 85 -

marriage to Darnley, but after his participation in that affair ber dislike of, and contempt for him bad increased beyond all

bounds. Above and beyond this dislike, Mary was rumoured to have a new and more pressing reason for wishing herself rid of

Darnley, who was no more popular than he bad ever been with the

lords.

At the end of September Mary set out for Teviotdale to bring justice and order to the borders. Bothwell, who bad been

sent on ahead, was wounded in a serious encounter with Elliot of the

Park, and Mary rushed to his side. Immediately after ber return to

Jedburgh Mary herself fell seriously ill. For a time ber life was

despaired of, and a charming death-bed scene was acted out, with

all ber nobles around ber, and Mary pleading with Moray to refrain

from persecuting the Catholics. The Queen, however, recovered from her strange malady, and by the end of the month she bad regained

sufficient strength to survive even a visit from Darnley. Receiving a very cold welcome on his visit, the King retired to Glasgow, 23 h opLng. per h aps, t h at h.LS re 1 at1ves . at 1 east wou ld b e g 1 a d to see h.1m.

The cold reception accorded to the King was, in part at least, attributable to the growing influence of Bothwell, with whom the

Queen seemed to be infatuated. Melville recorded that Bothwell, who ruled all at court, was responsible for the return of sorne of

the banished lords, and had patched up a friendship with Morton -- a 24 most sinister occurrence, for Morton bad great cause to hate Darnley. - 86 -

While at Glasgow Darnley fell ill; the Queen expressed great

concern over his illness. In late January Mary was to all 25 outward appearances reconciled to her husband. Darnley

returned to Edinburgh and was lodged at Kirk o 1 Field.

On the evening of Sunday, February 9, the Queen and the

principal nobles of the court visited Darnley, staying with him

for two or three hours. The Queen was to have remained at

Kirk o' Field all night, but she left Darnley to return to Edinburgh.

About two in the morning a tremendous noise was beard, which aroused

the whole town. The King's lodging was found to have been totally

destroyed, and Darnley's body was found in the garden, with not a . 26 mar k on 1t.

It was clear to everyone that Bothwell was the chief culprit,

and many suspected that Mary shared his guilt. Other narnes were mentioned as well. Sorne lords appeared to have had sufficient knowledge, and prudence to be out of town when the explosion occurred.

Moray retired to the country to be with his wife, who was ill. 27 Mar, too, appears to have left Edinburgh, and taken refuge in Stirling.

Indeed almost everyone seems to have known that something was in the wind, but for those who wished to dissociate themselves from the whole affair, the only recourse was absence from court. To try to forestall events by warning Darnley would only endanger the person giving the warning without benefitting the King -- Lord Robert had endeavoured to instil sorne sense of danger and caution into the King's mind, but the latter had informed Mary of the warning, and paid no heed to it himself. Who could save a man so foolish as Darnley; - 87 -

who wanted to save a man sa universally disliked?

Although few dared speak out before the event, after

Darnley's murder there was little hesitation in denouncing the man all believed to be his murderer. Within a week after the death a bill was placed on the Tolbooth of Edinburgh, charging Bothwell with murder. Other placards, of a similar nature, were posted in the city. Mar 1 s brother-in-law, James

Murray of Tullibardine, was identified as the one responsible for posting the bill on the Tolbooth. After charging him to appear 28 before her, Mary ordered a search ta be made for him. Meanwhile

Lennox was pleading with Mary to take action against the murderers of his son, whom he named in his request. After long delays Mary informed Lennox that those whom he had named should be tried, and, if found guilty, punished. Mary seems to have been the only one who expressed any doubts as ta their guilt.

At a Privy Council meeting on March 28, at which Bothwell was present, arrangements were made for the trial of the accused, 29 the chief of whom was Bothwe11. As the time for the trial approached, Bothwell 1 s supporters filled Edinburgh, but Lennox was forbidden to bring with him more than a handful of retainers; on the pretext that the matter was most urgent, although much time had already been allowed to elapse, he was given insufficient time to prepare his proofs. As anticipated, the Earl was acquitted.

A few days after the trial Parliament met at Edinburgh. When the

Queen rode to Parliament, Bothwell carried the sceptre, and it was - 88 -

clear that he was the man who ruled at court. Parliament ratified the grant of the captaincy of Dunbar Castle to him, and passed a stringent act against "plarcards and billis and ticquettis of defamation", which was obviously intended against those who 30 accused Bothwell of murder. Opposition to the all-powerful Earl appeared dangerous, and prudence dictated to many retirement from court or from the country. Lennox and

Moray left Scotland that spring, and in April Mar, who had been in such favour the year before, asked for permission to leave 31 the country.

Mar appeared to be secure in Stirling Castle, but he had rapidly lost favour with theQueen. The Papal Nuncio to Scotland reported a rumour that Mar would abandon Mary to serve his nephew 1 s interest, especially as he suspected and feared that the Queen would take from him the fortresses of which he was custodian, so 32 that she might give them to Bothwe11. If Mary and Bothwell were to maintain firm control of the country, one of the problems which must be solved immediately was that of gaining possession of Edinburgh

Cast le. Mar held the castle on condition that he was to deliver it to no one except by the consent of the Estates, but to wait for the next meeting of Parliament seemed too long a delay to the Queen.

In conference with friends of the Earl, who at this time lay ill at Stirling, she tried to negotiate the delivery of the castle to 33 her, or someone nominated by her. Mar hesitated. Mary then - 89 -

ordered him to give up the castle of Edinburgh within twenty-four 34 hours, on pain of being charged with treason. Mar had never been one to yield to peremptory demanda of this sort, but Mary at last offered conditions which he found acceptable. It was agreed that the Queen should send her son to Stirling to be put in

Mar's care; in return he would deliver the castle of Edinburgh to her. Edinburgh Castle, which, once lost, could possibly be recovered, was less important than the safety of the young prince, for whose life many feared. Prince James was to be taken to Stirling to Mar, who was to give sorne of his principal relatives and friends as hostages to guarantee the surrender of Edinburgh 35 Castle. On March 19 Huntly and Argyle left Edinburgh with the prince, and the following day gave him into the hands and keeping of the Earl of Mar at Stirling. Mar delivered the castle to Mary, who granted him a discharge from all obligations he was bound to her for the castle. With her son, Mary sent to Mar instructions for his safe-keeping. She informed him that she was giving him her son so that he might be "conserved" within her castle of Stirling.

In order that this might be accomplished, Mar was ordered so to keep the castle that he allow no nobleman to enter the castle or come into the Prince's presence accompanied by more than two or three 36 persons. Mar obeyed this order, perhaps a little more strenuously than Mary would have wished, for it was not likely that she included herself among those against whom the prince must be - 90 -

protected. But, altbougb sbe bad lost custody of ber son, Mary bad obtained control of Edinburgh Castle. Sbe put in charge of it, first Sir William Cockburn of Scurling, and later Sir James 37 Balfour of Pittendreich.

Others too were worried about the safety of the prince. Before be left Scotland, Lennox visited Stirling Castle, where, seeing the prince, he requested the Earl of Mar to have earnest care 38 of his charge. This warning was probably prompted by the rumours current at the time that Mary intended to remove the prince from 39 Mar 1 s care and put him in Bothwell 1 s keeping.

At the end of April, after Parliament finished its sitting,

Mary went to Stirling to see her son. It was generally suspected that she intended, if possible, to get him into her own bands. Mar was, bowever, being very careful of bis charge; in admitting the

Queen to the castle be refused to allow ber to bring with her more . 40 t h an two 1 a d1es. It was on Mary 1 s journey back from Stirling that Bothwell intercepted her party, and carried her off to

Dunbar, apparently as his prisoner, although some said she was none too reluctant to accompany him.

When the news of Mary's abduction spread the lords became alarmed for the safety of the prince. Tbere gathered at Stirling

Argyle, Athol, Morton, Mar, Montrose, and the Laird of Tullibardine, who signed a band to obtain the Queen 1 s freedom, to preserve the prince from his enemies and in Mar 1 s keeping, and to protect the realm against the murderer of the late King. Mar, fearing an - 91 - attempt to put the prince in Bothwell 1 s hands, was victualling 41 the castle, and preparing to resist any such effort. The

question of the safety of the infant prince forced on Mar a most important decision, and one which was to prove a turning point in his career. Hitherto he had always been absolutely loyal to Queen

Mary, but now he had to choose between service to her and service

to her son. His decision meant the final and definite end of any service to Mary on his part -- he maintained his loyalty to the royal family, but to a new member of that family. This was a loyalty which he could reconcile with the interests of his Protestant faith and of his nephew's party.

By now all realized that Bothwell intended to marry the Queen.

Already, by threats of force, he had persuaded many of the nobles

to sign a paper requesting the Queen to marry him. One slight obstacle remained. Bothwell was already married, to Lady Jane

Gordon, Huntly's sister. Just after the baptism of Prince James, the previous December, Mary had restored Archbishop Hamilton to 42 hLS. ecc 1 esLastLca . . 1 JUrLs . . d"LCtLon. . The significance of this now became clear. Xhe Catholic Archbishop granted to Bothwell, a Protestant, an annulment of his marriage on the grounds of consanguinity. At the same time theCountess, a Catholic, applied to the Protestant

Court of Commissaries for a divorce from her husband on the grounds of adultery. The desired divorce was quickly granted.

While the way was being cleared for Bothwell to marry, the

Queen remained his prisoner at Dunbar. When, at last, all was ready, be brought her to Edinburgh, to the castle, which was in the - 92 -

hands of his supporters. Another problem arase. As it was obvious to everyone that the Queen was being held in captivity by Bothwell, onlookers might consider a marriage contracted under auch circumstances to have taken place under duress, and so be invalid. In arder to forestall such a possibility, Mary appeared at the Court of Session and declared that she was completely at liberty; though Bothwell's violence in seizing her had at first angered her, his respectful behaviour since the event bad soothed her anger, and persuaded her to raise him to 43 higher honours. Bothwell was granted the title of Duke of

Orkney, and on May 15, he married the Queen. The public ceremony was performed by Adam Bothwell, Bishop of Orkney, according to the rites of the Protestant Church.

Despite her infatuation Mary could hardly have failed to notice the signs of disapproval and mounting disaffection. The minister who was commanded to read the marriage banns protested against the marriage. Du Croc, the French ambassador, refused ta attend the ceremony or the feast which followed it. The sullen and disrespectful attitude of the people wh~n the Queen appeared in public testified to their disapproval. Mary, however, ignoring these signs of discontent bestowed all power and authority on

Bothwell. He was to sign all writs issued in the Queen's name; the Queen's persan was in his hands; she was surrounded by his devoted followers and no one could obtain a royal audience without - 93 -

his consent. The only thing lacking was the title of King; the reality of power was his.

By the time Bothwell at last married his Queen, a formidable opposition to his control was forming. Many of the nobles who had hitherto been intimidated by Bothwell 1 s power were at last roused to contemplate action. The manner in which he used, or abused the power which he had won, his attempts to gain control of the person of the prince, and the threats which he let fall against his stepson further stirred their feelings. The lords could not stomach the permanent tr~umph of this border ruffian. A group of nobles who had gathered at Stirling entered into another 44 association for the defence of the infant prince. On hearing of this league of the nobles for the defence of the prince Mary and

Bothwell made strenuous efforts to increase their strength and even win supporters. Mary proclaimed, both athome and abroad, that 45 she had not married Bothwell under duress. May 23 she issued a proclamation on the subject of religion, which was intended to 46 reassure the Protestants. She also issued a manifesta which endeavoured to justify her government, clearing it from accusations which had been ~eveled against it. An effort was made to break up the coalition of the lords against Mary; she succeeded in detaching

Argyle, but lost her most valuable adherent, when Maitland decided to join the lords. Mary and Bothwell, seeing that all this must soon lead to armed conflict, commanded the Queen 1 s subjects to take up arms and to attend them by a day appointed. - 94 -

The lords, too, were carrying on their preparations with diligence, and were ready to march before Mary and Bothwell had gathered their forces. The logical place of retreat for the

Queen and her husband should have been Edinburgh Castle, but they did not trust the captain, whom they had recently appointed. Taking the Queen to Borthwick Castle, Bothwell summoned his supporters to his assistance, with all the force they could muster, but the message was intercepted. Morton and Hume rode to Borthwick with a few hundred men and surrounded 47 the castle. Bothwell fled to Dunbar, followed by Mary, who escaped from Borthwick in disguise. Discovering that their prey had escaped them, the lords rode to Edinburgh, where they were joined by many of the townspeople. The day after their entry into Edinburgh the lords published a declaration of the motives which had led them to take up arms. They stated that they intended to deliver the Queen from captivity, preserve the safety of the prince, and punish the murderer of his father. The nobles not present were asked to come to Edinburgh with men-at-arms. This manifesto Wa8 signed by the chiefs of the confederate lords -- Morton, 48 Mar, Semple, Lindsay, and Glencairn. Mar was now among the leaders of the Protestànt opposition, for he realized the effect a royal victory would have on moderates such as himself. He might be able to induce the Protestant lords to follow the middle way which he preferred, but Mary's erratic course showed that he could have - 95 -

no more hope that her actions would be directed toward the benefit

of the country. His religion, his political ideals of moderation, his loyalty to, and concern for the prince who had been entrusted

to his care, his family ties and his own self-interest all

combined to place him in opposition to Mary.

Not far away, at Dunbar, Bothwell was gathering his forces

together. He did not dare risk waiting, for he knew that his army followed him most reluctantly. Realizing that his only hope of success lay in surprising the enemy, and striking a blow before his own troops became disaffected, he began to

advance towards the lords; on Sunday, June 15, the two armies met at Carberry Hill. Mar was one of the leaders of the second 49 line of the lords' army, along with his old friend Glencairn.

The Queen 1 s army consisted mainly of a hastily assembled rabbie,

lacking in courage, and inexperienced in war. Neither side was anxious to attack, as the attacking army would be at a disadvantage.

The French ambassador, who was accompanying one of the armies,

tried by negotiating with the Queen and the lords to end the 50 quarrel peaceably. As the day wore on the royal army grew less and less eager for battle. The soldiers began, gradually at first, to leave the field. Bothwell realized that his forces were melting away, and that he would have no chance in a conflict between the two armies. He offered to decide the matter in single combat with any of his adversaries. Kirkcaldy of Grange, Murray of - 96 -

Tullibardine and Lord Lindsay all offered to meet him, but nothing came of the challenge. Towards the end of the day,

the lords, having obtained a decided advantage prepared to

attack. Mary demanded, and was granted, an interview with

Kirkcaldy of Grange, at which it was agreed that if Mary would dismiss Bothwell from ber presence and put herself in the lords 1 51 bands, they would return to their allegiance. Bothwell was allowed to escape for if he were captured his words might prove embarrassing to many of the lords, who were so indignant against his involvementin the murder of Darnley -- and Mary surrendered to the nobles.

Scotland was once more in the bands of ber nobles. One of

the most important of these nobles who were governing the kingdom was the Earl of Mar. He was one of those who signed the letter which was sent to Elizabeth, justifying the taking up of arms against 52 their sovereign. When the customar of Edinburgh was discharged 53 he was replaced by James Murray of Tullibardine, Mar 1 s brother-in-law.

Sir James Balfour, Mary 1 s appointee, surrendered Edinburgh

Castle to the lords, and it was rumoured that Mar would once more 54 be given charge of the Castle. One wonders why this was not done, for Mar, the former governor of the castle, seems, at this late date, the logical person to have been given charge of it. Ferhaps the lords did not want to put Mar in a position of independent power again; remembering how he bad hindered their struggle against Mary of Guise, they may have felt he would be more malleable - 97 - without the castle. As events turned out, it would have been wiser to appoint Mar as governor of the castle.

Immediately facing the lords was the problem of what to do with Mary. She was taken from Edinburgh to Lochleven, the home of Mar's sister Lady Margaret Douglas, a place from which it was felt escape would be all but impossible. Should she be kept prisoner there the rest of her life; should stronger measures be taken against her? The Hamiltons were interested in securing

Mary's death, fbr in that event only one life, and that the precarious life of an infant prince, would stand between the Duke of the throne. There were others who felt that as long as

Mary was alive she endangered them or their causes. Few of

the confederate lords, however, favoured extreme measures. Rad

Mary agreed to divorce Bothwell, and to allow the gpvernment to remain in the hands of the lords, she would probably have been restored to nominal power. Elizabeth, who had always disapproved of, ~d feared attacks on crowned heads, was determined to halt this revolt and secure Mary 1 s release and restoration. She sent to Scotland Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, who was to discover Mary's side of the affair, and inform the lords of the wickedness and 55 folly of imprisoning their sovereign. The first member of the group in power whom Throckmorton met was Maitland of Lethington, who asked him to have patience at the delay in arranging a conference between him and the lords, which was mainly due to the - 98 -

absence of Mar, Glencairn, Semple, Creighton, and others of the council; when they returned the Ambassador would be able 56 to meet with all the lords together. After a wai t of several days, Throckmorton pressed the lords to give him an audience. He was especially anxious to meet them soon, as the 57 Assembly, planned for July 20, was drawing closer. On July 58 23 Mar and the others at last arrived in Edinburgh. Mar had been gathering support for the lords. July 22 he put before the provost, bailies, council and deacons of the burgh of Stirling the band which the nobles had signed pledging themselves to the punishment of those who had murdered Darnley, the dissolution of the marriage between the Queen and Bothwell and the safe- keeping of the prince. All those present approved the band, and promised their assistance in carrying out the purposes 59 outlined in it. The first point mentioned was the pursuit of

Darnley's murderers, the chief of whom was acknowledged to be

Bothwell. In August Kirkcaldy and Tullibardine, Mar's brother-in-law, were granted a commission to collect soldiers and rig ships in 60 order to pursue and capture Bothwell. It was generally realized that the gratitude of all would be much greater were Bothwell brought back dead rather than alive, for dead men cannot name accomplices.

