CHIEF:  Dr Robin Boyd, MA (Oxon); MB BS; LRCP, MRCS; DCH; AFOM, 8th Baron Kilmarnock

Richard G. Boyd

NEW EMAIL ADDRESS

RichBoyd (at sign) Charter.net

PART 2 of Pictorial

Extracted and contributed to the Clan Boyd Society Web Site by 

Wayne Johnson of New Zealand

Continues under the subheading “The Kirk dissatisfied with the Act of Abolition.”  and under the subheading “Continuous intrigues of the popish faction.”

 ‘The popish earls, in the meantime, still continued their treasonable intercourse with Spain, and, encouraged by promises of speedy assistance from that country, as well as confident in the numbers and strength at home, were in no hurry to avail themselves of the Act of Abolition; but, in a show of submission, temporized and procrastinated until the time appointed by the committee had passed, and they were once more left exposed to all the penalties of the law.
 

16

HAY, of Tallo, “assists in the murder of Darnley.” Vol. ii. p. 45.

This excerpt centers around the Earl of Bothwell’s deliberations and macerations
associated with his intention ‘to move to haste forward his enterprise.’ Which was the murder of Lord Henry Darnley King of Scotland and husband of Queen Mary of Scots.

Under the subtitled heading “Bothwell’s preparations for the murder of the king.”

“Only three days before the murder, Lord Robert Stewart, Mary’s illegitimate brother, informed Darnley ‘that if he retired not hastily out of that place, it would cost him his life.’  Darnley immediately informed Mary, who sent for Lord Robert, and in the presence of her husband questioned him on the subject; but he, afraid of involving himself in danger, retracted what he formerly said, and denied that he had ever made any such statement. “This advertisement,” says Melvil, “moved the Earl of Bothwell to haste forward his enterprise.”  That flagitious noble was now busily occupied in making all due preparations for the accomplishment of his murderous project. He had secured active co-operation or tacit assent from the Earls of Huntley, Argyle and Caithness, the Archbishop of St. Andrews, Archibald Douglas, and many others of the leading lords and officers of the crown; and, in addition to these accomplices of high rank, he secured the services of a number of hardened and unscrupulous villains, of whose courage and devotedness he had ample proofs, and who readily consented to become the instruments of his crime. Four of these-Dalgleish, Wilson, Powrie and French Paris-were merely menial retainer; the other four who were present at the “deed-doing” were the Laird of Ormiston, Hob Ormiston, his uncle, John Hepburn of Bolton, and John Hay of Tallo. The Frenchman Paris, who had been long in the employment of Bothwell, and on his recommendation was taken into the queen’s service shortly before the perpetration of the murder, rendered important assistance in enabling his former master to obtain the keys of some of the doors of Kirk-of-Field House, of which he caused counterfeit impressions to be taken.
 
 

17
 

BOYD, Robert, Lord, “goes over to the Queen’s party.” vol. ii.  p. 63

Follows on from the “supposed Plots of Moray & Darnley” and is subtitled ‘Defeated in their attempt the retire to Edinburgh.’  Time period 1567

‘Baffled in their enterprise, the confederates retired to Edinburgh, which they reached early in the morning; and, breaking open the gates, they entered without opposition. The inhabitants were at first unfavourable to their cause, though, as already remarked, Balfour, the governor of the castle, was wavering in his allegiance. Several of the most distinguished adherents of the queen-such as Lord Boyd, the Archbishop of St. Andrew’s, the Bishop of Ross, and the Abbot of Kilwinning-were at this time present in the city. On the approach of the confederates, they retired into the castle; but the governor, aware that their presence would compromise him in the eyes of those with whom he was about to associate, dismissed them from the castle and city. The next day the confederates formed themselves into a kind of council, and in that capacity issued a proclamation to the flowing effect;-‘

