Kirkcaldy of Grange

Kirkcaldy and Sinclair did not carry on this harassing mode of warfare without considerable danger to themselves. On one occasion the Master had his horse slain under him, and barely got off with his life. On another, Grange was nearly captured in his own house at Halyards. Referring to these narrow escapes, Maitland of Lethington bears testimony to the estimation in which the two dashing leaders were held, and to the value set on their services by the Lords of the Congregation. ‘If at this time they should have lost the said two men,’ he wrote, ‘it would have been to them more hurt than to the Frenchmen to have lost a thousand soldiers; it would have been more skaith than to have had all the Frenchmen in Scotland slain.’ John Knox, in a letter to Mrs Anna Locke, also makes admiring and grateful mention of Kirkcaldy’s achievements. ‘God will recompense him I doubt not,’ he says; ‘for in this cause and since the beginning of this last trouble specially, he hath behaved himself so boldly, as never man of our nation hath deserved more praise. He hath been in many dangers, and yet God hath delivered him above man’s expectation. He was shot at Lundie, right under the left pap, through the jack, doublet, and sark, and the bullet did sticke in one of his ribs. Mr Whitelaw hath gotten a fall, by the which he is unable to bear armour. But, God be praised, both their lives be saved.’

Whether Kirkcaldy was actually wounded, however, seems rather doubtful. That, if he was, his hurt cannot have been serious, may be gathered, not only from the fact that no interruption of his activity at this time is recorded, but also from the following passage, which occurs in one of Sadler’s letters to Crofts: ‘Kirkcaldy hath no such hurt as we wrote of, which arose of another Scottishman that was indeed hurt in the same sort as we did write; and before that Kirkcaldy slew a Frenchman, whereby the Protestants had the first blood, which they do take for good luck.’

By the beginning of 1560, both contending parties had grown tired of the desultory, and practically useless fighting which had now been going on for months. Negotiations had again been entered upon with a view to the cessation of hostilities, when, on the 10th of June, the death of the Queen-Regent took place. Although there is reason to believe that this time she was really sincere in her wish for peace, it is probable that her demise accelerated rather than retarded the conclusion of the treaty. That it secured for the Protestant party more favourable terms than she herself would readily have granted, scarcely admits of a doubt.

VIII. AT CARBERRY

The cessation of hostilities, and the departure from Scotland of the French and English contingents which had helped to carry on the war, inaugurated a period of comparative rest and tranquillity in Sir William’s adventurous life. During the next four years there is but rare and incidental reference to him in the correspondence of the time. A letter from Randolph to Maitland states that Grange was one of the leaders of a small force sent into Renfrewshire for the purpose of reducing the rebellious Master of Semple to subjection. The only notable feature of this very unimportant expedition was the difficulty experienced in bringing the artillery to bear on Castle Semple, which was situated in a small lake. It took seven days to get the guns into position. Twenty-four hours later Semple capitulated.

Another letter from the same source shows that Kirkcaldy’s friendly relations with the English Court were still maintained. It informs Cecil that when the agent wished to take special means for the safe delivery of his dispatches to the Government, he availed himself of the services of the Laird’s retainers. The young Queen of Scots, on the other hand, in spite of her dying mother’s injunctions to secure the good-will of ‘Kirkcaldy of Grange, whom the Constable de Montmorency had named the first soldier in Europe,’ still looked with suspicion on the man who had so largely contributed to the success of the Reformers. Indeed, her objection to him was expressed with sufficient plainness to attract the attention of Throckmorton, who was ‘nothing sorry’ for it, and who did not think the circumstance too insignificant to be communicated to Elizabeth.

Closer acquaintance with the gallant soldier, however, appears to have altered Mary Stuart’s opinion of him after her return to Scotland. In 1562, when she undertook an expedition to the North, against the Earl of Huntly, he was one of the leaders whom she appointed to serve under Lord James, the commander of her forces. A few days later, he was at Strathbogie, at the head of a body of horsemen sent to apprehend the Earl. His progress had been so rapid, that Huntly was taken by surprise, and only narrowly avoided capture. ‘Without boot or sword he conveyed himself out at a back gate, over a low wall, where he took his horse.’ Being better acquainted with the country, and better mounted than his pursuers, who had already ridden twenty-four miles that morning, he succeeded in making good his escape, but only to fall at the battle of Corrichie. It was, doubtless, as a reward for Kirkcaldy’s services during this expedition that the act of attainder passed against him and his family, for the murder of Cardinal Beaton, was reversed by Parliament in the following year. His lands were also restored to him a few months later.