Bothwell, however, managed to evade his pursuers and escape to

Scandinavia, where he was taken prisoner by the King of Denmark, who kept him in captivity the rest of his life. - 99 -

It was not Bothwell but Mary who was causing the lords the most concern. Throckmorton's conference with the lords was still indefinitely postponed, but on August 7 Mar 1 s brother-in-law

Tullibardine, who, Throckmorton heard, had much influence with

Mar, came to visit the English ambassador. Tullibardine hinted that the Queen 1 s life was in great danger, for the people of the 61 kingdom could see security only in her death. By means of

Tullibardine Throckmorton sounded out Mar, and found that he did not regard the Queen harshly, but was not likely to leave his associates, or to do anything which might harm the Queen 1 s son, or set the Queen free without the consent of all. Mar regarded his position as guardian to James as a great honour and would do nothing which might impair his credit with the ethers, for, as he told Throckmorton, if he betrayed these men, who were his kinfolk and friends, or his young master, who would believe hiM after~ He at last informed Throckmorton that he was not displeased by the latter 1 s efforts to preserve Mary's life, and would aid him if he could, but he would never save her 62 life by endangering her son1 s. Mar seemed at last to have settled on a permanent political allegiance --loyalty to Mary's son James.

Perhaps this was because he felt that under Mary the Protestant religion and the moderate course which he favoured, would inevitably be opposed by the government, and that in no ether way than the one he had chosen could he hope to see the country follow the middle way. - 100 -

A new factor bad entered into the discussions of Mary 1 s fate. The lQrds decided defini tely that she would no longer remain as their sovereign. Throckmorton repeated a rumour that Mary had offered to commit the government wholly to

Moray, or to give it to a group of the lords composed of

Châtelherault, Huntly, Argyle, Athol, Lennox, Morton, Mar, and 63 Glencairn -- the leading lords on both sides. Whether or not Mary ever made this offer, the lords reached the conclusion that the time bad come for her to abdicate. If she refused the lords would proceed to a judicial condemnation of her for being art and part in her husb'and 1 s murder .• On July 24 she signed three documents: her abdication in favour of Prince James, the appointment of Moray as Regent, and the appointment of a 64 council of regency should Moray refuse the task. On July

29 James was crowned in the parish church of Stirling. The

Countess of Mar bore the Prince the short distance from the castle to the church; Adam, Bishop of Orkney -- the prelate who had married Mary to Bothwell -- . 1-tlOf(lted the Prince, and 65 John, Earl of Mar placed the crown on his head. Athol,

Morton, Glencairn, and Mar were named as regents till the coming of 66 Moray. The Protestant party had again won the battle for the control of Scotland, and their triumph seemed secure now, for the country was to be governed by Moray, the ablest and most trusted of their leaders, and their sovereign was a year old prince, who could be led in the way they wished him to follow -- or so they fondly hoped. - 101 -

Footnotes

1. Fleming, op cit, 121-2. 2. Diurnal, 87. 3. Knox, History, II, 175. 4. Fleming, op cit, 122. 5. C.S.P. Bain II, 222, Randolph to Cecil, Oct. 12, 1565. 6. Lee, op cit, 162. 7. ibid, 164. 8. Fleming, op cit, 126. 9. R.P.C., I, 429, 437. 10. Sir James Melville, Memoirs (Edinburgh, 1827), 149; Lee, op cit, 167. 11. ibid, 167. 12. R.P.C., I, 436-7. 13. ibid, 452. 14. C.S.P. Bain, II, 274, Randolph to Cecil, April 4, 1566. 15. ibid, 289, Killigrew to Cecil, June 22, 1566. 16. J. Stevenson, ed., Inventories of Mary Queen of Scots (Edinburgh, 1863), 108, 112, 119, 170. 17. Fleming, op cit, 136-7. 18. Historical Manuscripts Commission, Mar and Kellie, vol. 137, 214-5, vol 137 a, 20. 19. Calendar of State Papers, Spanish, ed. M.A.S. Hume (London, 1892), I. 587. 20. ibid. 21. Melville, op cit, 171-2; Fleming, op cit, 144-5. 22. C.S.P. Bain, II, 308, Bedford to Cecil, December 30, 1566. 23. Melville, op cit, 172-3; Fleming, op cit, 138; Lee, op cit, 182. 24. Melville, op cit, 123. 25. C.S.P. Bain, II, 309, Bedford to Cecil, January 9, 1566/7. 26. ibid, 313, Report of M. de Clarnault; Fleming~ op cit, 150. 27. R.P.C., I, 474, 523; Knox, History, II, 204. 28. Fleming, op cit, 155. 29. R.P.C., I, 504-5; Fleming, op cit, 154. 30. Fleming, op cit, 155. 31. Calendar of State Papers, Spanish, I, 637; Papal Negotiations with Queen Mary, 380. 32. Papal Negotiations, 370. 33. Buchanan, II, 499. 34. Fore. Eliz., VIII, 194. 35. Buchanan, op cit, II, 500; D. Calderwood, History of the Kirk of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1843), II, 348. 36. Diurnal, 105, 108; Historical Manuscripts Commission, Mar and Kellie, vol. 137, 16-17, 21. 37. R. Pitcairn ed. Ancient Criminal Trials in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1833), II, pt. II, K 479. 38. Fore. E1iz., VIII, 207, Drury to Cecil, April 15, 1567. 39 •. c.s.P. Bain, II, 322. 40. Calendar of State Papers, Rome, ed. J. M. Rigg (London, 1416), I, 243; J.A. Froude, History of England, (London, 1870), IX, 58. - 102 -

41. c.s.P. Bain, II, 326-7. 42. Fleming, op cit, 144. 43. Robertson, op cit, I, 341. 44. Knox, History, II, 207. 45. Lee, op cit, 196. 46. R.P.C., I, 513. 47. Diurnal, 112. 48. C.S.P. Bain, II, 331. 49. Buchanan, op cit, II, 19-20. 50. Robertson, op cit, I, 346. 51. ibid, 347; Lee, op cit, 197. 52. C.S.P. Bain, II, 338. 53. R.P.C., I, 547. 54. Fore. E1iz., VIII, 254. 55. Lee, op cit, 201. 56. Unpub1ished Documents Illustrating the Reign of Mary, 203. 57. ibid, 214. 58. Fore. Eliz., VIII, 297, Throckmorton to the Queen, 25 July, 1567. 59. Historical Mss. Comm., Mar and Kellie, pt. I, 17. 60. R.P.C., I, 545-6. 61. C.S.P. Bain, II, 373, Throckmorton to the Queen, 9 August, 1567. 62. ibid, 376-7, the same to Leicester. 63. Unpublished Documents Illustrating the Reign of Mary. 220, Throckmorton to Elizabeth. 64. Lee, op cit, 205. 65. Diurnal, 199. 66. Fore. Eliz., VIII, 306, Throckrnorton to Elizabeth, July 31, 1567. - 103 -

Chapter VI

The Regencies of MOray and Lennox: Mar Remains Steadfast

Having placed the crown on the head of the new king and taken the reins of power into their own bands, the lords were now awaiting Moray 1 s return to Scotland. In April, seeing his position becoming untenable, Moray had left the country for

France, from where he watched events in Scotland with great interest. After the Battle of Carberry the earl realized that he must return to Scotland as saon as possible to consolidate the Protestant gains. He temporized skilfully with the French, managing to leave France without committing himself to anything, and reached London. At about this time he learned of Mary 1 s refusal to give up Bothwell, and of the discovery of the

Casket Letters, written by Mary to Bothwell, before and after

Darnley 1 s death, and implying ber involvement in the murder.

He told the Spanish Ambassador that he now felt that Mary was guilty of foreknowledge of the plot to kill Darnley. This caused a change in his attitude to Mary, which angered Elizabeth, who was still pressing for ber cousin 1 s release and restoration.

Moray avoided any break with Elizabeth, or any definite commitment, and proceeded north to his native land.

On August 11 Moray rode into Edinburgh, where he was greeted by the cheers of the Protestant citizens of the capital. Before he would accept the regency which was offered to him he wished to see the Queen. A few days after his arrival in Scotland, Moray - 104 -

accompanied by Morton, Athol and Lindsay, weut to Lochleveu, where he was able to elicit from Mary verbal confirmation 1 of h er uom~uat~ou. . o f h.~m as regent. Ou Au gust 22 Mo ray was proclaimed Regent of Scotland. The Queeu 1 s abdication and her appoiutmeut of him as Regent were read; he swore a solemn oath to do justice, preserve the rights of the realm 2 of Scotland, and uphold the true religiou.

There were two problems faciug Moray which had to be solved as soou as possible: his relations with Englaud, and

the restoratiou of arder at home. Throckmortou, ou behalf of

Elizabeth, was still demaudiug that the lords release Mary.

Moray refused, but softeued his refusal by expressions of his goodwill toward Eugland. Ou Throckmortou 1 s departure for

England Moray and his chief advisers, one of whom was Mar, offered him a gift of plate, which he reluctantly refused, as it was 3 offered in the uame of King James. Mar was uow one of the principal auti-Mariau lords, promiuent in many of the actions of the government.

Another important problem was that of Mary 1 s supporters. Wheu

Moray heard that the Marian lords were planning a meeting in Glasgow early in September, he ordered the Reges to be prepared to march 4 with him agaiust the rebels. As the Marian lords were becomiug discouraged, some agreed to come to terms with the King 1 s lords.

There was good reasou for their discouragement. On October 1 - 105 -

Moray captured Dunbar, which was one of the last strongholds 5 held by his opponents. . Next he took steps to pacify the borders.

Scotland was gradually being reduced to order.

In December, 1567, Parliament met. Among the Lords of the 6 Articles was the Earl of Mar. Parliament reaffirmed the Acts of the Reformation Parliament of 1560, and tried to abolish

Catholicism completely. Appointments to all.benefices and teaching posts must receive the approval of the Kirk; only

Protestants were to hold public offices. The thirds of benefices were to be paid directly to the ministers, but sorne part of them 7 were still to go to the government. By following an extreme

Protestant policy Moray won the support of the Kirk, though alienating sorne of his followers.

At a time when Moray seemed to have established his position, albeit not with complete invulnerability, this state of quiescence was suddenly shattered. May 2, 1568, Mary escaped from Lochleven, and moved westward into Hamilton territory to rally hersupporters.

Moray immediately issued a proclamation ordering all the lieges to come to Glasgow to assist in the preservation of the Kingrs persan 8 and authority, and the restoration of peace. Even before Mary 1 s escape Moray had realized that the state of the country was perilous, for on May 1 he ordered Mar to remove from Stirling Castle all persona except those of his own family and retinue, and those who on life honour and heritage would answer to the Regent; this was to be done because of the need for great care for the safety of 9 the King. - 106 -

Now the danger bad become much greater. Moray decided to

remain where he was in Glasgow, for a few days at least, for, if

he retreated, the northern and western wings of Mary 1 s party would

be able to join forces, and he knew that the area immediately

surrounding Glasgow was loyal to him. His friends began to

rally around him. Meanwhile Mary 1 s friends flocked to ber

headquarters at Hamilton, and on May 8 signed a band pledging

themselves to restore her to her throne. Mary, fearing that

she would become a tool of the Hamiltons, tried to negotiate

an agreement with MOray which would achieve her restoration without bloodshed, and by preserving MOray's party intact, permit her to

avoid the domination of the Hamiltons , but Moray refused to . 10 agree to any comprom1se. It was decided to take Mary to

Dunbarton, the one important fortress still in the bands of ber

supporters. The Marian lords, rather than trying to avoid the

Regent's forces, decided to pass close by Glasgow in hopes of provoking an engagement. Moray determined to accept the challenge.

On May 13 he marched out of Glasgow to a village called Langside, where he intercepted Mary 1 s army.

At Langside the King's army was divided into two battalions, with Mar, Glencairn, and ~nteith leadingfue left wing. In a short

fight Moray won a decisive victory. Lasses were slight and many

. t-~ 11 pr1soners were ~en. Having witnessed the defeat of her army,

Mary fled south; after three days of complete panic she decided - 107 -

to throw herself on the mercy of Elizabeth, and crossed the border into England. She wrote to Elizabeth explaining her plight and laying the blame on Moray, Morton, Hume, Glencairn, 12 Mar and Semple, as her chief enemies. It is understandable that Mary should be angered that Mar, who had stood by her through the early years of her reign, and whom she had rewarded ~o well, should now have joined the party of her opponents.

Mary did not, however, despair altogether of winning Mar to her cause again. Perhaps she remembered his earlier vacillations, or perhaps she trusted that the influence of his family, all of 13 whom were reputed to be Catholics, might win him away from the

Protestant lords. She decided to try to sow discord between Mar and Moray, and turn Mar against the English alliance. Toward the end of 1568 she wrote to Mar that her love of her son she was playing on the loyalty of the Erskines to infant Stewarts induced her to warn him that the child was to be taken away from him and brought to

England, and Stirling Castle garrisoned by strangers; she urged him to take care that neither be taken from him, and spoke of her trust in him which had led her to place both in his keeping. Mary also warned Mar against a relative of his whose greed, and ambition to rule might induce him to allow his country to become a vassal of another, as it was likely to if the plans of those who sought only 14 their own aggrandizement were not foiled. She seemed to forget that she had once been ready to allow Scotland to become a vassal of France. - 108 -

This attempt by Mary to sow suspicion in Moray's party was, however, far from successful, for Mar communicated the contents of the letter to Moray, against whom Mary's hints were directed, almost immediat ely. On his return from the York-Westminster Conference

Moray sent to Cecil the original of Mary's letter, a copy of which he had already sent from Huntingdon. At the same time Mor a y requested that the letter be returned with the next packet of mail, for Mar did not want any of Mary's letters to him to be used 15 against her. Mar seems to have been more charitably disposed toward Mary than many of the lords. Even before Moray 1 s return to Scotland, news of Mary 1 s hints and warnings had reached

Elizabeth, who wrote to the Earl and Countess of Mar that she knew of their great care for Prince James, and assuring them also that any report spread by his mother that she and Moray had made 16 any contract harmful to him was utterly untrue. It was most important both to Moray and to Elizabeth that they retain the support of Mar, for he held the infant king, without whom Moray 1 s government would collapse.

In the last year of his regency Moray tried to reach some sort of accommodation with Mary 1 s supporters. He felt that Elizabeth's change of attitude following the York-Westminster Conference would dishearten them and perhaps make them more amenable to compromise.

He feared too that a policy of stern repression against the Marians would alienate Maitland and his followers. In order to strengthen his bargaining position Moray summoned the men of the lowlands to 17 gather March 10 against the rebels. - 109 -

The swiftness with which Moray gathered his strength alarmed the Marians. Châtelherault asked the General Assembly to prevent

Moray from assailing him, and then wrote to MOray in an effort 18 to dissuade him from attacking. He found MOray quite willing to negotiate. On March 13 an agreement was made between the parties. The Duke and his followers were to recognize the King 1 s authority; sorne of them were to be admitted to the council, and their forfeitures were to be revoked. A meeting was to be held in Edinburgh on April 10 between the representatives of both parties, to discuss the question of what should be done with Mary.

Those named for the King 1 s lords were the Regent, and Morton, Mar, 19 Athol, and Glencairn. In the meantime hostilities were to cease.

By the time of the meeting in Edinburgh Châtelherault had begun to have doubts about deserting Mary 1 s cause. When Moray presented him with a document. in which he acknowledged the authority of James

VI, the Duke refused to sign, requesting a delay till May 10. Moray did not intend to accept this refusal. On April 18 Châtelherault and Herries were committed to ward in Edinburgh Castle, because of their refusal to fulfill the terms of the agreement which had 20 been made at Glasgow. Meanwhile other members of Mary's party were negotiating. In May Argyle, accompanied by Mar, came to 21 St Andrews to·make his submission to the Regent. Mar was once again playing his favourite role as a mediator, bringing his old friends together. Huntly at last came to St Andrews to bargain with

Moray, and was forced to submit to the Regent's terms, which crippled - 110 -

. 22 h1s power. In order to ensure that his authority was felt

and acknowledged in the north, Moray decided to tour Huntly1 s

dominions in force. He summoned Huntly's followers, fined 23 most of them, and forced them to submit to the King's authority.

At last the King's writ ran in the territory of the Cock of the

North, and MOray seemed to have assured the country of a period

of peace.