‘That whereas the queen’s majesty being detained in captivity, and as neither able to govern her realm, nor try the murderer of her husband, we as the nobility and council command all her subjects, especially the burghers of Edinburgh, to assist the same noblemen and council in delivering the queen, and preserving the prince, and in trying and punishing the king’s murderers. And we command the lords of session commissaries, and all other judges, to sit to do justice according to the laws of this realm, notwithstanding any tumult that may arise in the time of this enterprise; with certification to all who shall be found acting contrary to these proceedings, that they shall be suspected as fautors of the aforesaid murder, and punished as traitors.’  (MS. Letter, State Paper Office, Drury to Cecil, 20th May, 1567; Ibid., 7th June 1567) ‘At the same time other proclamations were made at the Market Cross of the City, in the name of the queen, commanding all “sensabill personis betwix sextie and sextene” to proceed to Borthwick, “to relief her and her spouce, under pain of deid.” Another royal proclamation, on the same day, enjoined all such ‘sensabill personis’ to meet in Edinburgh, and hold themselves in readiness to march whenever they were required; and a third was intended to be announced at 7 o’clock in the same evening, ordering the parties in the city to return to their respective homes; but the confederates prevented the
announcement, by taking the heralds into custody.’  (Diurnal of Occurants in Scotland, printed for the Bannatyne Club, p. 113)
 
 

18

HAY of Tallo,  “Apprehension of.” Vol. ii. p. 81-82.

We move now to the period following 16th September 1568 after the Act of Indemnity was passed, which caused concealment, of the letters sent to Bothwell by Mary, Queen of Scots, alleged to be in her own hand. This Act made those letters the foundation of the exoneration of the confederate lords ‘for all the proceedings they had taken against the queen.’. The Act having been ordered printed, parliament was dissolved.

Under the subtitled heading   “Balfour surrenders the Castle of Edinburgh” vol. ii. p.80.

‘Beyond doubt, Balfour was one of the principal actors in the murder of the king; but, on his consenting to surrender the castle, he not only obtained ample remission of his crime, but was presented with the sum of fifteen thousand pounds, and the Priory of Pittenweem, and his son received an annuity. This was a discreditable transaction, and in some degree to distract public attention from it, great activity was shown in bringing to justice some of the more obscure agents in the murder of Darnley. Amoung those apprehended were a page of the king’s called Durham, John Hay of Tallo, John Spens, John Blackater, and James Edmonson.’ (MS. Letter State Paper Office, Bedford to Cecil.)

‘Of Tallo’s guilt there was no doubt; but according to Bedford, in a letter to Cecil,
Moray rather repented having brought him to trial, as he laid open  the whole
conspiracy in it’s minutest details, “declared who were the executioners of the same and went so far as to touch a great many, not of the smallest.”.’ (Ibid; Tytler, vol. vii. p. 194.) ‘So perplexing was the position in which the regent found himself, that he suppressed Tallo’s examination, and remanded him back to prison.’

 vol. ii. p. 81.  continues.

‘The Regent now determined that the criminals formerly arrested as accomplices in the king’s murder should be brought to trial. They were four in number; Hay of Tallo; Hepburn of Bolton; George Dalgleish, a page; and William Powrie, a servant to Bothwell. It was natural that this trial should be looked forward to with the greatest expectations. It was confidently predicted that revelations would then be made implicating some of the highest persons in the land, as it was generally believed that the whole details had been known by Captain Cullen, who had lately been executed. In this however the public were to be disappointed. Nothing was revealed at the trial which was not already known.
 
 

19

The trial and execution occupied only one day; and the only declaration publicly made was that given forth on the scaffold, in his last moments by Hepburn of Bolton, to the  effect that the bond had been signed by Huntley, Argyle and Lethington.  The indignation of the people was very great when they found out that no steps were taken or likely to be taken, to bring to justice the more prominent criminals; who, in fact, from the deplorable state of the law, and the defective character of the administration of justice, as well as their own exalted station and great power and influence found themselves in a position from which not even the regent, armed with all the authority of the law, could displace them. The punishment of these men, indeed, great offenders as they undoubtedly were, was, humanly speaking, impossible. The people, however, felt the disappointment bitterly; but showed their displeasure in a very harmless manner, by attaching handbills and pasquinades to the doors of the Privy Council and the regent’s house.

The following is an example ; “Quaeritur;-Why John Hepburn and John Hay of Tallo, are not compelled to declare openly the manner of the King’s slaughter, and who consented thereunto.”  (Another example may be given by MS., State Paper Office, which bore the title of “A letter sent by Madde to my Lord Regent and the haill Estates;”-
 

 “My Lordes all, the king is slain=
      Revenge his cause in hand,
 Or else your doing is all in vain,
      For all your general band,
 If ye shall punish but simple men,
      And let all the principal  pass,
 Then God and men shall you misken,
      And make you therefore base.”
 (Tytler, vol. vii, p. 208)
 
 

20

BOYD, Robert, Lord, “Noticed” vol. ii.  p.  103.

In the subtitled heading     “Moray is reconciled to Norfolk.”