In the year 1564, the project of a marriage between Mary Stuart and Darnley again roused dissatisfaction amongst the Protestant leaders. The matter was one with regard to which Kirkcaldy was not likely to remain indifferent; and a letter written to Randolph, on the nineteenth of September, shows that he had already entered into negotiations with the English Court, for the purpose of offering the support and co-operation of his party to Elizabeth, who was known to look upon the intended marriage with great disfavour. As might have been expected from this preliminary and early step, the Laird of Grange was amongst those who, with Lord James at their head, openly expressed their disapproval of Darnley, as one more than suspected of being ready to adopt and forward Mary’s views in favour of the Catholic religion, and who consequently disobeyed the Queen’s commands to come to Edinburgh, ‘Weill bodin in feir of weir, furneist to remaine the space of fifteen dayis efter thair cuming, for attending and awayting upon her Hienes.’ Although no record exists of his individual action, testimony is borne to the importance which Mary and her Council attached to it, by a proclamation issued on the 2nd of August 1565, only four days after the celebration of the obnoxious marriage. It commanded Andrew, Earl of Rothes, and William Kirkcaldy of Grange to enter themselves prisoners within the Castle of Dumbarton. On the 14th of the same month, Kirkcaldy was denounced as a rebel, and charged, under pains of treason, to deliver up the fortalice of Halyards. Next day a proclamation, setting forth that the Earls of Murray and Rothes, Grange, and Provost Haliburton, were riding and going about the Realm where they pleased, and were being entertained as if they were good and true subjects, forbade the lieges to supply those rebels with meat, drink, munition, or armour. Another of the numerous proclamations issued at this time – its exact date is the 24th of August – gave commission to the Earl of Athole to pursue them with fire and sword. This was on the eve of the Queen’s departure from Edinburgh, at the head of five thousand men, to take part in what is known as the Round About Raid.

The ill-advised and ill-managed rising afforded Grange no opportunity of distinguishing himself or even of doing justice to the reputation which he had already acquired. He hurried with the rest of his party from Paisley to Hamilton, from Hamilton to Edinburgh, then back again, through Lanark to Hamilton and thence to Dumfries. There the insignificant force of some thirteen hundred horsemen was disbanded; and Kirkcaldy, with a number of the leaders, sought safety across the Border.

From letters written by Bedford immediately after these events, it seems justifiable to conclude that he, at least, attributed the failure of the Protestant rising to neglect of the advice given by Kirkcaldy. Not only does he speak of him in special terms of praise, which would have been quite out of place if he had done no more than flee before the Queen, and style him ‘as able a man in war or peace as any in Scotland or France;’ but he also particularly ‘bemoans’ his fate and significantly adds that he will not speak of ‘what services Grange might have done.’

As early as the beginning of January 1566, steps were being taken to procure an amnesty in favour of Sir William Kirkcaldy, and to enable him to return to Scotland. They were not successful, however, and two months later he was still in England, and according to a communication made by Bedford and Randolph to Cecil, was one of those who were privy to the plot for the assassination of David Rizzio. That he knew of it can scarcely be doubted. It may even be admitted that he entertained no special scruples with regard to the removal of an officious and obnoxious foreigner, whose influence on the Queen was being exercised to prevent her receiving the exiles into favour, and whom it was, moreover, originally intended to bring to trial, not, it is true, in a formal and legal manner, but with some sort of judicial proceeding sufficient to make his death appear an execution rather than a brutal murder. But there is no evidence to prove that his complicity went any further; on the other hand, it is noteworthy that his name does not appear in the list of ‘such as were consenting to the death of Davy,’ forwarded to Cecil within a fortnight after the occurrence. Nor can this omission be explained by the fact that Grange was known not to have returned to Edinburgh, with Murray and his company, till twenty-four hours after the murder. Knox has never been accused of being actually present at the grim tragedy either, and yet his name figures on the black roll. Finally, it is not unimportant to note that as early as the 4th of April, less than a month after the assassination of Rizzio, Bedford was able to announce to Cecil that the Laird of Grange was now restored to favour. If that did not refer to the remission of the pains and penalties he had incurred through his connection with the Round About Raid, it may be taken as evidence that his complicity with the murderers of the Secretary was not thought to be very direct.