At this time, however, just as MOray was bringing domestic peace, the question of Mary's fate again became urgent. Mary was proving an embarrassment to the English government, and

Elizabeth decided to try to rid herself of the responsibility for, and danger from, her cousin, by arranging a reconciliation between her and Moray. Elizabeth hoped, futilely, that Moray would agree

to Mary's restoration under stringent guarantees for Protestantism, 24 and the security of Moray and his friends. Meanwhile another plan, of which Elizabeth was unaware, was gaining support in England;

this was a plan for Mary to marry the Duke of Norfolk, and ultimately be recognized as Elizabeth's heir. Before this could be carried out Mary 1 s marriage to Bothwell must be ended, and so Mary asked her brother to procure for her a divorce from her husband. This request, which, had it come after Carberry might have saved Mary 1 s throne, was now quite unacceptable to MOray. The Regent decided to hold a Convention of the Estates to discuss the proposals made by Elizabeth and Mary. - 111 -

The Convention met at Perth on July 28. .Among those

attending was the Earl of Mar. , The first day of its meeting the

Convention heard the three alternatives proposed by Elizabeth first that Mary acknowledge her son 1 s authority and be granted her freedom; second that Mary and her son reign jointly, with

the government in the hands of a regent and council during her son1 s minority; third that Mary be restored on condition that she give guarantees for the Protestant religion and the safety of

Moray and his friends. These proposais were carefully considered~ and the last two were rejected absolutely as being prejudicial to'the King's estate, and too dangerous for the peaee of the realm.

The first alternative was the only one considered at all acceptable, and Moray was authorized to negotiate on that alone. The next day was spent in answering certain requests of the General Assembly, and on August 30, they came to Mary 1 s proposais. Lord Boyd appeared on Mary's behalf and asked that the Commissary Court be commanded to proceed in an action to divorce her from Bothwell. A vote taken on the matter was overwhelmingly against Mary. .Among those voting to refuse her application was Mar, while theComptroller, Mar 1 s 25 brother-in-law, Murray of Tullibardine voted for it. Even the influence of his family did not separate Mar from Moray 1 s party, in which he saw the only hope for the moderate policy which he favoured.

Realizing that his refusai to consider Mary 1 s restoration, or to pave the way for the Norfolk marriage would stir up enemies for him, - 112 -

MOray decided to wipe out the last traces of rebellion among

Mary 1 s old friends before new opposition could arise. Huntly was ordered to settle with all those who had complaints against him, and preparations were made for the seige of Dunbarton, the 26 last important Marian stronghold. Concessions were made to the Kirk, whose support was necessary. Meanwhile, storm clouds were gathering. In August there was a gathering in Dunkeld of various lords including Athol, Crawford, and Maitland.

Ostensibly the lords had met to hunt, but it was rumoured that they were discussing ways and means of bringing Mary back to

Scotland, and ruining Morton and his friends. Following the conference Athol and Maitland met with Moray, Mar, MOrton and

Semple at Stirling. The Privy Council meeting was interrupted by Thomas Crawford, who accused Maitland of complicity in the murder of Darnley. The Council voted that Maitland should be imprisoned till he could stand trial. After being held for a short time in Stirling Castle, Maitland was moved to Edinburgh, where he was lodged in the home of David Forrester, from where he was carried off to Edinburgh Castle by Kirkcaldy. Moray suspected that when the time came for Maitland 1 s trial Kirkcaldy would refuse to g1ve. h.1m up. 27 The full implications of the union of Maitland and Kirkcaldy within Edinburgh Castle did not reveal themselves till later. Moray, meanwhile, was tying up other loose ends.

In December Argyle came to Edinburgh to speak to him, and was - 113 -

• conveyed there by Mar, who accompanied him on his return to 28 Castle Campbell. Possibly Mar had been asked by his nephew

to keep an eye on the wily earl, and see that he did not continue

his connections with the Regent's enemies. At England' s

request Moray began to raise an army to assist in the suppression

of the Northern Rebellion, which had broken out in November.

By the time his army assembled, the back of the rebellion had

been broken, but Moray was able to capture one of its leaders, 29 the Earl of Northumberland, who had entered Scotland. The

capture of Northumberland was greeted by the Scots, especially

the borderers, with rage. lt had always been traditional for

Scotland and England to give refuge to each other's rebels.

Mar was among the very few lords who supported the seizure of 30 Northumberland. Despite his earlier aversion to foreign

entanglements, he seemed now to realize the importance of preserving

the English alliance, and he saw too the necessity of maintaining

a united front among the King's lords.

It was as well that Mar supported his nephew in this case, for

a new and shattering blow was soon to strike the king 1 s party.

At the end of December Moray took Northumberland to Lochleven, where

he was to remain as captive. On his return journey to Edinburgh

to confer with theEnglish ambassadors, the Regent spent the night

of January 22 at Linlithgow. The next morning, as he was leaving

the town, he was shot by James Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh, who had been

captured at Langside and pardoned by Moray. Moray died that night - 114 -

31 of his wounds. On January 28 Mar wrote to Elizabeth to tell her of his nephew 1 s murder~ and to inform her of what danger it brought to the realm. Since the King, who was in his care, was now in danger, not only from those who murdered his father, but others as well, Mar asked Elizabeth 1 s assistance to with stand a 11 per~.1 s to h'~m. 32

Mar 1 s position at the time of the Regent's murder was one of great importance. His various official duties proved rumunerative.

From the lordship of Stirlingshire he received a pension of flOO.

He also received a fee as chamberlain of Stirlingshire, and grants 33 of money and victuals for the upkeep of Stirling Castle. At

Moray 1 s funeral Mar was one of thepall-bearers. He had become one of the most prominent members of the King's party.

The death of Moray was most unfortunate for Scotland, as it resulted in three years of bitter civil war. The arrest of

Northumberland had angered the people, and the Regent had not had time to get the country in hand again before his untimely death.

No one man stood out as the obvious successor to MOray, and it was six months before a new Regent was chosen. In the meantime a group of Moray's followers took on themselves the government of the realm. On February 8, Mar, Glencairn and others went to

Edinburgh to attend the convention which had been summoned for the tenth of the month in order to consider the government of . d 34 o f t h e k ~ng om. In the present condition of the kingdom, it was - 115 -

judged wisest not to take the chance of stirring up fresh unrest by pursuing matters further against Maitland, and a decree was issued by the Privy Council, signed by Mar among others, declaring 35 that they considered Maitland to be innocent of murder. Mar, who bad proven his loyalty and devotion to the King 1 s cause in the past few years, was one of the group of nobles carryingOI the work of government at the time. They issued a summons to a convention in Edinburgh on March 4, because the state of the country 36 was so troubled. There met in Edinburgh Morton, Huntly, Athol,

Crawford, Mar, Glencairn, Lord Ogilvie, and others who discussed 37 what authority they bad to elect a new Regent.

While this meeting was taking place in Edinburgh, the Hamiltons,

Argyle, Boyd, and others of the Queen 1 s party met in !.i.nlithgow.

Mar, Glencairn, Semple, Lindsay and others came from Stirling to

Linlithgow; sorne of their men burnt one of the buildings in the town. This greatly offended Argyle and Boyd, who were in the town at the time, and so they refused to attend the convention in 38 Edinburgh. At the convention Morton and Mar and their supporters decided to remain in Edinburgh by turns to maintain the government 39 of the State. Morton and Mar were at this time the most important of the group governing the kingdom. They were the strongest and bad been the most steadfast in supporting Moray from the time of

Darnley' s death.

At the meeting of the King 1 s lords nothing of value was achieved. - 116 -

The lords who attended all showed their determined opposition

to the return of Mary, but apart from this they agreed on very little. After the convention the lords gathered at the Tolbooth, and decided that the commission which Mary had granted while in captivity at Lochleven was sufficient warrant for the election of 40 a new regent, but they did not actually choose a regent.

The Queen 1 s lords decided to hold another meeting in Linlithgow in April. They sent Athol to Stirling to confer with Morton and

Mar on various matters, including the answer which should be made 41 to the French ambassador. Apparently the two groups were coming closer together, but not for long. Skirmishes between King's and Queen 1 s lords saon broke out again. At the end of April Mar decided to return to Edinburgh from Stirling. He and his men had come as far as Linlithgow when they were met by the Queen's lords who attempted to prevent their reaching Edinburgh. When

Morton, who had come to meet Mar, joined them, the King's lords had the superior strength, but nightfall forced them to leave the 42 fight and go to Edinburgh. The Queen 1 s lords had definitely failed in their attempt to prevent or delay Mar's return to

Edinburgh, and the skirmish had only served to show that their strength was inferior to that of the King's lords.

Morton and Mar realized that at this time,weakened as they were by the death of Moray, and the refusal of Kirkcaldy to support them, they could not hope to defeat their adversaries unaided. In March, despite Mar's habitual dislike of foreign intervention, they were - 117 -

sounding out Randolph about the likelihood of obtaining support 43 from Elizabeth for maintaining the King's authority. Mar wrote to Elizabeth thanking her for her interest in the safety

of the King, and intimating that her aid might be necessary to 44 preserve the King 1 s person. The lords also hinted to Elizabeth

that, if she refused to help them, they would turn to the French, who had promised them aid. In answer to this Sussex was sent

north with an army. He was ordered to join forces with those

of the nobility who had shown themselves favourable to Elizabeth

and the continued friendship between the two oountries, thus showing

the difference between "the certain action of England, and the 45 doubtful promises of France.u Mar and Morton knew how to steer

a middle course in such a way as to bring greatest benefit to their

cause. Ambassadors were sent south to confer with Sussex, and with Elizabeth, to thank them for their goodwill, to seek their

advice on the government of Scotland, and most important of all, 46 to request aid in subduing the rebel lords. Negotiations were

at last completed, hostages were sent to Berwick for the Scottish

lords, and Sir William Drury entered Scotland with a thousand foot soldiers, and three hundred horse. The English troops were joined by the

King 1 s lords, and the joint army proceeded to plunder the land around 47 Glasgow belonging to the Ramiltons.

Accompanying Drury 1 s army was Lennox, who had joined the 48 Scottish lords by May 16. The period of government by committee was soon to come to an end, for Lennox, as the King's nearest relative, - 118 -

was the natural choice as regent. Soon after the news of

Moray's death reached England, plans to arrange Lennox's return to Scotland were under way. Randolph asked Cecil to aid in ensuring that Lennox came to Scotland, and once there that he would follow the advice of Morton, Mar and Glencairn, 49 who were firm friends to England. Throughout the winter and spring, as Lennox's return was delayed, the lords continued to dither over the election of a new regent, although they considered that by the Queen's commission granted during her captivity at Lochleven they had the authority to choose a successor to Moray. At last, in May, when the English army entered Scotland, Lennox rejoined the lords. Even then no definite steps were taken to put the government into Lennox's bands. In a letter written the middle of June, Randolph implied that Lennox and Mar were the most important lords in the government, but he thought that saon someone would . d 50 b e c h osen to govern t h e k ~ng om. A convention of the lords was held at Stirling on June 19, but Randolph 1 s predictions 51 were proven wrong; still no action was taken about the regency.

Elizabeth, who felt that Lennox would be the most likely of the lords to act in alliance with her, and so would be, from her point of view the most suitable choice as regent, bad long hesitated, as was ber custom, to express a definite choice in the matter. At last events forced ber band. Pope Pius V published a bull excommunicating

Elizabeth and deposing ber. Elizabeth feared a rising in support of

Mary, who was now, according to the Catholic Church, legally Queen of - 119 -

England, and she knew that the safety of her throne depended on

her maintaining her influence in Scotland. She suggested to

the King 1 s lords that it was time that they should elect a regent,

and indicated that Lennox had the best title to the position.52

Taking the hint, the lords, on July 17, elected Matthew, Earl 53 of Lennox as Regent of Scotland.

When, at last a Regent had been chosen, resolute action

could be taken against Mary's supporters. After preventing a

gathering of the Queen 1 s lords which was to be held in Linlithgow,

the new Regent marched against Huntly, Mary's lieutenant in the north, and forced his garrison at Brechin to surrender. Maitland was at last removed from the office of Secretary, and he, the

Duke, Huntly, and other leaders of the Queen 1 s party were . d b . 54 proc 1 a~me to e tra~tors. In January Lennox, accompanied by 55 Mar, and Glencairn, left Edinburgh for Stirling. With Maitland

and Kirkcaldy in the castle, Edinburgh was no longer safe for the

Regent. In Stirling, under the watchful eye and protective guns, of Mar, surely he would be safe.

Meanwhile Mary, in her captivity in England, was ceaselessly plotting. Perhaps she thought that with the death of his nephew, whose murderer she had rewarded, his allegiance to the King 1 s

lords might be weakened; perhaps she felt that there was always

a possibility of his changing sides; in any case, Mar was once

again the target of her persuasive arts, which unfortunately for her, were not nearly so powerful exercised at a distance as in

In January 1569/70 Mary wrote to the Countess of Mar, perhaps hoping to play on the latter 1 s womanly sympathies, or - 120 -

feeling that if she won the support of the Countess the latter would easily win over her husband. Mary was sending her son gifts, and she hoped that her servants would be allowed to see the child, so that they might report back to her on his condition. She probably hoped by this display of affection for her child to win sympathy for her cause. As an added touch she also reminded the Countess of allthe benefits Mary had bestowed 56 on her and her husband. This appeal to the sentiments of sympathy and gratitude having failed, Mary decided to try another approach. In her next letter to the Countess she began by reproaching her that neither reminders of their duty, nor the obligations that they owed her for so many benefits and honours had influenced the conduct of the Earl and Countess of Mar, even though the Queen had shown them such love and trust that she had placed her dear child in their care. No mention was made of how she had been persuaded to do this. Nevertheless àhe was willing to consider forgiving them, and restoring them to favour -- on condition.

She hoped to return soon to Scotland, and wished Mar to work for this. The day might come when she would have the Countess' son in her hands, as now the Countess had hers, and Lady Mar was warned not to turn him away from his mother for fear that the same should 57 happen to her son. Mary felt secure enough, or desperate enough, to try the use of threats to win Mar from his fellows. Her wiles, however, had little better success with Mar than they had had a year - 121 -

earlier. In March of 1570 Gureau de Spes reported to King

Philip that Mar was thought to be considering changing sides,

but that his allegiance had been retained by a present from 58 Elizabeth. Mar was not likely to leave a cause which involved

his loyalty, his religion, and his pocket-book, solely because of

vague threats and appeals for sympathy made by a Queen who was

a prisoner in England.

At this time Mary bad hopes that she would not remain a

prisoner much longer. Elizabeth was, once more, feeling most

uncertain of her position. Publication of the papal bull in

England, the menacing attitude of France, and the uncertainty of

her relations with Spain combined to make ber listen with interest to

suggestions that she pacify France by seeking Mary 1 s restoration.

She sent Randolph to Scotland to sound out the King's party at

Stirling. Randolph reported that Mar would have to be dealt with circumspectly, for this suggestion would be most unacceptable

to him, but Randolph felt that if anyone could win Mar 1 s support, he was the one to do it, although he hoped that Morton or some 59 other would broach the matter to him. Randolph bad persuaded

Morton, who was himself none too pleased by Elizabeth's plan, not

to reject it too hastily. On the other band, Tullibardine, Mar 1 s brother-in-law, seemed to be most pleased by the thought of the 60 Queen 1 s return.

After Lennox 1 s election as Regent Randolph continued the - 122 -

negotiations. He persuaded Lennox to agree to a meeting at

Edinburgh; when the Regent arrived he was accompanied on1y by 61 Mar. Sussex, meanwhile, was endeavouring to speed up negotiations, perhaps in fear that Elizað might again change her mind. He sent Randolph a copy of the articles which he was to have the Regent and the lords of the King's party sign. Although he realized

that now that they seemed to have the upper hand they would be most reluctant to agree to this, the King's lords must remember that they owed their position to Elizabeth's aid, and show their gratitude by supporting her plan. If it would delay matters to assemble all the Council to sign the articles, the signatures 62 of the Regent, Morton and Mar would suffice. These were the three whose word counted for everything among the King's lords.

Mar's steadfast loyalty to the King's party was beginning to become rewarding, as he gained more and more influence in the government of the country.

While Randolph was negotiating with the Scots lords to gain their consent to Mary's return, in England Mary was being informed of her proposed restoration. The various condiUons for her return were set forth by Cecil. So that the young king might be safe, and also because he was to be a hostage for his mother, before theQueen of Scots was set free James was to be brought to

England to live under the care of auch Scottish lords or gentlemen 63 as were named by Lennox and Mar or by either of them. The two - 123 -

lords recognized as having the greatest concern for the King's welfare -- Lennox, because he was the King's grandfather, and Mar because of his loyalty, and position as the child's guardian -- were to name those who would look after him, in

England, where he would be far away from his mother 1 s influence.

Mary and her Scottish adherents approved wholeheartedly of

Elizabeth 1 s new plan to res tore her cousin, but the King' s lords . were less enth•aastic about the idea. In Sep temb er, when Mar and Glencairn came to Edinburgh to discuss the answer to

Elizabeth's letters to the regent, they were still debating 64 the plan. Athol, assuring Mar that Elizabeth and Mary had already come to a final agreement and Mary would shortly be returning to Scotland, tried to persuade Mar to use his influence 65 to prevent the sending of the King to England. Athol and the Queen '·s lords probably hoped to have both Mary and James in

Scot land. Mar would most certainly feel that James should not leave his care to be sent to England, but the idea of Mary in

Scotland, and in power, was none too palatable. Elizabeth appointed commissioners to settle the articles of the treaty for Mary 1 s restoration, and at length the Regent was persuaded to empower people to appear on behalf of the King. Morton and two companions arrived in London to negotiate. When their turn came to speak they announced that they had no authority to agree to any treaty which would impair the King's authority. Elizabeth used this as an excuse to end negotiations till the Regent should send ambassadors with greater powers; these negotiations were 66 never resumed. - 124 -

In August 1571, both factions called meetings of Parliament, the King's lords at Stirling, the Queen's lords in Edinburgh.