‘Even Mary herself was deceived by Moray’s professions and promises. She had a numerous and influential party in Scotland still devoted to cause; and she had appointed as her lieutenants the Duke of Chatelherault and the Earls of Argyle and Huntley; to the first of whom she had given the flattering title of her adopted father. The Duke had the whole strength of the Hamiltons at his command: the influence of the two earls was prominent in the north; and Lord Boyd, with other powerful nobles, were enthusiastic in her cause.’
 

BOYD, Robert, Lord  vol. ii.  p.  106.

In the subtitled heading    “Elizabeth opens negotiations with Moray” and
                                          “Elizabeth’s proposals.”

and follows from the state whereby Mary, Queen of Scots, finds herself in the captivity of Elizabeth I, Queen of England.

‘Recognising the Bishop of Ross as Mary’s ambassador, she’ (Elizabeth    my insert) ‘feigned a willingness to treat on the basis of of certain proposals made by the bishop, and submitted to her and her Privy Council. In these proposals, which are said to have been drawn up by Leicester’ (Camden’s Elizabeth, Kenuet, vol. ii. pp. 419, 420) ‘it was stipulated: First that the Scottish Queen shall not disturb the government of the Queen of England, or the legitimate heirs of her body, by affecting any title to the crown during their lifetime, provided that, in their defect, the title of the Queen of Scotland and her heirs to the succession be fully recognized. Secondly, a treaty of alliance and friendship between the two kingdoms shall be entered into with the advice of the Estates in both countries. Thirdly, the two foregoing stipulations shall be confirmed by the oath of the two queens, and sealed with their seals, having first been ratified by the parliaments of both nations; and, as a further guarantee on the part of the Queen of Scots, she will procure the Kings of France and Spain to be securities for the fulfilment
of her promises. Forthly, the Queen of Scots, shall extend her clemency to all her subjects who have offended her during her during the late troubles, provided that they now be willing to return to their allegiance, to give up to her keeping the young prince her son, to restore to her her jewels and other property of which they had deprived her, and to deliver over to her the strongholds of the kingdom, now in their possession.’  
 

21

‘Fifthly, all concerned in the planning and execution of the murder of the late king shall be brought to trial without delay, and punished according to the laws of the realm. Sixthly, the Queen shall promise never again to receive into her kingdom, the Earl of Bothwell, but shall, by the advice and consent of her nobles, obtain a divorce from him. Seventhly, all these stipulations, having been agreed to, the Queen of England shall provide an honourable escort to convey the Queen  of Scotland back to her dominions, where she shall be re-instated in her authority, and all acts and states to the contrary shall be annulled.’ (Leslie’s Negotiations, Anderson, vol. iii. Pp. 46-49;  Mignet, vol. ii, p. 79)

‘These proposals, having been deliberately considered and adopted by the Privy
Council, Lord Boyd was dispatched with them to Mary, with the understanding that, if they obtained her consent, they were to be submitted to the consideration of the Scottish Nobility. Without the knowledge of Elizabeth, to these articles there was added one relating to the marriage of the Scottish queen with the Duke of Norfolk, and recommending this union as calculated to promote the tranquility and cement the future of the two kingdoms. The article runs thus.. “Because it is feared that the Queen of Scotland might marry some foreign prince, whereby the religion of the country might be altered, and the good estate of both realms endangered, it is therefore desirable that she should accept some nobleman of England in marriage, especially the Duke of Norfolk, who is first of the nobility of that realm, and most fit of all others.’ (Anderson, vol. iii. Pp. 50-52) ‘To add greater weight to this overture, the Earls of Leicester, Arundel, and Pembroke, and the Lord Lumley, sent Mr Candish as a special messenger to accompany
Lord Boyd to Titbury, carrying with him some valuable presents to Mary, together with an affectionate letter from Leicester himself.’ (Camden, vol. i. p. 186) ……….

continues ……

under the subtitled heading “Lord Boyd dispatched to Scotland with proposals from Elizabeth and letters to the regent.”

‘The projected marriage was still being carefully concealed from Elizabeth; but being strongly urged to complete a treaty of restoration of Mary, on the basis of the proposals made by Bishop Ross, she once more submitted the matter to the consideration of her Privy Council. The conference resulted in Lord Boyd being dispatched to Scotland with the proposals of the Queen of England and her nobility.’  (Lesley’s Negotiations, Anderson, vol. iii. Pp. 54, 55)  ‘He carried with him letters to the regent from Elizabeth, Mary, the Duke of Norfolk, and Sir Nicholas Throckmorton. He met Moray at Elgin, on his return from his expedition against the clans in the north, and presented him with his letters and dispatches.. In the letter of the English queen, three propositions were made in respect to Mary, any one of which might be adopted.’  
 