Not many months elapsed before events far more startling and far more momentous in their results again called upon Sir William Kirkcaldy to play a prominent part both as a politician and as a soldier. On the 10th of February 1566, Darnley was murdered under circumstances which led many to believe not only that Bothwell was the murderer, but that Mary was his accomplice. Such was the view adopted by the Laird of Grange. When the mock trial of the Earl convinced him that the law of the land was powerless to inflict punishment on the perpetrator of the foul deed; and when, in addition to this, the subservience of five and twenty bishops, earls, and barons, who affixed their signatures to the notorious Ainslie Bond, showed him that a union with Mary would probably be the unscrupulous adventurer’s next step, he made an earnest appeal for help from England. ‘It may please your Lordship to let me understand,’ he wrote to Cecil, ‘what will be your sovereign’s part concerning the late murder committed among us; for albeit her Majesty was slow in all our last troubles, and therefore lost that favour we did bear unto her, yet nevertheless, if her Majesty will pursue for the revenge of the late murder, I dare assure your Lordship she shall win thereby all the hearts of all the best in Scotland again. Further, if we understand that her Majesty would assist us and favour us, we should not be long in revenging of this murder. The Queen caused ratify in Parliament the cleansing of Bothwell. She intends to take the Prince out of the Earl of Mar’s hands, and put him into Bothwell’s keeping, who murdered the King, his father. The same night the Parliament was dissolved, Bothwell called the most part of the noblemen to supper, for to desire of them their promise in writing and consent for the Queen’s marriage, which he will obtain; for she has said that she cares not to lose France, England, and her own country for him, and shall go with him to the world’s end in a white petticoat ere she leave him. Yea, she is so far past all shame, that she has caused make an act of Parliament against all those that shall set up any writing that shall speak anything of him. Whatever is unhonest reigns presently in this court. God deliver them from their evil!’

Before any answer could be returned to Sir William, his worst anticipations had been verified. With or without her consent, Mary had been carried off by Bothwell. Two days later another letter was sent from the Grange to the English agent in Berwick. It ran as follows: ‘The Queen will never cease till she has wrecked all the honest men of this realm. She was minded to cause Bothwell ravish her, to the end that she may the sooner end the marriage which she promised before she caused murder her husband. There is many that would revenge the murder, but that they fear your mistress. I am so suited to, for to enterprise the revenge, that I must either take it upon hand or else leave the country, which I am determined to do, if I can obtain license; but Bothwell is minded to cut me off ere I obtain it. The Queen minds hereafter to take the Prince out of the Earl of Mar’s hands, and put him in his hands that murdered his father. I pray your Lordship let me know what your mistress will do, for if we seek France we may find favour at their hands, but I would rather persuade to lean to England.’

That Kirkcaldy’s determination to go abroad was not merely empty and exaggerated talk was proved by the two plain facts reported by Sir William Drury – that Grange had sold all his corn and moveables, and that he had obtained a license to leave Scotland for seven years. It might have been well for him if his purpose had been carried out; but events shaped his conduct differently.

Sir William’s communications were duly forwarded to Elizabeth. The tone adopted by a subject in writing of his sovereign was highly displeasing to the English Queen, and shocked her exalted notions of regal dignity and prerogative. She consequently vouchsafed no reply to them; but she took occasion to express her indignation to Randolph, who thus reports to Leicester the substance of her remarks to him on the subject of Kirkcaldy’s plainly-worded arraignment of Mary’s conduct: ‘Her Majesty also told me that she had seen a writing sent from Grange to my Lord of Bedford, despitefully written against that Queen, in such vile terms as she could not abide the hearing of it, wherein he made her worse than any common woman. She would not that any subject, what cause soever there be proceeding from the prince, or whatsoever her life and behaviour is, should discover that unto the world; and thereof so utterly misliketh of Grange’s manner of writing and doing, that she condemns him for one of the worst in that realm, seeming somewhat to warn me of my familiarity with him, and willing that I should admonish him of her misliking. In this manner of talk it pleased her Majesty to retain me almost an hour.’