Few of the Scottish nobles attended the meeting in Edinburgh, while the gathering of the King 1 s lords at Stirling gradually increased in size as several of the Queen 1 s lords began to change sides. On August 12 an agreement was signed by Mar and

Morton on one part, and Argyle, Cassilis, Eglinton and Boyd on the other. The latter agreed to acknowledge the King's authority, and to serve the King and his Regent. In return they and their followers were pardoned for not having obeyed the King in the past, and for all other crimes except the murders of

Darnley and Moray, and certain other specified offences. All 67 forfeitures of these lords were to take no effect. On August

23 Lennox, Morton, and Mar and other lords and gentlemen went 68 to Stirling to hold a Parliament August 28. This was the last Parliament of Lennox's regency and it had most important results for Mar.

Footnotes

1. Lee, op cit, 207-210. 2. R.P.C., I, 548-9. 3. Unpublished Documents Illustrating the Reign of Mary Queen of Scots, 300. 4. R.P.C., I, 560-561. 5. Lee, op cit, 214. 6. Diurnal, 126. 7. A.P.S., III, 14-25. 8. R.P.C., I, 622. 9. Historical Manuscripts Commission, Mar and Kellie, pt. 1, 21. - 125 -

10. Lee, op cit, 223. 11. Diurnal, 130; Buchanan, op cit, II, 536; Lee, op cit, 223-4. 12. A. Labanoff, ed., Lettres de Marie Stuart {London, 1844), II, 75. 13. C.S.P., III, 458. 14. C.S.P., II, 584. 15. Fore. Eliz., IX, 28, Moray to Cecil, February 8, 1568/9. 16. C.S.P., II, 609. 17. R.P.C., I, 644. 18. Lee, op cit, 255. 19. Diurnal, 140-142. 20. Lee, op cit, 256; D. Calderwood, History of the Kirk of Scot1and, {Edinburgh), 1843), II, 487; R.P.C., I, 654. 21. C.S.P., II, 653, Wood to Cecil, June 1), 1569. 22. R.P.C., I, 663-5. 23. Diurnal, 144-5. 24. Lee, op cit, 259. 25. R.P.C., II, 4-9. 26. ibid, 9-11. 27. Diurnal, 147-9. 28. ibid, 152-4. 29. Lee, op cit, 269-270. 30. C.S.P., III, 39. 31. Diurnal, 155-6. 32. C.S.P., III, 60. 33. E.R.S., XIX, 362, 381; XX, 9-10, 32, 36, 39, 48. 34. Diurnal, 157. 35. C.S.P., III, 71. 36. ibid, 73. 37. Lord Herries, Historical Memoirs of the Reign of Mary Queen of ~ (Edinburgh), 1836), 123. 38. Diurnal, 161-4. 39. Fore. Eliz., IX, 206. 40. Diurnal, 164-5. 41. ibid, 168. 42. C.S.P., III, 142, Lennox to Cecil, May 1, 1570. 43. Diurnal, 164. 44. C.S.P., III, 94. 45. Fore. Eliz., IX, 216. 46. C.S.P., III, 132, 142, 148, 157, 170. 47. Diurnal, 175-7. 48. C.S.P., III, 180. 49. ibid, 84. 50. ibid, 209. 51. ibid, 219. 52. w. Robertson, op cit, II, 5-7. 53. Diurnal, 180. 54. W. Robertson, op cit, II, 9. 55. Diurnal, 199. - 126 -

55. C.S.P., III, 57. 57. ibid, 240-241. 58. Calandar of State Papers, Spanish (London, 1894), II, 238. 59. C.S.P., III, 250. 60. Fore. Eliz., IX, 290. 61. C.S.P., III, 330. 62. ibid, 347. 63. Lettres de Marie Stuart, Ill, 95. 64. Diurnal, 188. 65. C.S.P., III, 320. 66. w. Robertson, op cit, II, 10-11. 67. C.S.P., III, 642-3; Abbotsford Club Miscellany 1 (Edinburgh, 1837), 27. 68. Diurnal, 241. - 127 -

Chapter VII

Mar Becomes Regent -- Outlying Areas and Foreign Affairs

At Stirling, in late August, 1571, the Regent Lennox opened a meeting of parliament. Stirling was the residence of the King, and, supposedly, one of the strongest and safest towns in the kingdom. The Marian lords, who were ~olding their own Parliament at Edinburgh, heard that the King's lords, over-confident of their security, had not guarded the town carefully. During the night of September 3 they rode to Stirling; between three and four the next morning Huntly and his men entered the town. Almost immediately the Regent was captured; Morton defended himself in his own house, which was set on fire; at last, having been forced out by the flames and smoke, he was captured. The soldiers meanwhile fell to plundering rather than consolidating their position or escaping before the King's lords mustered their forces. Mar, who was in

Stirling Castle, was aroused by the commotion and, having failed to break through the market place, ordered a body of musketeers to occupy his nearly-finished house beside the church, which commanded a street leading down to the market-place. Mar's musketeers fired, and the enemy fled. The King's lords, taking courage after Mar's demonstration of power, gathered and fell on Huntly's men before they could escape with their prisoners. Most of those who had been, taken were rescued, but Lennox was shot, and died of his wounds that 1 afternoon. - 128 -

Parliament met again on September 5, the day after the

Regent's death. Its first action was to choose a new Regent this time the lords were determined not to have a long delay in choosing someone to govern the country, as there had been after the death of Moray. Though Elizabeth had not had an opportunity to signify whom she favoured, a Regent would be chosen. Before the election all those present promised to ohey the person chosen; all the nobles also swore that whoever was chosen would accept the office and not refuse it. Tho se nominated for the office were the Earls of Argyle, Morton and

Mar. The Earl of Mar was elected by a plurality of voices in the Estates. After protesting that the honour was none of his 2 seeking, Mar took the oath of office.

Why was John Erskine, Earl of Mar elevated to this high position? AB in all elections there were many reasons for the choice made. Since his power was less than that of Argyle and h~ ability less than that of Morton, Mar would be less of a danger to the other nobles, who were more concerned with protecting their own gains than with strengthening the King 1 s power. But it was chiefly as a middle man, a representative of the moderates and the middle group that Mar was elected. Those who disliked or feared

Argyle's power in the north-wes~or Morton 1 s power in the south-west would vote for Mar, whose lands and power were centrally located.

In politics Mar had always followed a middle way, distrusting extremes; - 129 -

he was known for his loyalty to the royal family and, of late

years, to the King's party. Argyle had only recently left the

Queen 1 s adherents, and so was a somewhat dubious candidate

on these grounds, whereas Morton was, as he later proved

severa! times, a firm opponent of any concessions to the Queen 1 s

lords, and an advocate of the use of force to wipe out their

resistance. Mar was always the advocate of moderation, negotiation,

conciliation. In religious matters too Mar was a moderate. He

did not show the same rapacious greed for church lands as MOrton, but he

was not one who was likely to disturb the holders of church lands

in their possessions. He had proven his courage, and earned the

gratitude of the King 1 s party in rescuing them from the Queen 1 s

adherents in the late attack upon Stirling.

Soon after accepting the Regency, Mar wrote to Queen Elizabeth,

and to the Countess of Lennox, informing them of the death of the

late Regent and of his election to the office of Regent. He told

them that it was only because of the immediate necessity of the

kingdom that he had accepted the office; he had been unwilling to

do so because of his own inability to bear the burden of such a

position. He was setting the King 1 s preservation ahead of his own peril in taking the office, for precedents gave no comfort to

anyone entering the office, and those preceding him had received 3 a hard reward. Mar fully realized the dangers facing him when he

took on himself the burdens of the regency, but loyalty to the

King, and perhaps as well personal ambition, outweighed concern

for persona! safety. - 130 -

The new Regent's most pressing need was for more financial

support from England in order to maintain and extend his authority

over the kingdom. In writing to the Countess of Lennox of her

husband's death, he also told her of his pressing need for help 4 from the Queen of England. He wrote also to Drury asking him

to show his goodwill by obtaining money to pay the Scottish 5 troops.

The Scottish government was always in need of money to pay

its soldiers. To Elizabeth Mar stressed the great unanimity of

the nobles in the King's cause-- somewhat of an exaggeration. It

was only foreign support which enabled a few men to oppose the

chief town of the realm, and he needed foreign support to put an end . 6 to t h ~s. The Estates too wrote to Elizabeth, informing her that

with her aid the present danger to the realm might be put to an end. 7

Mar decided to send to the Queen someone who could explain to her

the true state of affairs in Scotland, for he feared that his

opponents had given her false news, particularly Grange, who had said,

falsely, that the death of the Regent was not ordered. William 8 Stewart was sent south with letters to the English court.

The Scots now decided to send James Cunningham as well, as a

special ambassador to the English court, to try to obtain from

Elizabeth money and soldiers. Elizabeth was to be told that Lennox

had Showed the Estates her letter concerning a proposed meeting ôfthe

King's commissioners and her deputies at Berwick, which the lords decided • - 131 -

should be held as soon as possible. Cunningham was to request

English help in bringing peace to Scotland and in punishing the 9 murderers of the late Regent. When Cunningham reached court, he was kept cooling his heels in antechambers for some time before he was able to obtain an answer to his requests. After he had been at court several days Burghley told him that the

Queen had no time to give him an answer till the end of the week.

The last day of September, he was asked to attend a Council meeting, but they still had no time to give him an answer. 10 Optimistically, he told Mar that he expected one early in October.

Elizabeth was not in nearly as much of a hurry as were the Scottish lords, nor would she be until her security was threatened.

The necessary impetus was given by the discovery of the Ridolfi plot. Elizabeth realized once more the need for security on her northern frontiers. She wrote to Mar expressing her pleasure at his election as Regent, for she thought no better choice could have been made fDr the safety of the kingdom. She also declared that she had discovered such pernicious practices on the part of the Queen of Scots that she had resolved to act no further in her 11 favour, but to help Mar and his colleagues bring peace to Scotland.

Elizabeth gave more substantial proof of her determination to favour the King's lords than mere words. She ordered fl,OOO to be sent to Drury at Berwick, which he should use, if he thought it necessary, to aid Mar to pay his soldiers' wages. If Elizabeth was prepared - 132 -

to spend money, the situation must indeed be serious. In reply

to Elizað' s letter Mar wrote that the country's troubles were all caused by the leaders of the adverse party. He warned her not to trust any promises they made to her, for their only purpose was to delay giving obedience to the King, as she might

see by their letters to France, which he was sending her. The

sooner they were defeated and Edinburgh Castle taken the better

it would be for the country, and the less expensive to Elizabeth. 13

Mar knew that thrtight note to strike with Elizabeth was that of economy; he realized that the way to obtain aid from her was to stress the idea that aid given quickly would obviate the need for much greater help later. Despite his middle-of-the-road policy he was now determined to bring all Scotland to the King's obedience, and crush all resistance to his authority.

Having received these pleas for aid Elizabeth decided to send

Lord Hunsdon north to the Borders to try to bring peace tD

Scotland, if possible without great expense by bringing about a reconciliation between the two opposing factions. If that scheme were impossible he was to aid the King's party so that they could force their adversaries to acknowledge the King's authority. After bringing the news of Hunsdon 1 s planned journey north to Mar,

Cunningham was sent south again to meet the Queen 1 s emissary. If, when he reached Berwick, Hunsdon had not yet arrived, Cunningham'was to present to Drury Mar 1 s requests for English aid, which he considered - 133 -

essential for the recovery of Edinburgh. Mar wanted money to pay his soldiers, two hundred armed, two hundred harquebusiers,

corn powder, and cannon powder -- the last of which was most 14 urgently needed as there was no more to be obtained in Scotland.

The King 1 s lords, though the stronger of the two parties in Scotland, would appear from Mar's pleas to be in quite desperate straits.

It seems to have been part of his method for wringing supplies

out of Elizabeth to make the situation appear as black as possible.

Hunsdon being slightly delayed, Mar sent Cunningham to

Elizabeth to inform her of the proceedings of the King's lords and to

ask from her help, which he trusted she would consider expedient.

If Elizabeth decided to send aid Cunningham was to ask her to do so speedily as winter was at hand, and if it were to be delayed till spring the other faction would be allowed time to improve their fortifications, and to obtain support from abroad. If Cunningham

encountered Hunsdon on the way, and if Hunsdon had the power to grant

Mar 1 s requests, he was to return to Scotland, but otherwise he was

to continue to the court. 15 Mar was determined not to waste time in talks with those who could not grant what he wanted.

The same day that Cunningham was given his instructions, Hunsdon at last received his orders for his journey north. He was to learn what the offers and suggestions of the Castillans were, and

then to use all means, both by persuasion and threats to induce them to come to terms with the Regent. If their only request was their security and the restoration of their forfeited lands and livings, - 134 -

he was to persuade the Regent and his party to agree to such 16 conditions. Elizabeth wished to bring an end to the conflict in Scotland as soon as possible, so that she might be freed from any worries about her northern borders. Near Grantham Hunsdon met Cunningham, who was sent back to Mar to inform him that

Hunsdon was near at hand.

When Hunsdon reached Berwick, he sent John Case to Edinburgh to negotiate with the Queen 1 s supporters in the castle. He brought them letters from the English Privy Council asking them to send ambassadors to Berwick to meet with Lord Hunsdon and members of the King 1 s party to discuss peace terms. Reg arding

Hunsdon as a confirmed enemy to their cause, the Castilians suspected that the peace negotiations were an English deviee to gain time till they could prepare an army to intervene in 17 Scotland. Only t~English seemed anxious to negotiate; both factions in Scotland appeared to regard peace talks as a deviee which the other was using to gain time in which to augment its strength.

At Mar 1 s request Hunsdon also sent safe-conducts for the

King's commissioners togo to Berwick. Mar sent Morton and two others to confer with Hunsdon, Morton being the leader, and most important of the group. Since Mar felt it unlikely that the rebels would yield, except to force, he instructed them to negotiate for the Queen of England 1 s aid in subduing the rebels. Elizabeth - 135 -

must agree to maintain the true religion as established by law in both countries, and to aid in resisting any foreigners who arrived in Scotland. For bringing arder to the country, the

King 1 s commissioners must ask for artillery, ammunition and soldiers -- 3,000 foot and 200 horse. The Scots in return would promise to aid Elizabeth if ber country were invaded or suffered rebellion; if necessary they would send close kin of the Regent and the lords as pledges for their good faith.

If Hunsdon thought it possible that the rebels could be brought to acknowledge the King 1 s authority by treaty, Mar would accept this, but the King's commissioners were not to agree to anything till Edinburgh was restored to its liberty and the 18 goods of the exiled inhabitants were restored to them.

On November 17 the King's ambassadors went to Berwick. The general opinion was that their purpose was to obtain from Hunsdon men and 19 munitions to lay siege to Edinburgh and the castle. This was clearly Mar's first aim, but he also had a more distant goal -- bringing peace to Scotland by any means.

In pursuit of this goal Mar decided to go beyond the negotiations with Hunsdon at Berwick. Early in December James

Cunningham set out once again for the English court. He was to thank the Queen for the money and powder which she had given a year earlier, and to assure her of the Regent's willingness to arrange a treaty with her commissioners. The great need of the King's lords for 20 aid without delay must be stressed. With Cunningham Mar sent - 136 -

letters to the lords of the English Privy Council. Although he was unacquainted with many of them, he thanked them for their goodwill towards his King and his country, and asked them to use their influence to persuade the Queen to send him "d 21 a~ • Mar was trying all avenues in an effort to bring a speedy end to the conflict within Scotland, and reduce the country to obedience to the King 1 s authority.

Although he had always favoured methods of negotiation and conciliation, now that he was Regent, Mar began to grow somewhat impatient at the delays which such methods imposed. The Castilians wished to send Andrew Melville to Hunsdon again, but Mar refused to grant a safe-conduct to him or Lady Hume. This refusal angered

Hunsdon, who felt that for the Regent to deny them access to him, if they were as anxious to confer with him as he was to hear them, would frustrate Elizabeth's aim in sending him north. Huns don considered that the effiorts which they were making to come to sorne agreement without Elizabeth's help would all be in vain. If safe- conducts were not granted for anyone whom he sent for, he washed 22 his hands of the whole matter. Mar seemed to have felt that he could arrange an agreement between the two factions without foreign interference, which he had always hated. The one English official whom Mar willingly conferred with was Francis Walsingham, who was at that time English ambassador to the French Court. Mar asked Randolph to send Walsingham information about the state of affairs in Scotland, which he had promised him. Walsingham, when he had received this information, wrote to Mar promising to do all - 137 -

the service he could for the Regent. He informed Mar that

Fleming and Grange's brother were in France trying to find support

for their cause, but the King of France was putting them off till he saw what Elizabeth was going to do. Walsingham felt, as Mar did,

that the best plan for the Scots was to come to some agreement among 23 themselves. He was a strong supporter of the King's party, but he favoured the policy of peaceful negotiation. In his view the real obstacle to a settlement giving peace to Scotlandwas Mary 24 Stewart. Mar found Walsingham more sympathetic to his stand

than were Elizabeth's commissioners at Berwick.