22

‘First, she might be re-stated unconditionally and absolutely in her authority as the Queen of Scotland; or, secondly, she might be associated with her son in the
government of the kingdom, while Moray should continue to act as regent, until the prince should attain the age of seventeen years; or, thirdly, without having any share in the government, she might reside in Scotland as a private individual, but enjoy the title of queen in public acts and patents, and be provided with a maintenance suited to her exalted rank.’ (Calderwood, vol. ii. p. 489;  Tytler, vol. vii. p. 232:  Mignet, vol. ii. p. 85) and continues ……..

After a speech by Norfolk to Moray….. Norfolk goes on..

‘He farther referred the regent to Lord Boyd for the removal of any doubts or scruples he might entertain: and, in conclusion, assured him that he felt for him the affection not only of a faithful friend, but of a natural brother.’ (Letter from Norfolk to Moray, 1st July 1569, in Haynes, p. 520)

‘Throckmorton had entrusted Lord Boyd with letters both to the regent and to
Lethington. To the former he remarked, that he must now lay aside all his conscientious doubts and scruples; that the proposed marriage of his sister with Norfolk had gained the approbation and support of a party so numerous and powerful that opposition on his part would not only be in vain, but ruinous; while, on the other hand, his active co-operation would render him one of the most beloved and popular men which the kingdom could boast.’

Under the subtitled heading in,    vol. ii. p. 118   “A convention of the nobility is
summoned for the election of a regent, &c.”

‘Meanwhile the kingdom was agitated to it’s center by two hostile parties, whose rival pretensions burst asunder the bonds of civil society, and ranged chosen friends and near relatives, under opposite banners. One of these still maintained allegiance to their captive queen; the other acknowledged the authority of the young prince, her son. Both sincerely desirous for the restoration of public tranquility; but the ambition of their respective leaders, and the incessant intrigues of the English party, maintained in fatal vitality the flames of civil discord.’

‘Of these factions, by far the stronger was that of the queen, which included in its ranks not only a numerical majority, but the most powerful and ancient of the nobility. The Duke of Chatelherault, with all the numerous branched of that influential family of which he was chief, The Earls of Argyle, Huntley, Atholl, Errol, Crawford, Marischel, Caithness, Cassillis, Eglinton, and Sutherland; the Lords Herries, Home, Seaton, Ogilvy, Ross, Borthwick, Oliphant, Yester, Fleming, Boyd, Sommerville, Innermeith, Forbes and Gray; together with Kirkaldy of Grange and Maitland of Lethington-the former esteemed the ablest soldier, and the latter the greatest statesman, of which the country could boast-were all enthusiastically devoted to the cause of the captive queen,and ready to take up arms in her support.’ (MS. State Paper Office, Petition toElizabeth, 16th April 1570, endorsed by Cecil: Duke of Chatelherault, and his associates, to the Queen’s Majesty; Tytler, vol. vii. p. 264)
 
 

23

 EARL, of ERROL,      vol. ii. p, 331

These excerpts are under the subheading of “Preparation of an armament by Phillip II of Spain. Fears of Elizabeth.”

In brief…

‘The position of Elizabeth, at this moment (1587), was, indeed, one of extreme
difficulty and danger, and as such as to render a close alliance with the Scottish
monarch (James) an object of far greater importance to her than it had ever hitherto been. For some time the attention of all Europe had been attracted to the vast preparations for some warlike enterprise, which were being made by Phillip II of Spain…..

Elizabeth, conscious of the provocation she had given Phillip by assisting his rebellious subjects in the Netherlands, and by allowing her ships of war to insult the coasts of Spain, intercept the galleons from the West Indies, and menace the Spanish colonies in that quarter, had abundant reason to fear that England would be the object of attack…..

In the meantime, Phillip laboured assiduously to gain over the young king of Scots to co-operate with him in his great enterprise. He urged him to assist him in revenging the indignity offered to himself and his people by the execution of his mother; he invited nhim to share the conquest of England; and offered him his daughter, the Infanta Isabella, in marriage. Besides these negotiations with the king, he sent over numerous emissaries, chiefly priests and Jesuits, to tamper with the nobility and the people, by inducing them, through the influence of bribes and promises, and by every other means in their power, to embrace popery, and renounce their allegiance to the sovereign. Nor were these efforts altogether unsuccessful.