Although Mar was not co-operating as fully as might have been hoped with the English commissioners, this was not because of any

favouritism toward the French; indeed there was a certain coolness

shown toward the French ambassador. This coolness might have been

due to the latter's inept handling of the situation. Soon after

Mar 1 s election as Regent, M. Verac wrote to him asking him to grant a passport; the ambassador explained that he had written

to Mar only because he did not know whether Morton was present.

Verac could not understand why Cockburn was reluctant to deliver this . i 25 1 etter, an d Mar to rece~ve t. It must have been galling indeed for the newly-elected Regent to have the French ambassador imply so plainly that he regarded MOrton as the ruling force in the country. This slight continued to rankle, for, the next spring, when du Croc was in Scotland to negotiate for the establishment of peace in the country, his request that Verac might have a place in 26 the council with him was flatly refused by Mar. Under these circumstances the Regent would not be likely to seek French friend- - 138 -

ship as an alternative to English aid.

In the meantime Hunsdon was continuing his efforts at

negotiation. In January he asked Mar what points he would be w~lling

to yield to his adversaries. Mar was requested to refrain from

taking the revenues of the lands_of those who had been forfeited,

lest they should use this as an excuse to refuse to yield

obedience to the King and thereby make Elizabeth less willing

to use force against them. Hunsdon also suggested that an 27 abstinence from armed conflict would be desirable for the time.

At the same time he sent his son and John Case into Scotland to

try to carry on negotiations between the two factions. Mar

informed Hunsdon that as for the conditions of peace which he

desired, he liked the form proposed by Elizabeth -- that if the

Castilians ceased maintaining civil discord and gave their obedience to the King she would persuade the King 1 s party to return them to favour on reasonable conditions. As for the

taking of the revenues of those who had been forfeited, he would hate to do anything contrary to Elizabeth 1 s wishes, but the King's government was in great need of money, and if foreign help were not 28 forthcoming, theymust obtain revenues where they could. In other words, Elizabeth should not ask them to give up the revenues of the forfeited men unless she was ready to make up the deficit.

Hunsdon was still endeavouring to procure safe-conducts for members of the Queen's party to come to him, though Mar understood him to have said that he would not deal any longer with that party - 139 -

by fair means. The Regent did not consider that the passage

of Andrew Melville and Lady Hume to England would help to

bring peace to the country, but on the contrary would be a

great hindrance. Melville was not a man fitted by rank or

calling to deal in matters of state, and Lady Hume had been

one of the moving forces in the activities of the Queen's lords, 29 and the cause of her husband's change in allegiance. Mar

disapproved of attempts at conciliation at this juncture, for he

felt that the opposing party had never been more determined to

cause trouble, especially as they expected Lord Fleming to arrive with French soldiers. The settlement of the matter was in

Elizabeth's hands; she alone could provide the necessary troops 30 and ammunition to force the surrender of the Castilians.

Cunningham, who was again at the English court, was asking Elizabeth

to grant troops and money for this purpose, but, hearing that the

QUeen's lords were ready to agree to a treaty, she would not use

force, at least until she learned of the outcome of the attempts to come to an agreement peacefully. Elizabeth decided to send Dru~y and

Randolph to confer with Hunsdon and aid him in negotiations for peace. 31

In the middle of February Drury and Randolph arrived in

Leith to begin negotiations. The day after their arrivai they went to Edinburgh Castle, where they spent the day in conference with

the Queen 1 s lords. In the following days they met with the nobles 32 ~n. Ed.~n b urg h on two more occas~ons,. . b ut to no ava~· 1 • They discovered that not only was the Regent's party the stronger of the - 140 -

two, but it was also the more reasonable in its conditions, and the more willing to have Elizabeth act as mediator. The other party refused absolutely to give their obedience to the King, 33 and particularly disliked the Regent. Mar was proven correct in his accusation that the Castilians' offers to negotiate and to give obedience to the King were made only in order to gain time.

While Drury and Randolph were trying to negotiate an agreement between the two factions, Mar was still pressing Elizabeth for aid. He needed money to pay his soldiers' wages, which came to f1050 a month, and were owing for three months. Elizabeth was asked to pay the existing army, and, as well, 200 horse for six months, within which time Mar thought that he could recover

Edinburgh. He also wanted her to order Hunsdon to give him one last of cannon powder and two thousand pounds of flour. 34

Mar was determined to have substantial support from Elizabeth in his attempts to reduce the Queen's lords to obedience by force.

During this time skirmishes between the two factions continued in the outlying areas of the country. In October 1571 Huntly1 s 35 brother Adam met and defeated the Forbes. Later that month

Huntly sent soldiers to his brother to help him against Mary's enemies in the north, especially Lord Glammis, who had been appointed 36 the King's lieutenant to put down Queen's adherents in the north.

The King's lords, deciding that action must be taken against the

Gordons, summoned the lieges of Kincardineshire to meet the King's - 141 -

lieutenant at Fordun, to march against the rebels in the 37 north. The Master of Forbes, his followers, and two bands of hagbutters marched towards Aberdeen to surprise Adam Gordon and those who upheld the Queen 1 s authority in the north.

He was himself surprised near Aberdeen by Gordon and his men, and 38 put to flight. The Queen 1 s lords were entrenching their authority more firmly than ever in the north. The Forbes having failed to stop them, the Regent turned to the Campbells, who, the following summer, were granted a commission to apprehend all lawless persona within the bounds of Moray. 39 In July the

Regent, deciding to go north against Adam Gordon himself, summoned a muster of the lieges in the midland counties -- these were the men of the most assured loyalty to the Kirk and the King, and they 40 were the men from the areas in which Mar's influence was greatest.

Aside from the affront to his authority as Regent posed by Gordon 1 s position in the north, the factor of personal revenge entered the picture for Mar. In the course of his activities against Mary 1 s opponents, Gordon bad captured Brechin, of which town Mar was the lord, and during the skirmishes for control of the town Gordon 1 s men bad destroyed a bouse belonging to Mar.

There was another area in which the King's authority was never recognized, and this was the Hamilton country in the south-west.

In May 1572, Drury reported that the Regent and his forces bad gone to Hamilton to act against the Hamiltons, and take the 41 castle. The following month the Privy Council, complaining of - 142 -

the actions of the keeper of Edinburgh Castle, Kirkcaldy of

Grange, in plundering Glasgow and the Lennox lands, and in ordering people to appear at Glasgow to "underly the law", summoned the militia of the southern counties to meet the Regent 42 at Glasgow on June 26. It was decided that the area along the Clyde occupied by the rebels was to be attacked 11 with fire and sword"; Morton and others were appointed lieutenants to 43 carry t h1s. out, an d g1ven . f u 11 powers o f pun1s . hm ent and rem1ss . i on.

It is strange that Mar, with his strong personal interest in the lands along the Clyde, should appoint a deputy for this task. Perhaps he trusted Morton to ensure the safety of the Erskine lands.

At the end of June the Council decided that sterner measures must be taken against the rebels, who inflicted so much hardship on the city of Glasgow. To rescue the city they decided to raise an army, and to ensure unity till this project was carried out 'all private feuds were to be suspended during the time of the army's operations.

The Regent and Council went to Glasgow and Hamilton with the army 44 to bring the country to obedience to the King. In this raid the land around Hamilton and Bothwelhaugh were laid waste.45 Some recompense was being exacted for the murder of MOray. The King' s loyal subjects were to be prevented from having dealings with the rebel Hamiltons and their followers by the simple expedient of exterminating the latter.

Gradually the last strongholds of the Queen•s lords were being wiped out and their power was being confined to Edinburgh Castle.

There were still, however, pockets of resistance, one being in the - 143 -

Border area. Early in 1572 the town of Jedburgh was oppressed by Ker of Ferniehurst. In order to curtail his power the

Council forbade the King's subjects giving any aid or assistance to the Kers, but this of course was not enough. Another muster of the militia of the southern counties was proclaimed, this 46 time for the purpose of defending Jedburgh. The Regent sent

Lord Ruthven, with a troop of horse and foot soldiers to the aid 47 of the burgh. Ruthven soon put Ferniehurst to flight.

In October, the King's subjects in Lauder, Jedburgh, Peebles, and

Selkirk were summoned to meet the Regent at Jedburgh on October 48 22. This action against the Borders was never carried out due to the Regent's illness and death. Like the Hamiltons and the Cordons, the border lords were being subdued.

For the maintenance of peace and order along the Borders co-operation with the English was essential. Before the present friendship between the two countries law-breakers in one country had often found refuge in the other. Striking proof that this state of affaira had come to an end was given during the Northern

Rebellion, when the fleeing Earl of Northumberland was captured by M0ray 1 s men and imprisoned in Lochleven Castle. When, with fresh trouble brewing in the north, Elizabeth began once more to fear Northumberland 1 s influence, she demanded further proof of the friendship of the Scottish government toward her. She wanted the earl to be handed over to the English authorities, to be - 144 -

dealt with by them. 49 In November 1571 Hunsdon reported that

Mar and the otherlords would not agree to the delivery of

NorthUmberland and the other rebels. Northumberland1 s friends, knowing of Elizabeth's interest in him hatched a plot for carrying him off, but it came to nothing as the Regent discovered it and warned the Laird of Lochleven to be careful of his . 50 pr1soner. After his experience in guarding Mary, Lochleven would not be likely to allow Northumberland to charm his way out of prison as Mary had done. Douglas of Lochleven was a most important factor in the negotiations for the delivery of

Northumberland, for it was he who had been put to the expense of keeping the earl, and, if Elizabeth's proposais were not attractive enough, he might listen to those of Northumberland1 s friends.

The Scots began to mention the conditions on which they might hand over the earl. The first request made by the Regent was that the Queen would spare his life. The King's lords hoped that if Nortbumberland's life were spared they might lessen the wrath of those Scots who were already angered that the ancient

Border hospitality had been violated at the request of their old enemy, England. If the Regent were to deliver to Elizabeth one of her great rebels, he wanted her to hand over to him in return the Bishop of Ross, whom he considered a rebel and a traitor to the King and to Elizabeth as well. Mar wanted Hunsdon to make a for.mal demand for Northumberland.under the terms of the treaty between - 145 -

the two nations> so that he might have some excuse for 51 handing him over to the English. Mar, Morton, and

Lochleven were not going to hand over their valuable prisoner

on merely an informai request from Elizabeth. Douglas of

Lochleven reported that he had been offered two thousand pounds

by the Countess of Northumberland if he would refuse to give her

husband to the English. Mar said that he dared not offend

the Catholic princes of Europe unless he had some assurance of what he could expect from Elizabeth. Elizabeth sent money to

the lords, and authorized Randolph to enter negotiations with the

Laird of Lochleven, who said that he would hand over Northumberland

for the sum which the Countess had offered, but if Elizabeth 52 would not pay the priee he set, he might make a bargain elsewhere.

When Northumberland was at last delivered to the English it was

rumoured that the priee paid to Mar, Morton, and Lochleven was

flO,OOO. Part of this money might be considered payment of

Lochleven's expanses in keeping the prisoner; the larger part of

it was a reward to the lords for their skilful bargaining. Many

of the Scots considered it blood money.

In the meantime, thinking that she had Northumberland almost within her gnasp, Elizabeth began to make additional demands. In

April an Irish bishop who was on his way to visit the Pope had been 53 taken prisoner at Dundee. The Bishop wrote to Mar protesting

that though he had done nothing against the King of Scotland, the King of - 146 -

Spain1 s letters which he was carrying had been taken from him

by the Bailies of the burgh, and he had been imprisoned. He

requested Mar to order the Bailies to release him and return his

letters to him. If they suspected that anything in the letters

was prejudicial to the interests of their King, they could open and

read them, so long as the contents were kept secret from the English 54 and all foreign nations. On hearing of this Mar ordered that

the Bishop be kept in custody, and sent for his letters.55 It was not long before Elizabeth learned of this and demanded that the

Bishop be delivered to the English along with Northumberland.

Mar was not one to accede to such a request easily and without

due consideration of all the implications and all the advantages

which could be extracted from it. He replied that as the man

claimed to be a servant of the King of Spain, she must wait for an

answer while they examined him on this matter. Of course if they

found Elizabeth's timely support equal to their expectations, the~e might be a speedy end to the matter, particularly if she ensured

that Hume Castle and Fastcastle were delivered to the Regent.56

Mar did not intend to give Elizabeth what she wanted till he had

extracted all that he could from her. Elizabeth found his excuses

regarding the Irish Bishop very weak indeed; she was certain he must know that the Bishop of Cashell was one of her subjects, and was annoyed 57 at his discourtesy in not handing the man over at once. Both

Elizabeth and Mar were manoeuvring for positions in an attempt to get

as much as possible while giving as little as possible in return. - 147 -

Negotiations for the delivery of the Earl of Northumberland were still dragging on, with Mar protesting that the place and method for his delivery which Hunsdon suggested were so dangerous that he could not think it certain, as he could not spare enough men to make up a sufficient escort by land. The sea passage would be much better, o.r he could he handed over at 58 sorne port north of the Forth such as St Andrews. Mar was still pressing home the idea that he needed more men as soon as possible if he were to end Elizabeth's fears of threats on her northern border. Hunsdon tried to assure Mar that his enemies would not offend Elizabeth so greatly as to try to take Northumberland away, but Mar answered that they had already done the Queen much 59 greater injury, and would not be likely to refrain from this.

Still confident that the Queen's lords would not take the earl away, Hunsdon pressed Mar to make speed in the delivery of the 60 prisoner, and if possible to hand over the Irish Bishop as we11.

Mar, too, began to request more than had originally been agreed on. He asked that as he was to hand over Northumberland, he might, 61 in turn, be given the Bishop of Ross as soon as convenient.

At last, at the end of May, Northumberland was taken from Lochleven to Berwick, and handed over to the English, who took him to London.

Soon after being placed in the bands of the English authorities 62 Northumberland was executed for his part in the Northern Rebellion.

Elizabeth was now indebted more than ever to Mar for his help. - 148 -

Since the beginning of his regency Mar had been able to

check rebellion in the outlying areas. He had so conducted

foreign affairs that he had obtained money from Elizabeth, no

easy task for anyone, both for the King's government, and for

his family. The chief importance of Mar's activities against

the rebels in the north and the south, and of the obtaining of

foreign aid, lay in their contribution to the achievement of the

greatest goal of the Regent, one which he did not live to see

reached -- the winning back for the King of Edinburgh and

Edinburgh Castle, and the final defeat of the Queen 1 s lords.

Footnotes

1. Diurnal, 247: Buchanan, II, 620-621; Correspondance with England during the Regency of the Earl of Mar, Register House, Edinburgh, 49. 2. A.P.S., II, 65-66. 3. Correspondance with England, 51. 4. ibid, 52. 5. C.S.P., III, 618. 6. Correspondance with England, 51. 7. ibid, 50. 8. C.S.P., III, 695. 9. ibid, IV, 685-7. 10. Correspondence with England, 54-5. 11. C.S.P., IV, 1-2. 12. ibid, 3. 13. ibid, 5-6. 14. ibid, 6-7. 15. Correspondance with England, 61. 16. C.S.P., IV, 19. 17. Diurnal, 245. 18. A.I. Cameron, ed., Warrender Papers (Edinburgh, 1930), I, 104. 19. Diurnal, 255. 20. C.S.P., IV, 700-701. 21. Correspondance with England, 76-8. 22. C.S.P., IV, 701. 23. ibid, 700, 705; Correspondance with England, 79-80. 24. C. Read, Mr Secretary Walsingham and the Policy of Queen Elizabeth, (Oxford~ 1925), II, 122. 25. C.S.P., IV, 696. 26. Fore. Eliz., I, 117. 27. ibid, 15. 28. C.S.P., IV, 86. - 149 -

29. ibid, 702. 30. ibid, 99. 31. ibid, 704-5. 32. Diurnal, 259. 33. Fore. Eliz., I, 52-3. 34. c.s.P., IV, 333. 35. Diurnal, 251. 36. ibid, 253. 37. R.P~C., II, 92. 38. Diurnal, 255. 39. Rist. MSs. Comm., 4th Report (London, 1874), 498. 40. R.P.C., II, 156. 41. M. Thorpe ed., Calendar of State Papers Scottish Series (London, 1858), I, 350. 42. R.P.C., II, 140. 43. ibid, 146. 44. ibid 150-5. 45. Diurnal, 307. 46. R.P.C., II, 115-6. 47. Diurnal, 224. 48. Treasurer 1 s Accounts 1571-74, Register Rouse, Edinburgh, 104. 49. C.S.P., IV, 45. 50. Rist. Mss. Comm. 2nd Report, 184. 51. C.S.P., IV, 279. 52. J.A. Froude, op cit, X, 348. 53. Fore. E1iz., I, 90. 54. C.S.P., IV, 253. 55. ibid, 279. 56. ibid, 285. 57. ibid, 306. 58. ibid, 294. 59. ibid, 298. 60. ibid, 303. 61. Fore.Eliz., I, 110. 62. Diurnal, 298; w. Frazer, Douglas Book (Edinburgh, 1885), II, 312. - 150 -

Chapter VIII

The Struggle to Establish a Central Government

Mar was elected Regent to lead the lords in their efforts to enforce obedience to the King's authority over all the kingdo~

What was the strength of the party which he was to lead? Just before his death the late Regent had greatly increased the numbers and strength of the party by persuading several of the nobles, who had formerly held aloof or supported Mary, to give their allegiance to the King. Among these new adherents to the party were Argyle,

Cassillis, Eglinton, and Boyd. The addition of Argyle in particular, with his great strength in the north-west, was most welcome to the King's party. At this moment, when the King's party was definitely the stronger group in the kingdom, the strength of the Queen's lords seemed to be on the wane. The latter had been reduced to the Gordons in the north, the Hamiltons in the south and Kirkcaldy and Maitland in Edinburgh Castle, with a few supporters along the Borders. The chief strength of the Queen 1 s lords lay in their possession of Edinburgh Castle;

Mar knew from experience the strength of this position and how important was its possession to anyone wishing to establish a central government in Scotland. The King's party, though strong in numbers and influence, had its weaknesses, weaknesses especially damaging to a group wishing to capture Edinburgh Castle. There was a great lack of guns and ammunition, and they had very few experienced gunners to operate such guns as they possessed; they even lacked picks and - 151 -

1 shovels for digging trenches and mines. Though the

ultimate defeat of the Queen 1 s lords seemed inevitable, it

would take many weary months or years ta achieve unless the

King 1 s lords obtained aid in the form of àmmunition and siege

artillery.

If Mar 1 s Regency were to be successful, he must, above

all else recover Edinburgh Castle. To this end, he began, as

s.oon as possible after his election, to make preparations ta

take action against Edinburgh Castle. On September 10, he went

to Leith ta put affairs there in arder, making MOrton the

chief lieutenant. After a brief trip to Stirling to prepare

for the aùempt to recover Edinburgh, Mar returned to Leith 2 on October 4 with 4,000 men. The following day, nobles, barons, 3 and commoners were summoned ta the siege of Edinburgh. Soon

Mar's men began to dig trenches in the Canongate, and about the 4 Westport. Artillery was being transported from various parts of

the country to Leith, and the siege began in earnest. From

October 10 on, ammunition was brought from Leith ta the

Canongate, and ta the camp, and from Holyrood House ta the

army 1 s camp. 5 Mar 1 s canon battered the walls of the town

incessantly, or as nearly so as the shortage of powder and shot would allow, but though the wall was broken by the artillery, he 6 did not make an assault. One reason for Mar 1 s reluctance to attack was probably the fact that many of his soldiers were leaving the camp - 152 -

to return to their homes. 7 Only when his feudal levies were replaced by a paid army could he m~e a concentrated effort against Kirkcaldy and Maitland. After several days the

Regent gave up the attempt to take the city by force and the army and artillery were withdr~, f~rst.to the Canongate, and th en to Lei th. Many of the inhabitants, not wishing to live . 8 under the rule of the Queen 1 s lords, left Edinburgh. It seemed as though the struggle had reached a stalemate.

During this time the Marshall of Berwick came to Leith severa! times to confer with Randolph, and also, it was rumoured, to communicate with those of Edinburgh and the Castle. Mar's friends saw this, and at length the Regent himself, realizing what was happening, began to become most discouraged and doubtful of any happy outcome of the struggle. He withdrew to

Stirling for a time to discuss with his friends what should be done to bring peace to the country. He could see nothing but the ruin of the country in the struggle between the two factions, factions which, although professing themselves earnest in the cause of the King or Queen, were guided by ambition, greed, and 9 a desire for vengeance. Mar would have preferred to end the quarrel between the factions in the quickest possible way, even though this might mean the making of concessions to the rebels.

Morton, who was rumoured to be the real leader of the King•s party, did not want a quick end to the conflict, unless he and his friends - 153 - were permitted to retain the possessions of the Queen's lords 10 which they had gained. Seeing that the discussions were

leading nowhere, Mar soon returned to Leith, where he remained

throughout the winter, save for a few brief visits to Stirling.

During this winter, the King's party, having failed to take

Edinburgh by direct attack, had to resort to long-drawn-out

siege operations. Provisions were made for cutting off contact between Edinburgh and the rest of Scotland, particularly Leith.

At first passage between Edinburgh and Leith was permitted by

licence, but due to the inconveniences caused by this, all licences 11 to journey between the towns were withdrawn. As Edinburgh was

the chief seat of justice for the realm, in criminal, civil and ecclesiastical cases, the isolation being imposed on the city hindered and impeded the ordinary course of justice. Therefore, so

that the King 1 s loyal subjects might not be deprived of justice, which till this time had sat in Edinburgh, were to be removed to

Leith, and the officers of the Court and professional lawyers 12 were required to attend court there. For the duration of the siege Edinburgh was to be replaced as the centre of government by

Lei th.

In the spring Mar tried the effects of a blockage on Edinburgh, though his powers were not great enough to impose an adequate one. In an attempt to prevent food reaching the city by land, 13 men were stationed in the houses adjacent to the town. As well, - 154 -

men were stationed at the gates of Leith with orders to seize 14 anyone carrying supplies to the enemy. This was not sufficient, and Mar, knowing by experience how easily the castle could be supplied if those inside could pay for food, decided to take more drastic action to eut off the food supply of the castle. Horsemen were sent out to break down all the mills within four miles of the town, and Highlanders were posted to attack anyone who tried 15 to b r~ng. v~ctua . 1 s to t h e cast1 .1. ~ans. As well as cutting the city off from being supplied by the surrounding countryside,

Mar also tried to prevent food reaching those in the castleby sea. In November, 1571, all masters and owners of ships in the

Forth were forbidden to unload goods on any part of the south coast but the port of Leith, except by special licence from the Regent. In the spring a ship of Aberdeen (its port of origin was in itself suspicious, as this was Gordon territory), laden with provisions, arrived off Kirkcaldy; it was feared that the ship would either sail for some~ace abroad, possibly to seek aid for the Castilians, or supply the enemy, and its seizure was ordered. At the same time all ships arriving in the Forth with 16 prov~s~ons. . were or d ere d to put ~nto . L e1t . h • Only if the landing place of ships was controlled, could the final destination of their cargoes be supervised. . Mar was endeavouring to prevent supplies reaching Kirkcaldy, and perhaps divert supplies intended for the castle to his own camp. - 155 -

This attempted blockade inflicted great hardship on the citizens of Edinburgh, many of whom were adherents of the King's party. In February an assurance was given that those citizens of Edinburgh who remained steadfast would be recompensed in the end; the property of enemies and that confiscated for connivance with 17 the enemy would be assigned for that purpose. As the siege dragged on, conditions in Edinburgh grew worse and worse. In

June because of the dearth of provisions, and the starvation in

Edinburgh, all loyal subjects within the city were ordered to remove themselves and their goods from the town; the soldiers were ordered not to molest those leaving, provided they did 18 not attempt to return. When all the loyal citizens had left Edinburgh, more forceful methods could be used to free the city from its control by the Queen 1 s lords, provided of course that the Regent had the resources for these more forceful methods.

Despite an illness which attacked him in March, Mar 19 continued to press the siege of Edinburgh. He summoned the

King 1 s lords to meet him at Leith in January, to continue discussions 20 of the state of affaira, . but as usual no solution to their problems was reached. In May new forces were ordered to gather 21 at Leith, to continue the war of attrition against the Castilians.

With the troops which he was able to raise Mar was still not strong enough to impose a blockade severe enough to force the surrender of - 156 -

the Castilians, or ta take the city by storm. He himself

took part in several skirmishes with the forces of the Queen's 22 party, but little harm was done to either side. And so the

year wore on, with the King 1 s lords seemingly no closer to gaining

control of Edinburgh and its castle.

While attempts to force the surrender of the Queen 1 s lords

continued, efforts were also being made ta end the quarrel by the more peaceful methods of Compromise. The Queen' s was the weaker

party, and must die first, but some influential men of the other party, while admitting this to be the case, were so far men of moderation, that they wished quarter to be offered to that party, and

the country spared further bloodshed and waste. .Among these was

the Regent, Mar. In November 1571, Mar 1 s brother-in-law,

Tullibardine, went to the Castle to talk with the Castillans, 23 but the attempted negotiations ended in an exchange of abuse.

Despite these unpromising beginnings, conferences between the two

factions continued, and great efforts were made ta bring them ta

an accord without the aid of Elizabeth. Many of the King's party were greatly opposed ta English interference in their quarrel, but

Mar and Morton gave the impression, to the English at least, that they would make no arrangements about a peace without consulting 24 Elizabeth.

This may have been the impression which Mar wished to convey, but it is not likely, considering his views of earlier years on

foreign interference, that he would abject too strenuously to a

settlement which was reached without Elizabeth's help. Whatever - 157 -

Mar's views, attempts to achieve this continued. of Montrose, who was held in high regard by the members of the

King's party, conferred with the Earl of Huntly about the possibility of having Athol act as umpire between the two sides.

Those in the Castle were agreeable to having Athol hear their 25 grievances, but they still did not trust the King's party.

There were sorne in the King 1 s party who did not trust each other; there were rumours of attempts to sow ill-feeling between the

Regent and Morton, because of the dislike many of the nobles 26 felt for Morton's greatness. Despite efforts to divide them,

Mar and Morton continued to work together; they continued to try to bring peace to the country, and, with their consent, 27 Tullibardine resumed negotiations with Kirkcaldy. The

Castle party suggested that the nobles and Estates of the realm decide on the governmentin Parliament, or else that the Queen of

England and the King of France name the government; they would support a government chosen in either way. · Tullibardine, on the other band, was hoping to have the controversy settled by the Scots themselves, with the help of neither the Queen of England, nor the

King of France. It was reported to Elizabeth1 s ambassador that the Castillans bad said that they would ohey the King because of ber 28 persuasion, but not at the behest of those in Leith. If the

Castilians were ready to yield obedience to the King's authority, it was not because of their respect for anyone 1 s requests, but out of fear of the coming of an English army. - 158 -

Foreign interest in Scottish affaira was too great to allow the negotiations for a compromise between the two parties to continue long in isolation. Though the marriage which had been discussed between Elizabeth and the Duke of Anjou had not taken place, the sovereigns of both England and France wished to conclude a defensive alliance between their two countries. Charles considered such a treaty as the best method of conciliating the Protestants, who were quite strong in France at this time. Elizabeth saw her government exposed to such dangers both at home and from abroad that she wished to secure the assistance, or at least the neutrality of so powerful a neighbour. A treaty was agreed on, in consequence of which France and England agreed to act in concert 29 with regard to Scotland. It was agreed that a joint commission 30 of English and French should undertake to re-establish peace there.

In accordance with the terms of the treaty Charles IX sent du Croc to Scotland, to join Drury and Randolph, whom Elizabeth had already sent. As soon as Drury and Randolph reached Leith, they were invited to supper by the Regent and others of the King 1 s party who conferred with them on the great troubles which the kingdom was enduring, and showed themselves inclined toward peace, though the

Regent put forward many objections to proposed armistice. As Morton was not present, the English ambassadors hesitated to propose much 31 of importance till he returned. Morton, and not Mar, seems to have been regarded as the ruling spirit of the King 1 s party, though

Mar was the nominal leader. Mar listened to the proposais of - 159 -

Elizabeth's commissioners, and expressed the hope that his answers would sstisfy them and Elizabeth. In his opinion the Queen 1 s lords were only deceiving Elizabeth and trying to win time till they 32 received aid and men from France and Spain. In talking· to Dr~1 and Randolph, the Queen's lords in their turn, spoke strongly against Mar, and showed their mortal hatred of Morton. Randolph and Drury, on the contrary, felt that there were not two persons more desirous of peace or more willing to give in to their adversarie~1 demands as far as was consistent with honour and 33 duty, than these two.

The chief condition made by the Castilians for an agreement between the two parties was the restoration of their lands. The

King's party were split on this matter; Mar, Argyle, Boyd and others, who felt no malice against the Queen 1 s lords by reason of private quarrels, and, more important, who had not profited from the revenues of their opponent$, were willing to grant any reasonable articles of accord, while Morton, Lindsay, James MacGill, and their supporters, who had reaped profits from the forfaitures, and enjoyed the lands, goods, and offices of the forfeited lords, refused utterly to make restitution, or to agree to any accord except with such 34 stringent conditions that the opposing party would never consent to it.

While Elizabeth's commissioners were still trying to work for a peaceful settlement of the realm1 s troubles, word reached Scotland that du Croc was on his way there for a similar purpose. It was decided - 160 -

that all the nobles should be assembled, in arder that anything which was done might be agreed to by all. Accordingly the lords 35 were sunnnoned to come to Leith on March 25. Drury and Randolph, not wishing to meet the assembled lords of the King's party, asked the Regent for a private conference. They wanted the conference to be private because they had found Mar himself to be inclined to discuss peace, and willing to grant reasonable conditions, but there were others who might influence him against thi·s. When they met the Regent, they found only Morton with him, but though they had requested a private conference, they were glad of Morton's presence, for he was the Regent's chief adviser, and if he were present, no suspicion could arise that they were trying to conceal anything from him. There seems to have been a feeling that nothing could be done in the King's party without

Morton1 s consent; Morton had apparently succeeded in getting control of affairs largely into his own hands, though he had failed to be elected regent the previous fall. Mar and Morton told the

English ambassadors that what they sought chiefly was obedience to the King, and that being yielded, they would be willing to leave the rest of the conditions to Elizabeth. They were more inclined than usual to allow Elizabeth to have a hand in the matter, as they had 36 just received a subsidy of fl,OOO from her, which they greatly needed.

Whereas the King 1 s lords were becoming somewhat more ready to compromise, the Castilians were proving more and more recalcitrant.

Though they had earlier conceded the honesty of the Regent, they now affected to feel some doubts about his intention to keep any - 161 -

promises made to them. Drury and Randolph assured them that the respect he bore to Elizabeth, and to her advice was such that he would neither break his promises to them nor fail to do 37 anything in his power to bring about an accord. Despite these assurances the Castilians continued to be obstinate, and Mar wrote to Burghly to complain that they intended never to yield obedience to the King. He wished Elizabeth would cease delaying taking positive action on the King 1 s behalf, for the supporters of the

King 1 s party and of friendship with England found themselves in dire straits because of Elizabeth1 s manner of proceedings. They were thankful for her aid, but it was not sufficient; they bad hoped 38 to have from her the means of speedily ending the matter.

Elizabeth was still shilly-shallying, and her indecision was proving most annoying to the King 1 s lords, and most encouraging to the

Castilians.

Elizabeth herself began to grow angry at the delay in reaching an accord in Scotland. She wrote a stern letter to Mar, laying the blame for the delay of peace on the hard terms of the King's lords. She certainly would not campel them to agree to the reasonable conditions she desired, but she hoped that persona! quarrels and interests of members of their party would not be allowed 39 to prevent the making of peace. Mar replied that his dealings in things that had passed between Elizabeth and Scotland bad always been direct and without colour, and he had never given her cause to 40 forman ill opinion of his doings. Despite the efforts to pass on the blame for the delay peace negotiations continued, and at last the conditions for a cessation of hostilities were settled. - 162 -

At the end of July an abstinence was agreed o~which was originally to begin August 1, and last for two months, but which was subsequently extended to the end of the year. The abstinence was proclaimed in Leith and Edinburgh on July 30. It had been agreed to so that the Estates might gather to consider means of establishing a permanent peace in the kingdom. As well, small groups of either party were to be allowed to meet in places agreed upon to confer about the means for bringing peace. If a reconciliation of both parties was not concluded at the meeting of the Estates, the differences between them were to be referred to the arbitration of the King of France, and the Queen of England. The Regent and his party agreed that they would accept any conditions concerning the peace and the abstinence which the two sovereigns should propose to them, provided that there was nothing prejudicial to the King or to his estate, and that certain persons, including Bothwell and Hamilton of

Bothwellhaugh, were to be exempt from any pardon. All subjects of the realm were to be allowed to travel freely in all parts of the country. Edinburgh was to be set at such liberty as it had before

Lennox departed from it January 27, 1570/71, and the castle to have no greater garrison than it had then. Other towns were to be open, and no places in them fortified except those which were accustomed of old to be fortified. People holding other men 1 s lands, if the fruits 41 accrued during the abstinence, were to stack and store them. This was agreed on by both sides, and ratified by the Privy Council; Mar 42 made a public declaration that he intended to observe its terms. - 163 -

The most important gain made by the King's lords in the abstinence was the setting at liberty of the town of Edinburgh.

They took almost immediate advantage of this. First the troops who bad been surrounding Edinburgh were withdrawn into Leith so that the soldiers in Edinburgh might be able to leave the town without hindrance. The inhabitants of Edinburgh who bad left it during the siege began to return to their homes. On the evening of the last of July, while the men of war were still 43 within the city, the Regent's men began to enter. On August 1, the Regent and his lords entered Edinburgh; Ch!telherault and

Huntly left. The garrison of Leith was billeted in the bouses 44 of men of Edinburgh. Mar bad at last recovered Edinburgh, but not its castle.

It was not long before the Queen 1 s lords began to complain of the manner in which their adversaries were keeping the abstinence.