 EARL, of ERROL, “Joins the Spanish Faction.”  vol. ii. p, 332

A powerful faction, headed by Huntley, Errol, and Crawford, was organized, and
openly embraced the cause of Spain; and Lord Maxwell, arriving from the court of that country, now proceeded to assemble and arm his followers, to be in readiness to join the Spaniards on their landing.’
 
 

 24

 EARLS of ERROL,  “Excommunicated.”  vol. ii. p. 354.

‘The provincial synod of Fife, at this time distinquished by it’s ardent zeal against
popery, happening to meet in the course of it ordinary convocations, a motion was made, and after much discussion agreed to, that the Roman Catholic Earls and their adherents should be excommunicated as obstinate papists; and, notwithstanding the strong objection that the parties did not reside within the jurisdiction of the synod, the awful sentence was fulminated accordingly. It will be recollected that the censures of the Church now carried with them civil penalties of the most formidable description, since, by a recent act of parliament, obstinate contemners of her authority were condemned as rebels. That this sentence might have all the weight of a general decree, and should not be liable to be set aside of a want of jurisdiction in the synod of Fife, it was founded on the circumstance that many of the conspirators had been students at theUniversity of St. Andrew’, and that all of them had resided within that district, and had, either by having been in connection with the Church, or by other acts, renderedthemselves amenable to the synod’s jurisdiction.’ (Calderwood, vol. v. pp. 267, 268).
‘The synod further appointed a deputation to communicate their proceedings to the adjacent synods for their approbation and assistance.’ (Ibid., p. 268)

‘The king was highly enraged, as well as deeply grieved at this proceeding, which
complicated the difficulties of his position with respect to the leaders of the popish faction. That faction was daily gaining strength, particularly in the north, and James naturally dreaded the extreme measures, so far from crushing them, would only have the effect of driving them, in self defence, to the adoption of the most desperate expedients.’                                Continues…..

 EARL, of ERROL,  “Petitions the King for a Trial.” vol. ii. p, 355

Under the subheading “The popish earls demand a trial.”

‘In the meantime Huntley, Angus, and Errol, petitioned the king that they might be brought to trial for their alleged participation in the Spanish conspiracy, of which they protested they were entirely innocent. The only presumption of their guilt rested, they said, on a confession extorted by torture, and on certain signatures which, if an opportunity were granted, they could prove to be forgeries. And yet on such evidence as that they had been condemmed unheard, excommunicated by the Church, banished from court, and driven like outlaws into the mountains.

It was but justice, they said, that an opportunity should be given them of establishing their innocence; at all events, let them be brought to trial; if found guilty, let them suffer the penalty of the law; if otherwise, they would either make their peace with the Kirk, or retire into voluntary exile.’ (MS. Letter, State Paper Office, Bowes to Burghley, 9th October 1593; Tytler, vol. ix. P. 115)
 
 

25

‘This apparently reasonable demand was shortly afterwards urged by the three earls in person, under circumstance which gave rise to the gravest suspicions of the king’s complicity. Being about to set out on an expedition to the Borders, accompanied by Lord Home and the Laird of Cessford, he promised the ministers of Edinburgh that he would enter into no conference with the popish lords until they should satisfy the Kirk. On the same day, however, the three earls suddenly presented themselves before him between Soltra and Fala, and, falling upon their knees, imploring him not to condemn them unheard, but to appoint a day for their trial; and, in the meantime, they professed their willingness to enter ward, whenever it should please his majesty to appoint. James affected great indignation at their presumption, and told them they should be worse handled for their boldness;’ (MS. Letter State Paper Office, Bowes to Burghley,
12th October 1593.) ‘ yet, before they parted, he not only promised them a trial, but suggested that by choosing a assize of their own friends, it would be easy to secure and acquittal.’ (Tytler, ut supra.) ‘ In the meantime they were ordered to repair to Perth, and to remain there until the necessary preparations for their trial should be completed.’