Elizabeth beard complaints that the Regent and his lords were observing few of the conditions, especially with regard to Edinburgh, which should have been open to all, but was being held by him with a . 45 garr~son. Mar, hearing of these complaints, bad the matter brought up in the presence of Captain Case, an English envoy, and gave answers to all the points mentioned. He felt that it could not be proven that any of the opposing party bad received any injury and their real grievance was that he and his followers were concerned 46 for their own security. Mar considered that his party bad by far the greater cause of complaint, as the daily outrages and cruelties to the

King's subjects were becoming unbearable. He prepared for the French - 164 -

ambassador a list of the breaches of the abstinence made by his adversaries and announced that when he had received an answer to these charges, he would show how he and his party had 47 worked for the observation of the abstinence. Somewhat in the manner of contemporary politicians, Mar seems to have felt that the best method of defence was attack.

With the recovery of Edinburgh Mar's chief task was accomplished.

The artillery which had been taken to Leith to be used in the siege was returned to Stirling Castle, and the Regent himself returned to Stirling, where the King was. Morton was appointed as his

Lieutenant for Edinburgh, and given the rule of the surrounding countrys1"d e. 48 In fact Morton had things almost completely his own way by this time.

Footnotes

1. Fore. Eliz., IX, 548. 2. R. Bannatyne, Memorials (Edinburgh, 1836), 187. 3. R.P.C., II, 8. 4. Bannatyne, op c1t, 192-3. 5. Treasurer's Accounts, 1571-74, 55. 6. 'lUs tori e of the Lif e of King James the Sexth, 1566-1596", Book of the 01d Edinburgh Club, XVI (Edinburgh, 1928), 21. 7. Fore. Eliz., IX, 550. 8. Diurnal, 252; Treasurer 1 s Accounts, 1571-74, 57. 9. Melville, Memoirs, 243. 10. C.S.P., IV, 26. 11. R.P.C., II, 102. 12. ibid, 86. 13. Correspondence of Sir Patrick Waus, ed. R.V. Agnew (Edinburgh, 1887)' 80. 14. R.P.C., II, 131. 15. C.S.P., IV, 219-220. 16. R.P.C., II, 131-3. 17. ibid, 122. 18. ibid, 148. 19. Diurnal, 261. 20. C.S.P., IV, 76. 21. Treasurer 1 s Accounts, 1571-74, 86. 22. Fore. E1iz., IX, 137. - 165 -

23. C.S.P., IV, 43. 24. Fore. Eliz., IX, 574. 25. C.S.P., IV, 91. 26. ibid, 323. 27. ibid, 357. 28. ibid, 256. 29. w. Robertson, op cit, II, 26-7. 30. Read, Mr Secretary Walsingham, II, 121. 31. C.S.P., IV, 130. 32. ibid, 150. 33. ibid, 153. 34. ibid, 156. 35. ibid, 164. 36. ibid, 187-190. 37. ibid, 278. 38. ibid, 265. 39. ibid, 348. 40. ibid, 368. 41. R.P.C., II, 158-160. 42. C.S.P., IV, 370. 43. ibid. 11 44. nHistorie and Life of King James the Sexth , 24. 45. C.S.P., IV, 710. 46. ibid, 379, 387. 47. ibid, 379. 48. Treasurer 1 s Accounts, 1571-74, 96; C.S.P., IV, 371. - 166 -

• Chapter IX The Regent Mar 1 s Maltreatment of the Kirk

One important aspect of Mar 1 s regency, which has so far not

been mentioned, is that of his relationship with the Kirk. For

the Church of Scotland the period of Mar 1 s regency is chiefly

important as being the period in which the first attempt was made

to introduce bishops into the Reformed Church, an attempt which

was successful at the time. It is also an interesting period

for the financial transactions which took place between the crown,

and various nobles as well,and the Kirk, transactions which were

closely linked to the introduction of the bishops.

Mar began his dealings with the Kirk inauspiciously. In

the very first Parliament of his regency, the government, rather

foolishly, offended the Kirk on which, after all it relied for

much of its support. The petition of the ministers concerning 1 benefices, manses, and certain immoralities was rejected. Perhaps

the government had other ideas on what should be done about these

benefices and manses.

The most important source of the church's income was its share

of the thirds of benefices, which the government was supposed to pay

to it. This situation was not proving very advantageous to the

Kirk. Poor ministers, and most ministers were poor, complained

that because of the Collectors of the Thirds their stipends had not

been paid. As well, the collectors had failed to make payments - 167 -

owing to the King 1 s household and to the Regent. As a result of these complaints, and the loss in revenue suffered by the

King 1 s household, over which Mar had charge, an assembly of the superintendents was called to be held at Leith on November 12, at which the collectors were to be present, and answer for their actions. Until after this meeting payments to the collectors 2 were to be suspended. This was no very helpful solution to the ministers' problems, and they realized it. Suspic.'ion grew that the collectors were discharged from gathering the thirds, not because of the complaints of the ministers and the attempts to rectify the matters complained of, but at the instance of MOrton.

MOrton had been receiving from his nominee to the see the lion1 s share of the revenues of the Archbishopric of St Andrews, and the latter had written to his patron informing him that the collector of thirds would not allow him to collect certain duties belonging to the 3 archbishopric. Rather than be deprived of these revenues, MOrton, or so the story went, had the collectors prevented from gathering the thirds.

Erskine of Dun wrote to the Regent protesting vehemently against his action in suspending payments to the Collectors of Thirds.

He felt that the civil magistrate must not meddle with such things as belonged to the ministers of God, and insisted that the Kirk must 4 h ave so 1 e contro 1 over 1ts. own a ff a1rs.. The Laird of Dun, shortly afterwards, wrote another letter to Mar, concerning the meeting of the superintendents which was to be held in Leith. He protested strongly against the order that at this convention nothing should be said - 168 - of the matter of the collection of thirds. It seemed to him that sorne men intended to bring the church under subjugation to the state. If the question of the thirds was not to be discussed thoroughly~ and brought to a satisfactory conclusion, Erskine of Dun 5 saw no use in the officers of the Kirk coming to Leith at a11.

Mar replied that he was most astonished at Erskine 1 s attitude, considering that his intention was to work for the quieting of such matters as were in contention, so that the ministers might have ease and repose. He also informed him that the policy of the Kirk was 6 not perfect, a needlessly galling remark that may have been intended to warn Erskine that the Kirk bad best see things Mar 1 s way, or the state might interfere further in its affaira. On the point in contention, however, it was Mar, not the Kirk, who was forced to retreat. Another proclamation was issued, countermanding the inhibition against the payment of the thirds to the collectors, and ordering those in debt for the payment of the thirds to answer to and ohey the collectors. 7 Mar bad been forced to give way on this issue, probably much to Morton1 s disgust.

Mar having yielded on the question of the collection of the thirds, at his urging, the Laird of Dun decided, in return, to use his influence with the Kirk to aid his kinsman. At the Regent's request he wrote to the superintendents asking them to come to Leith 8 in order to take steps for providing the King 1 s household with money.

This proposed aid from the Kirk was most opportune, for the government finances were at a low ebb. The King's party were scarcely able to - 169 -

pay their troops, and Mar and Morton were being forced to make

new inroads on the salaries of the ministers, a move not exactly

calculated to ease the already strained relations between the

Regent and the church. 9 Matters grew so desperate that the

Regent himself began to press defaulters to pay what they owed

to the collectors of thirds for the ministers 1 salaries, and 10 especially for the King 1 s household. If the Regent had to

write personally to those in arrears begging them to pay what they

owed, it would appear that the collectors were indeed negligent

in their duties.

The Kirk saw the great lack of funds which was hindering the work of the King 1 s gover~~t, and.it realized that its position

depended on thecontinued dominance of the Protestant nobles. At

a meeting in Leith in January, 1571/2, the commissioners of the

Kirk granted money and victuals for the support of the King 1 s

estate, and the government of the realm. The first grant was of the

sum of f3631.3s.5d. For the payment of this the commissioners

assigned to the King 1 s household part of the thirds of the bishoprics of Moray, Aberdeen, St Andrews, and Dunkeld, and of tl"e Ab beys

of Kinloss and Arbroath. As weil as granting money for the upkeep of

the King 1 s household, and other government expenses, the Kirk also gave money to the Regent for his own expenses. For the support of

the Regent's household the collectors pledged. themselves to give

5,000 marks. Along with this grant by the collectors, the Regent was to receive in recompense for his expenses in attending on the - 170 -

King 1 s person the thirds of various benefices, amounting to 11 f393.3s.4d, in money, and a large amount of wheat. Whether or not it was fear of the Regent's repeating the suspension of

the payments to collectors of thirds that induced the Kirk to

grant such large sums to him and to the King's government cannot, with certainty, be ascertained, but in this case, as in others,

Mar showed himself most adept at fund-raising.

In addition to the money and supplies granted to him by the

Kirk during his regency, Mar was also receiving other grants from

church revenues, and property. From the Commendator of

Cambuskenneth, a relative, he bad received the lands of Kyntillocht . . 12 as an h ere d~tary possess~on. Between 1569 and 1572 he also

received annually f80, and all the victuals of Jedburgh. 13

Though not as greedy as Morton, in the period since the overthrow of Mary Mar had obtained his share of the church1 s property and

income.

Another area in which the King's lords were encroaching on the

affairs of the Church was in the provision of ministers to benefices.

Lennox had presented Archibald Douglas to the parsonage of Glasgow, requring the Kirk, Ministry and Superintendents of that part to admit him to this benefice. Douglas stated his willingness to appear before them for an examination of his doctrine and qualifications, but

they refused to accept him unless he agreed to resign from his benefice at their pleasure, and to be resident. As he was a Senator of the

College of Justice, and had to give attendance on the hench, these - 171 -

conditions would prevent his entering upon possession of the

benefice, and he had, or so he claimed, no other provision for his

income but this benefice. He pleaded that he was prepared to appoint

and pay, at such a rate as had formerly been customary, a minister

to preach God 1 s word in the parish. Mar and the Council decided

that despite the refusal of the Kirk to admit him to the benefice 14 he was to receive .the fruits of the benefice during his lifetime.

When the parish church of Stirling fell vacant, Mar named as his

candidate to fil1 the vacancy Robert Montgomery. The Assembly,

wishing to please the Regent, agreed that Montgomery should be 15 placed there. On this occasion the Assembly proved much more

agreeable on the subject of Robert Montgomery than they were at a

later date. When James VI named this same man .Archbishop of

Glasgow, the ASsembly excommunicated him, for his immoral life,

and the simonaical bargain he had made with Lennox to obtain the . . 16 nom~nat~on. One wonders what inducement Mar had to nominate

him to the church in Stirling.

The outstanding examp1e of government interference in the presentation of church benefices was the case of the archbishopric

of St Andrews. After the execution of Hamilton, Arcbbishop of St

Andr.èws, Morton obtained from the crown a grant of the revenues of

that see. Doubting the 1egality of a crown grant of church revenues

to a layman, he presented John Douglas, rector of St Andrews University,

to the see, and entered into an agreement whereby Douglas was given a

small pension and the remainder of the revenues went to Morton. - 172 -

Commissioners of the General Assembly held at Stirling in

August, 1571, protested against this, but Morton's influence 17 prevailed. In the Parliament which elected Mar as Regent, 18 Douglas voted as the Archbishop of St Andrews. Others saw the advantage which they might gain in such a practice and supported

Morton, though this gave great offence to the clergy, who had wanted the revenues which had belonged to the bishoprics to be 19 used to supply parishes which were without ministers.

A question still remained -- were the appointments to the bishoprics legal? The office of bishop had not been mentioned in the Book of Discipline or the acts establishing the Reformed

Chur ch. A convention of ministers and superintendents was held in Leith in January 1571-2. The convention appointed a commission of ministers which met with a group of Privy Councillors to discuss matters concerning the ordering and establishing of the policy of the Kirk, the ministers' salaries, and the support of the King. Through the influence of the Court, and particularly

Morton, it was decided that the name and office of Archbishop and Bishop should be continued during the King's minority, or until this was altered by Parliament. These offices were to be conferred on the best-qualified of the Protestant ministers.

All Bishops and Archbishops who were appointed were to exercise no greater spritual juridiction than the superintendents had, and 20 they were to be subject to the General Assembly in spiritual matters.

The species of episcopacy which was thus introduced proceeded not from - 173 -

a desire on the part of the Kirk for a hierarchical form of church government, but from the desire of the nobles to secure the revenues of the church. The assembly consented to the plan for the retention of prelates. Douglas was installed in his office, and at the same time an Archbishop of

Glasgow and a Bishop of Dunkeld were chosen from among the

Protestant clergy. These men were all admitted to Parliament, as representatives of the ecclesiastical order. Their offices were obtained by bargains made with them by various nobles who had the presentation of the sees, bargains which gave them possession of only a very small part of the revenues which belonged to their sees. The bishops who were introduced into the church at this time were popularly known as 11 Tulchan Bishop sn, a 11 tulchan11 being a stuffed calf-hide, set beside a cow in order to induce her to give milk; the people saw that the bishops were only deviees used by the nobles to milk the church of its revenues.

This question of episcopacy was to have serious repercussions in Scottish history. The nobles preferred episcopacy, for it gave them access to church revenues, and they hoped through the bishops to obtain some form of control over the church. The church was fundamentally opposed to the episcopal form of church government and particularly to the 11Tulchan bishops", because it realized the use being made of them by the nobles; it was determined to maintain its autonomy, and the reformed structure of church government, despite the presence of the bishops, who were given no control over the church. - 174 -

The issue of episcopacy and church revenues continued to divide

the nobles and the clergy for many years. During the reign of

James VI episcopacy was abolished, re-introduced, and abo1ished

again, this time it was hoped fina11y. When, under Charles I,

another attempt was made to introduce episcopacy into the Church

of Scot1and, conditions had changed; by his actions Charles

had united nobles and clergy against him and healed the

breach which was so greatly widened under Mar's regency.

Footnotes

1. W. Frazer, Douglas Book (Edinburgh, 1885), II, 311. 2. RP.C., II, 90-91. 3. Bannatyne, Memorials, 197. 4. ibid, 199; V. Jacob, The Lairds of Dun (Edinburgh, 1927), 99. 5. Bannatyne, Memoria1s, 203-4. 6. ibid, 205. 7. R.P.C., II, 96-7. 9. ~ Lang, op cit, II, 241. 10. Ai1sa Muniments, Register Bouse, Edinburgh, Box 37, 1etter from Mar. 11. Book of the Universa1 Kirk (Edinburgh, 1839), I, 232-4; R.P.C., II, 111-3. 12. A.T.S., XI, 312-3. 13. Accounts of the Collectors of Thirds of Benefices, ed. G. Donaldson (Edinburgh, 1949), 258, 281. 14. R.~.C., II, 80. 15. Book of the Universa1 Kirk, I, 244. 16. W. Robertson, op cit, II, 71-2. 17. ibid, 33; T.M1 Crie, The Life of John Knox (Edinburgh, 1855), 282. 18. A.P.&., II, 65. 19. W. Robertson, op cit, II, 33. 20. Book of the Universal Kirk, I, 207-9. - 175 -

Chapter X

Morton Takes Control

On August 1, 1572, began a cessation of hostilities between

the two factions in Scotland. The town of Edinburgh was

recovered and garrisoned by the King 1 s lords, and Edinburgh

Castle was the last remaining stronghold held against them.

Mar's chief task seemed to have been accomplished, and peace brought to Scotland, for a time at least.

This peaceful mood was shattered by the news of events in

France. On August 27 the Huguenot leaders, and many of their

supporters had been murdered, with the consent of the King.

Catholic Europe rejoiced over the St Bartholemew1 s Massacre; in Scotland, news of the deed was received with mingled terror

and indignation. In England, too, the reaction was one of

anger and fear. The massacre seemed to reveal an about face in

French policy from the counsels of England 1 s friends to those of her foes. It appeared that the Quises had regained power and would

lead France into energetic measures in support of Mary Stewart.

Shock and fear induced Elizabeth to contemplate taking action against Mary. She sent Sir Henry Killigrew to Scotland to inform Mar that Mary 1 s presence in England had become too dangerous

to the peace of the country to be allowed to continue. He was instructed to induce Mar and Morton to propose that Mary be given 1 up to the Scots in order that she might be tried by them, and executed.

At first Mar reacted coldly to the suggestion, but when Killigrew - 176 -

brought the matter up again a few days later he found the

Regent to be now much more favourable to the "great matter", asking him to write to Burghley and Leicester to further it, as bringing Mary to justice would be the only salve for the ills of the country. He apologized for his initial hesitation in the matter, saying that it sprang from doubts about his 2 a b ~'l' ~ty to carry out so great a matter. Ma r d rew up a l'~st of conditions on which the King 1 s lords would receive Mary back into Scotland for trial and execution. The Queen of England must openly acknowledge King James, and declare herself his protector; the English Parliament must pass an act declaring that the prosecution and execution of Mary would not affect the 3 claim to the English throne James would inherit from his mother.

Mar was concerned not with his own prestige or financial gains, but with safeguarding the King's position.

Unlike Mar, Morton was most enthusiastic about the "great matter" from the first time it was suggested. If the Regent would not take up and follow the matter with all possible diligence, he himself, and his friends would undertake it. This group of Morton and his friends, who wished to force Mar's hand, was negotiating with the Countess of Mar for her support in the matter. In hopes of attaining this they had arranged for a marriage between the 4 Earl of Angus and the Regent's daughter. Mar's power as Regent seems to have been greatly limited by the influence of Morton and his allies. The English realized this, for Killigrew said that Morton was the only man in Scotland for Elizabeth to take 5 account of. - 177 -

Complicating the Regent's position was his continued lack of money and supplies. Perhaps the main reason that the King 1 s lords had agreed to the abstinence was that they lacked sufficient resources to carry on the siege of Edinburgh and the castle successfully without considerable assistance from Elizabeth.