‘It was universally believed that this interview took place by preconcerted arrangement with the king himself; and it was well known that the three earls had secretly summoned all their adherents to assemble in arms on the day of the trial; while such was their power at that time that no witnesses for the prosecution could give evidence, no jury could convict, and no judge could condemn, but at the peril of their lives.’ (MS. Letter, State Paper Office, Bowes to Burghley, 18th October 1593; Tytler, vol. ix. P. 116) This state of matter greatly alarmed the ministers of the Kirk and the whole Protestant Party. An ecclesiastical convention, consisting of minister, barons, and commissioners of
burghs, was held at Edinburgh on the 17th October 1593, to deliberate as to the course to be pursued at a crisis so full of danger to the Church and the country, when it was thought good to appoint a deputation to wait on the king and present him with their advice. For this important mission they selected James Melvil, Patrick Galloway, the Laird of Calderwood, and the Laird of Murchiston, with two burgesses of Edinburgh, and one of Dundee.’ (Calderwood, vol. v. p. 270) ‘who were immediately dispatched to Jedburgh. Where the king was holding a justice-ayre. They were instructed to entreat the king that the trial of the popish lords, should be delayed, until the “professors of the gospel should be ripely advised what was meetest for them to do, since they had resolved to be the principal accusers oof these noblemen in their foul treasons.”They were farther commissioned to beseech his majesty that these noblemen, having
been guilty of treason in it’s most aggravated form, should “according to the loveable laws and customs of Scotland, be imprisoned till the Estates of parliament had advised on the manner of their trial; that the jury should be nominated, not by the accused, but by the accusers; that as the aforesaid traitors were excommunicated and cut off from society of Christ’s body, they should not be admitted to trial, or have any benefit of the law, until they were again joined unto Christ and reconciled with the Kirk”.
 
 

26

Continues….

Under the subtitled heading      “Their remonstrances are unheeded.”

‘James received the deputation in no complacent mood. He enveighed bitterly against the synod of Fife for having excommunicated the three earls,’ (Calderwood, vol. v. p. 270). ‘refused to acknowledge the a convention which had met without his authority, and would give no written reply to their application. He declined even to return a verbal answer to the convention as a body, though he condescended to give certain explanations to the members of the deputation as individual subjects. These explanations were far from satisfactory. The Earl of Home, he said would shortly be reconciled to the Church or be effused admittance into his presence; and, as for the popish lords, he declared they had been brought before him without his knowledge, and he promised them nothing more than a fair and impartial trial, to which, common justice, they were entitled. He had, however, he said, found it expedient to postpone the trial, and would, in the meantime, call a convention of the Estates to meet at Linlithgow, according to whose advice he would proceed in the matter.

Such were the mutual animosities and exasperated feelings of the two great parties at this moment, that the nation was in imminent peril of being involved in a most sanguinary civil war. This result appeared to the watchful eye of Bowes, the English ambassador, to be inevitable. Writing to Burghley on the eighteenth of October, he thus apprehensively alludes to the impending crisis;=”Yesterday, at the meeting of the commissioners of the Kirk, the barons and burghs convened, * * * Great preparations are made for the advancement of the course thus resolved, and to stop the trial to be given at this time to these earls, whose friends (as it is told me) have mustered, and are in readiness to come to Perth at the day limited; they have already provided that the Water Gate or Water Street shall be reserved for the earls and their companies; but Atholl, Gowrie, and many of the town are rather disposed to keep them out. The convocation and access of people to that place is looked upon to be so great that thereon bloody troubles shall arise.”. ‘ (MS. Letter, State Paper Office, Bowes to Burghley, 20th October 1593; Tytler, vol. ix. p. 118).

‘The convention was opened at Linlithgow on 12th November, but was attended by very few of the nobility;’ (Calderwood, vol. v. p. 282). ‘and after a brief deliberation, the whole matter of the popish lords was referred to a committee, who were appointed to meet at Edinburgh on the following month, and whose decision was to have the validity of an act of parliament. In this committee the three Estates of the realm-nobles, barons, and burgesses- were to be represented; six of the leading ministers of the Kirk were allowed to appear on the part of that body; and all the officers of State were appointed to assist in the deliberation.

Continues….

EARL, of ERROL,  “Act of Abolition respecting.” vol. ii. p, 331

Before the meeting of the committee the accused noblemen made offers of submission to the king and the Church. They solemnly protested their innocence of having signed the “Spanish blanks,” or conspired for the admission of foreign troops into the country; but the admitted they had renounced their adherence to the Presbyterian Church, after having subscribed the confession of faith, and had fallen away to Rome; that they had heard mass, and had been disobedient to the royal mandate when required to deliver themselves up; and for all these things they now humbly cast themselves on the king’s clemency. When the convention met, these representations were laid before them; the king, in a lengthened address, urged the danger to the peace of the realm of adopting measures of extreme severity against such formidable criminals; and after some deliberation an act, termed an “Act of Abolition,” which had previously been prepared
by the council, was introduced, and, chiefly through the artful management of the
Chancellor Maitland, received the sanction of the committee. By this act, which, in
conformity with the appointment of the convention at Linlithgow, had all the legal
authority of an act of parliament, it was declared that the king, “By this his highness’s perpetual and irrevocable edict, statueth and ordaineth that God’s true religion, publicly preached, and by law established in the first year of his highness’s reign, shall only be professed and exercised by all his majesty’s lieges within this realm in time coming’ and that none of them presume, or take upon hand to avow, profess or exercise, any other form of religion within the same, or to receive, maintain, supply, or entertain intelligence with any Jesuits, seminary priests, or others, adversaries or the said true religion, under the pains contained in his highness’s laws, and acts of parliament made thereanent; and all of his majesty’s subjects, who have not yet embraced and professed the said true religion or who have made defection therefrom in time bygone, shall,before the first day of  February next to come, effectively obey his highness’s laws, by
professing and execising of the said true religion, and satisfying his highness, the true Kirk of God, and ministry thereof, in underlying and fulfilling such injunctions as shall be given by his highness and the Kirk, until there be a sufficient proof had of their effectual and unfeigned conformity in embracing and professing of the said true religion. Or if any of them shall think it difficult so to do, as not being yet persuaded in conscience, that then upon declaration to be made unto his majesty of their choice, and upon his majesty’s license first sought and obtained, they shall depart forth of the realm to such parts beyond sea as his majesty shall please and be contented with, betwixt and the first day of February next to come, and there remain, and nowise return to this realm, until first they be content to embrace and profess the said true religion and satisfy his highness and the Kirk, and make security for that effect, in manner after specified; they and their heirs enjoying their lands, livings, and goods in the meantime to their own uses. To whom his highness giveth power and liberty, by the tenor hereof, by their procurators in their name, to stand in judgment, and pursue and defend their
actions and causes by order of law, notwithstanding any act of parliament, or process led against them, wherewith his highness in that part, by these presents, dispenseth.” (Calderwood, vol. v. pp. 284-285.)
 

BOYD’s,  Rise in Power.

Note Y, p. 365
 
 

The remarkable indenture referred to in the text is preserved among the archives of the earldom of Wigton, in the charter-chest of the Flemings of Cumbernauld.

“Yis indentour, mad at Striuelyn, the tned day of Februar, the zer of God a thousand four hundredth sixty and fyf zeris, betwyx honourable and worschipful lordis, yat is to say, Robert, Lord Flemyng on ye ta pairt, and Gilbert, Lord Kennedy and Sir Alexander Boid of Duchol, knight, on the todir pairt, yat yai ar fullelie accordit and appointit in maner and form as eftir follouis; Yat is to say, yat ye said lordis ar bundyn and oblist yaim selfis, yair kyn, friendis, and men, to stand in afald kendnes, supple, and defenes,ilk an til odir, in all yair caussis and querrell leifull and honest, movit and to be movit,for all ye dais of yair kiffis, in contrary and aganis al maner of persones yat leiff or dee may, yair allegiance til our soueran lord alanerly outan, excepand to the Lord Flemyng, his bandis mad of befoir, to ye Lord Levynston, and to ye Lord Hamilton, and, in lyk maner, excepand to the saidis Lordis Kennedy and Sir Alexander, yair bandis mad of
befoir, til a reverand fadir in Crist, Master Patrik the Graham, Bishop of Sanctander, ye Erle of Crawford, ye Lord Mungumer, the Lord Maxvel, the Lord Boid, the Lord Levynston, the Lord Hamilton, and the Lord Cathcart.