Mar was able to obtain occasional aid from the English, but this was never enough. The royal income in Scotland was never very large, and it was further diminished at this time because many took advantage of the confused situation in the realm to avoid payment of money owing to the King. 6 Because of his financial difficulties Mar had to do pretty much as Elizabeth wished him to do, for he wanted money to pay his soldiers in order to carry out such ordinary peace-keeping activities as 7 raids against Border thieves.

In the last months of his regency Mar continued his efforts to conclude a general peace in Scotland. The news of the St

Bartholemew's Massacre produced the same terror and consternation in Scotland as in every other Protestant country. When he received the news Mar hurried to Leith in an all-out effort to bring about a general peace. At this time Kirkcaldy and those 8 with him in the castle did not appear averse to auch an idea.

A proclamation was issued summoning a general convention of deputies from all parts of the kingdom, to discuss measures which could be adopted against the cruel and treasonable conspiracies of the

Catholics. The convention, which met in Edinburgh on October 20, - 178 -

resolved that a defensive alliance should be sought with all the Protestant countries to be ready to resist the action of 9 Rome. In order m give the lords an opportunity to consult on the matter of a perpetuai peace, a new abstinence, to last till December, was proclaimed at Edinburgh on October 8.

It seemed possible that at last Mar's hopes of a peaceful settlement of Scotland's diffioulties might be realized. The

English, as usual, were also interested in the possibilities of pesee in Scotland. Killigrew was sent to Scotland after the St

Bartholemew's Massacre, not only to discuss the fate of Mary

Stewart, but also to try to negotiate a peace settlement.

Killigrew discussed with Morton the terms of a possible peace, and what answer should be made to the terms proposed by the

Castilians; they came to the conclusion that the matter should 11 be decided as soon as possible. When he went to Stirling,

Killigrew pressed Mar to give a reasonable answer to the demand of the Castilians for a surety, so that the abstinence would not be ended by his neglect. He found the Regent very desirous of peace, especially as he was not obtaining the assistance for 12 which he looked.

The main stipulation which the Castilians made was that they s~ould have security for their lives and estates. Articles to this effect were proposed to the Regent and his Council. Mar, who sincerely wished to bring peace to his troubled country, was inclined to agree to these conditions; Morton said that they were too high; Mar was overruled and the proposais rejected.13 Mar, - 179 - though still Regent, and nominally ruler of the country, was no longer in control.

Mar made one last effort to win peace in Scotland. Be asked James Melville to go to Edinburgh Castle on his behalf.

Melville, pretending to act on his own initiative, was to tell the Castilians that he understood that the Regent realized, although'· rather late, that the Scots were being led into a "perilous position" and that all good Scots could soon agree to a solution if they could have a meeting. When Melville reported to the Regent what conditions Kirkcaldy and his friends demanded, Mar, seeming to consider them quite reasonable, said that he would fulfil them.

Matters having proceeded thus far towards a settlement, Mar went to Edinburgh, in order to persuade the lords and council how necessary an agreement between the two factions was for the good of the country. This plan, however, came to nought, for while

Mar was at Dalkeith, awaiting the appointed day for the council meeting, illness forced him to return to Stirling.

Mar returned to Stirling, heavy in heart because he wished to grant the conditions demanded by the Castilians, but MOrton would 15 not allow it. On October 28 Killigrew wrote to England of the great danger the Regent's life was in. Morton bad received a letter from Alexander Erskine, saying that he had little hope for Mar 1 s 16 l 1"f e, and ask" 1ng u~r~r t on t o prov1"d e accord" 1ng 1y. The next day

Killigrew received word that the Regent bad died the night before. 17

Rumôurs soon began to circulate about Mar's death, which was - 180 -

attributed to various causes, including foul play. One suggestion was that he had died from disappointment, because he loved peace 18 and could not have it. Some linked Mar's death to the fact that shortly before he died he had dined with Morton at Dalkeith; they suspected that he had been poisoned by Morton, who wished to put an end to his schemes for a peaceful settlement between 19 the two factions. Even before the Regent's death the

Spanish ambassador in England had beard rumours that he had been poisoned, though this report may have been mere wishful thinking. After Mar's death the rumeurs mounted. A newsletter from London, sent to Alba in the Netherlands, discussed the death in detail. It stated that when the body was examined after death, doctors found that the earl had been poisoned.

The Spanish infrmant went on to state that the person suspected of being responsible was du Croc, the French ambassador, although it was thought that the poison had been administered by a brother . 20 of Mar, who was a Cathol1c.

Whether or not there was any truth to the rumours of foul play is difficult to say, but Mar's death did come at an opportune moment for Morton. By the time of the Regent's death MOrton had pretty well managed to get control of the kingdom into his own hands; he was able to overrule Mar in the council, and the English ambassador considered that he was the man to be considered. He no longer needed to wŒk through Mar, and the Regent with his schemes - 181 -

for a compromise with the Castilians, involving the restitution

of their property, was becoming somewhat of a hindrance to

Morton. On the other hand the Regent had been showing signs

of poor health earlier, and his death may have been due to

natural causes. At this date no one can be certain about the

real truth of the matter.

There were many who regretted the passing of John Erskine,

Earl of Mar. Richard Bannatyne reported that his death was

displeasing to many, because the King, who had been kept safe

by Mar, had now fewer friends. Bannatyne hoped that those who

now had charge of the King would serve him as faithfully as

t h e 1ate regent h a d , t h oug h h e appeared to d ou b t ~t.. 21 Buc h anan

considered Mar to be a man respected and loved by both aides, of

mild, conciliating manners, and undoubted integrity, but one who

lacked the commanding energy of mind necessary for the ruler of . 22 Scotland in such turbulent times. Morton of course had the

commanding energy of mind of which Buchanan spoke, but whether

he possessed the other qualities mentioned is doubtful. During

the time of his regency Mar enjoyed the office without incurring

envy, and he left it without losa of reputation. Both factions 23 acknowledged his honourable nature, and his uncorrupted integrity.

Following the death of Mar a Parliament was held in Edinburgh

to choose a new Regent. Those nominated for the office were James,

Earl of Morton, and Alexander, Earl of Glencairn. As everyone must 24 • have expected, Morton was elected. Glencairn was probably nominated - 182 -

by those who hated and feared Morton 1 s avarice, ruthlessness, and great power. But, as he was already in almost complete control of the government, and had been so even before the late Regent's death, Morton was the only possible choice.

After his election Morton remained on good terms with the

Erskine family, and the following year Mary Erskine, the late

Earl 1 s daughter, married his nephew the Earl of Angus, thus 25 confirming the devotion of the house of Erskine to the Regent.

What was the importance of the Regent Mar? He was not a man who seemed from the start marked out for greatness. Born a younger son, he became heir to his father 1 s title and lands through the deaths of his elder brothers. On his father 1 s death' he inherited not one of the great lordships of Scotland, but the lands of Erskine, and the family tradition of staunch, but unspectacular loyalty to the crown. His persona! qualities did not seem likely to elevate him to fame. He had neither the ruthless strength of character of Morton, nor the astute far­ sighted devotion to a cause of Moray. He vacillated at times, but he was steadfast compared to Ch~telherault. He made persona! gains from the troubled times in Scotland, but he did not have the ability of the Campbells to turn everything to a profit. Mar early joined the Reformed religion, but he long refused to follow - 183 -

the political path of his co-religionists. He supported

Queen Mary through many of the troubles of her reign, but he refused to continue his support of her in her worst troubles.

He supported the English alliance, but was determined to maintain

Scottish independence. In all things Mar refused to go to extremes. His was always the way of moderation, the middle way.

Perhaps it was,because of this moderateness, one might almost say this mediocrity, that Mar played such an important role in Scotland. His first appearance as a leading figure was during the struggles between Mary of Guise and the Lords of the Congregation. As a relative of Lord James and a

Protestant, Lord Erskine might have been expected to join the fight against the Regent. But he did not. Perhaps he was influenced by loyalty to the crown, perhaps by Morton, whom the lords distrusted, perhaps by sorne hope of personal gain.

Whatever his motives, Erskine refused to take up arms against the Regent, although he did try to maintain friendly relations with Lord James and the other Lords of the Congregation. Wh en the struggle at last ended, with the granting of almost all the requests of the Protestants, Erskine was not forced to retire to the country in disfavour or deprived of any of his power.

Due to his kinship with Lord James, or his own importance, he suffered no loss for h±s neutral stand. His importance and power stemmed party from the fact that he was captain of Stirling and - 184 -

Edinburgh Castles, two of the strongest fortresses in the country, and partly from the fact that his lands stretched across the centre of the country.

In examining Mar's political behaviour during the period after Mary's return to Scotland a pattern seems to emerge.

ÀS long as Mary was popular, he supported ber. He refused to join Moray in opposition to ber marriage, but when she bad lost the affection of the people by ber determination to marry

Bothwell, and when it seemed that the young prince, who was in

Mar 1 s custody, was in danger, Mar joined those fighting against ber. Mar always emerged on the winning side, or, at the very least, on friendly terms with the winning side, and he was as loyal to the Stewarts as he could be without endangering his own interests.

During Mar's regency another aspect of his importance emerges the increasing friendship between England and Scotland. One of his first actions on becoming regent was to write to several of the most important men of Elizabeth 1 s court asking for their friendship. Throughout his regency Mar was constantly asking

Elizabeth for money, ammunition, food and troops -- and getting them, though not in the quantities demanded. Despite his reliance on English aid to help in the struggles against Queen Ma~y 1 s friends,

Mar was determined to prove Scottish independance. He made several attempts to win a negotiated peace which would conciliate - 185 - .. all sides and exclude England from participating in the

Scottish struggles. In the end he was overruled on this

matter by his councillors. In this too Mar chose the middle

path, English aid but not English dominance, conciliation, not

the complete destruction of the Queen 1 s lords.

In this failure to win the support of the lords for

conciliation Mar 1 s weakness emerges. He wdshed to negotiate

with the Queen 1 s lords, to offer them terms which they could

accept, but he was overruled. Mar lacked the strength of

character to impose his will on others, and to be the kind of

regent Scotland needed in those troubled times. In the

matter of the collectors of thirds of benefices he was swayed

one way by some of his friends, then another by Erskine of Dun.

In creating the 11 tulchan" bishops he was influenced by Morton

to do something bath unpopular and unwise. Though an ab le

follower, and a shrewd politician, Mar was not a good ruler.

Footnotes

1. Fraude, op cit, I, 414: Lang, op cit, II, 247. 2. C.S.P., IV, 418; Fore. Eliz., X, 194. 3. Fraude, op cit, X, 445-6. 4. c.s.P., rv, 418. 5. ibid, 413. 6. Breadalbane Muniments, Register House, Edinburgh, no. 255. 7. Fore. Eliz., X, 194. B. Buchanan, op cit, 629. 9. Hume Brown, History of Scotland (Cambridge, 1911), II, 156. 10. Diurnal, 316. 11. C.S.P., IV, 418. 12. Fore. Eliz., X, 194. 13. Buchanan, op cit, 629. 14. Melville, Memoirs, 248. 15. Diurnal, 316-7. - 186 -

16. C.S.P., IV, 427. 17. ibid, 429. 18. Diurnal, 317. 19. Melville, Memoirs, 248. 20. Calendar of State Papers Spanish, II, 439-441. 21. Bannatyne, op cit, 279. 22. Buchanan, op cit, 630. 23. W. Robertson, op cit, II, 22. 24. A.P.S. II, 78. 25. C.S.P., IV, 590. Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Manuscripts

Register House, Edinburgh.

Ailsa Muniments.

Breadalbane Muniments.

Correspondence with England During Earl of Mar's Regency 1571-72.

Treasurer 1 s Accounts, 1571-1574.

Printed Documents:

Accounts of the Collectors of Thirds of Benefices, 1561-72, ed.G. Donaldson, Edinburgh, 1949.

Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland, ed. Sir J. B. Paul, Edinburgh, 1911-1916, IX, X, XI.

Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, London, 1814, II, III.

Acts of the Privy Council of England, ed. J.R. Dasent, London, 1841, III.

Acts and Proceedings of General Assemb1ies of the Kirk of Scot1and, Edinburgh, 1839-1845.

Ancient Criminal Trials in Scot1and, ed. R. Pitcairn, Edinburgh, 1833, II.

Book of the Universal Kirk, Edinburgh, 1834.

Calendar of State Papers Foreign, Elizabeth, ed. J. Stevenson, London, 1863-1870, l-VIII, ed. A.J. Crosby, London, 1871-1876, VIII-X.

Calendar of State Papers Relating to Scotland and Mary Queen of Scots, ed. J. Bain, Edinburgh, 1898-1900, I, II; ed. W.K. Boyd, Edinburgh, 1903-1905, IV, V.

Calendar of State Papers, Rome, ed. J.M. Rigg, London, 1916-1926, I, II.

Calendar of State Papers, Scottish Series, ed. M.J. Thorpe, London, 1858.

Ca1endar of State Papers, Spanish, ed. M.~s. Hume, London, 1892- 1894, I, II.

Correspondence of Sir Patrick Waus, ed. R.N. Agnew, Edinburgh, 1887. Excheguer Rolls of Scotland, ed. G.P. M'Neill, Edinburgh, 1898-1899, XVIII-XX.

Extracts from the Burgh Records of Edinburgh, ed. J.D. Marwick, Edinburgh, 1875, III.

Hamilton Papers, ed. J. Bain, Edinburgh, 1892, II.

Historical Manuscript Commission Reports, 2nd Report, 4th Report, Mar and Kellie.

Inventories of Mary Queen of Scots, ed. J. Stevenson, Edinburgh, 1863.

Letters of James V, ed. R.K. Hannay and D. Hay, Edinburgh, 1954.

Lettres de Marie Stuart, ed. A. Labanoff, London, 1844.

Liber S. Marie de Dryburgh, Edinburgh, 1847.

Papal Negotiations with Mary Queen of Scots, ed. J.H. Pollen, Edinburgh, 1901.

Papers Illustrative of the Reigns of Queen Mary and King James VI, ed. J. Stevenson, Glasgow, 1834.

Protocol Book of Sir Robert Pollok, ed. W. Angus, Edinburgh, 1931.

Register of the Great Seal of Scotland, ed. J.B. Paul and J.M. Thomson, Edinburgh, 1883-1886, III, IV.

Scottish Correspondence of Mary of Lorraine, ed. A.I. Cameron, Edinburgh, 1927.

State Papers, R. Sadler, ed. A. Clifford, Edinburgh, 1804.

Unpublished Documents Illustrating the Reign of Mary Queen of Scotland, ed. J. Stevenson, Glasgow, 1837.

Warrender Papers, ed. A.I. Cameron, Edinburgh, 1931.

Secondary Sources:

Contemporary Accounts

R. Bannatyne, Memorials, Edinburgh, 1836.

G. Dickinson, ed., Two Missions of Jacques de la Brosse, Edinburgh, 1942.

A Diurnal of Remarkable Occurrents which have passed within the Country of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1833. Lord Herries, Historical Memoirs of Mary 9ueen of Scots, Edinburgh, 1836.

11 "Historie of the Life of King James the Sexth, 1566-1596 , Book of the Old Edinburgh Club, XVI, Edinburgh, 1921.

R. Keith, History of Affairs of Church and State in Scotland, ed. J.P. Lawson, Edinburgh, 1844.

J. Knox, History of the Reformation in Scotland, ed. W.C. Dickinson, Edinburgh, 1949.

Works, ed. D. Laing, Edinburgh, 1856.

Sir James Melville, Memoirs, Edinburgh, 1827.

Books, Articles, etc.

Abbotsford Club, Miscellany, I, Edinburgh, 1837.

P. Hume Brown, History of Scotland, Cambridge, 1911.

G. Buchanan, History of Scotland, Glasgow, 1827, II.

D. Calderwood, History of the Kirk of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1843.

G. Chalmers, Caledonia, Paisley, 1902.

Lord Crawford, The Earldom of Mar, Edinburgh, 1882. w.c. Dickinson, Scotland from Earliest Times to 1603, London, 1961. D.H. Fleming, Mary 9ueen of Scots, London, 1897.

W. Frazer, ed., Douglas Book, Edinburgh, 1885.

J.A. Froude, History of England, London, 1870, VII, IX, X.

I.F. Grant, Social and Economie Development of Scotland before 1603, Edinburgh, 1930.

V. Jacob, The Lairds of Dun, Edinburgh, 1927.

A. Lang, History of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1902.

M. Lee, James Stewart, Earl of Moray, New York, 1953.

R. Lindsay of Pitscottie, Chronicles of Scot1and, Edinburgh, 1814.

T. M'Crie, The Life of John Knox, Edinburgh, 1855. c. Read, Mr Secretary Cecil and Çueen Elizabeth, London, 1955. Mr Secretary Walsingham and the Policy of 9ueen Elizabeth, Oxford, 1925. 11 11 W.S. Reid, Clerical Taxation , The Catholic Historical Review, July 1948.

J. Robertson, ed., The Antiguities of tbeShires of Aberdeen and Banff, Aberdeen, 1847.

W. Robertson, History of Scotland, London, 1824.

W.D. Simpson, Earldom of Mar, Aberdeen, 1949 •

•