Item, yat the said Lord Flemyng sal be of special service, and of cunsail to the kyng, als lang as the saidis Lordis Kenedy, and Sir Alexander at speciall seruandis and of cunsail to ye kyng.  The said Lord Flemyng kepand his band and kyndnes to the foirsaidis Lord Kennedy and Alexander, for al the foirsaid tym: And attour, the said Lord Flemyng is oblist yat he sal nodir wit, consent, nor assent, til (avas) nor tak away the kyngis person fra the said Lord Kennedy and Sir Alexander, nor fro na adyr yat yai leff, and ordains to be doaris to yaim, and keparis in yair abeens, and gifthe said Lord Flemyng getis, or may get, ony bit of sie thing to be don in ony tym, ha sal warn the saidis Lord Kennedy and Sir Alexander, or yair, doars in do tym, or let it to be done at all his power; and tak sic part as yai do, or on an of yaim for ye tymin, ye ganstandying of yat mater, but fraud and gil, and the said Lord Flemyng sal adwis the kyng at al his
pertly power wycht his gud cunsail, to be hertly and kindly to the foirsaidis Lord
Kennedy and Sir Alexander, to yair bairnis and friendis, and yai at belang to yaim for ye tym.

Item, giff yair happynis ony vakand to fall in the kyngis handis, at is a reasonable and meit thing for the said Lord Flemyngis seruice yat he sal be furdirit yairto for his reward; and gif yair happynis a large thing to fal, sic as vard, relief, marriage, or offis, as is meit far hym, the said Lord Flemyng sal haff it for a reasonable compocicion befoir udir.

Item, the said Lord Kennedy and Sir Alexander sal haff Thom of Sumerwel and Wat of Twedy, in special mantenans, supple, and defencs, in all yair accionis, causs and querrel, leful, and honest, for the said Lord Flemyngis sak, and for yair seruis don and to be don, next yair awyn mastiris, yat yai wer to of befoir. And, at all and sundrythyngis abovn writtyn sal be lelily kepit, bot fraud and gil; ather of yhe pairtis hes geffyn, till udiris, yair bodily, aithis, the hali evangelist tuychit, and enterchangable, set to yair selis at day, yheir, and place abovn written.”

(Tytler, Appendix to vol. iv. Letter G.)

Under the subtitled heading      “Their remonstrances are unheeded.”

‘James received the deputation in no complacent mood. He enveighed bitterly against the synod of Fife for having excommunicated the three earls,’ (Calderwood, vol. v. p 270). ‘refused to acknowledge the a convention which had met without his authority, and would give no written reply to their application. He declined even to return a verbal answer to the convention as a body, though he condescended to give certain explanations to the members of the deputation as individual subjects. These explanations were far from satisfactory. The Earl of Home, he said would shortly be reconciled to the Church or be effused admittance into his presence; and, as for the popish lords, he declared they had been brought before him without his knowledge, and he promised them nothing more than a fair and impartial trial, to which, common justice, they were entitled. He had, however, he said, found it expedient to postpone the trial, and would, in the meantime, call a convention of the Estates to meet at Linlithgow, according to whose advice he would proceed in the matter. Such were the mutual animosities and exasperated feelings of the two great parties at
this moment, that the nation was in imminent peril of being involved in a most
sanguinary civil war. This result appeared to the watchful eye of Bowes, the English ambassador, to be inevitable. Writing to Burghley on the eighteenth of October, he thus apprehensively alludes to the impending crisis;=”Yesterday, at the meeting of the commissioners of the Kirk, the barons and burghs convened, * * * Great preparations are made for the advancement of the course thus resolved, and to stop the trial to be given at this time to these earls, whose friends (as it is told me) have mustered, and are in readiness to come to Perth at the day limited; they have already provided that the Water Gate or Water Street shall be reserved for the earls and their companies; but Atholl, Gowrie, and many of the town are rather disposed to keep them out. The convocation and access of people to that place is looked upon to be so great that thereon bloody troubles shall arise.”. ‘ (MS. Letter, State Paper Office, Bowes to Burghley, 20th October 1593; Tytler, vol. ix. p. 118).‘The convention was opened at Linlithgow on 12th November, but was attended by very few of the nobility;’ (Calderwood, vol. v. p. 282). ‘and after a brief deliberation,the whole matter of the popish lords was referred to a committee, who were appointed to meet at Edinburgh on the following month, and whose decision was to have the validity of an act of parliament. In this committee the three Estates of the realm-nobles, barons, and burgesses- were to be represented; six of the leading ministers of the Kirk were allowed to appear on the part of that body; and all the officers of State were appointed to assist in the deliberation. Part 2 to be continued….     Under construction
 

NOTE: Use this data as a finding tool, just as you would any other secondary source. When you find the name of an ancestor listed, confirm the facts in original sources.

Back to Main Page

Updated 

Information

Copyright 2001- 2011 © Clan Boyd Society International. All Rights Reserved.

Do not duplicate in any form without permission of Clan Boyd Society International.