In the meantime, discontent at the Queen’s treatment of Bothwell had been spreading through the country, and was gradually assuming the tangible shape of a coalition having for its avowed object the punishment of Darnley’s murderers. The leading men of the movement were Argyle, Athole, and Morton. They made Stirling their headquarters; and it was there the Laird of Grange joined them in the early days of May. On the eighth of that month he again wrote to Bedford, no longer as a private individual, but with the authorisation, and in the name of the confederate Lords. ‘All such things as were done before the Parliament, I did write unto your Lordship at large,’ said he. ‘At that time the most part of the nobility, for fear of their lives, did grant to sundry things, both against their honours and consciences, who since have convened themselves at Stirling, where they have made a “band” to defend each other in all things that shall concern the glory of God and commonweal of their country. The heads that presently they agreed upon is, first, to seek the liberty of the Queen, who is ravished and detained by the Earl of Bothwell, who was the ravisher, and hath the strengths, munitions, and men of war at his commandment. The next head is the preservation and keeping of the Prince. The third is to pursue them that murdered the King. For the pursuit of these three heads they have promised to bestow their lives, lands, and goods. And to that effect their lordships have desired me to write unto your lordship, to the end they might have your sovereign’s aid and support for suppressing of the cruel murderer Bothwell, who, at the Queen’s last being in Stirling, suborned certain to have poisoned the Prince; for that barbarous tyrant is not contented to have murdered the father, but he would also cut off the son, for fear that he hath to be punished hereafter. The names of the Lords that convened in Stirling were the Earls of Argyle, Morton, Athole, and Mar. These forenamed, as said is, have desired me to write unto your Lordship, to the end that I might know by you if your sovereign would give them support concerning these three heads above written. Wherefore I beseech your lordship, who I am assured loveth the quietness of these two realms, to let me have a direct answer, and that with haste; for presently the foresaid Lords are suited unto by Monsieur de Croc, who offereth unto them, in his master, the King of France’s name, if they will follow his advice and counsel, that they shall have aid and support to suppress the Earl Bothwell and his faction. Also he hath admonished her to desist from the Earl Bothwell, and not to marry him; for if she do, he hath assured her that she shall neither have friendship nor favour out of France, if she shall have to do:2 but his saying is, she will give no ear. There is to be joined with the four forenamed lords, the Earls of Glencairn, Cassillis, Eglinton, Montrose, Caithness; the Lords Boyd, Ochiltree, Ruthven, Drummond, Gray, Glammis, Innermeith, Lindsay, Hume, and Herries, with all the whole West Merse and Teviotdale, the most part of Fife, Angus and Mearns. And for this effect the Earl of Argyle is ridden in the West, the Earl of Athole to the North, and the Earl of Morton to Fife, Angus, and Montrose. The Earl of Mar remaineth still about the Prince; and if the Queen will pursue him, the whole Lords have promised, upon their faiths and honour, to relieve him. In this meantime the Queen is come to the Castle of Edinburgh, conveyed by the Earl Bothwell, where she intendeth to remain until she have levied some forces of footmen and horsemen, that is, she minds to levy five hundred footmen, and two hundred horsemen. The money that she hath presently to do this, which is five thousand crowns, came from the font your Lordship brought unto the baptism; the rest is to be reft and borrowed of Edinburgh, or the men of Lothian. It will please your Lordship also to haste these other letters to my Lord of Moray, and write unto him to come back again into Normandy, that he may be in readiness against my Lords write unto him.’

This time Queen Elizabeth deemed it expedient to take notice of Grange’s communication; and on the 17th of May, she instructed Bedford as to the answers which he was to return in her name, with regard to the three points indicated in the letter. As to the first of them – to have their sovereign delivered from bondage – Elizabeth pointed out that Mary’s own statement to herself was at variance with that of the Lords, and that the Scottish Queen attributed their hatred of Bothwell to the anger and disappointment which they felt at his having ‘in her distress recovered her liberty out of their hands.’

Respecting the preservation of the young prince, Elizabeth professed not to understand what was intended – whether the Lords merely wished to entrust him to the care of his grandmother, Lady Margaret Lennox, or whether they had some other object in view. She did not hide her anxiety to get him into her own keeping; and suggestively added that if she could not be trusted with his protection, she thought intermeddling with the rest of the matters would prove more hurtful than profitable. The notion of placing the Crown on the child’s head in the event of his mother’s marriage with Bothwell, was one which Elizabeth altogether refused to entertain – ‘it was a matter for example’s sake, not to be digested by her or any other monarch.’

With reference to the pursuit of the murderers of the King, the English Queen confined herself to the diplomatic remark that she saw great difficulties in the way of undertaking it if Bothwell were to marry Mary.

Two days before this letter was written, the marriage had actually taken place. This was the signal for open and direct action on the part of the ‘Associators.’ With two thousand horse, which they had collected in all haste, they set forth from Stirling intending to seize Mary and Bothwell in the Palace of Holyrood. But this plan was frustrated by the sudden retreat of the Queen and her husband to Borthwick Castle. Thither the confederates followed them; but information of their advance having preceded them, they were again disappointed. Bothwell made good his escape, and betook himself to the stronghold of Dunbar, which Mary ‘in men’s clothes, booted and spurred’ also succeeded in reaching some hours after him, for, to ensure safety, they had found themselves obliged to part company.

On the 14th of June, the Queen and the Duke of Orkney, as Bothwell was now styled, marched out of Dunbar with an army of some four thousand men and six field pieces of brass, and reached Prestonpans in the evening. On receiving intelligence of these movements the Associators set out from Edinburgh, to which they had advanced from Borthwick; and about mid-day on Sunday the 15th of June, the opposing forces came into view of each other at Carberry Hill, eight miles from the Capital.

The royal troops having taken up their position on the hill, whilst the Lords had halted on the lower ground at its foot, Kirkcaldy of Grange, together with Douglas of Drumlanrig, Ker of Cessfurd, and Home of Cowdenknowes, was sent, at the head of two hundred horse, round the hill, towards the east side, for the double purpose of cutting off Bothwell’s retreat, and of securing more favourable ground for an attack. The men, who in obedience to the Queen’s command, had gathered round her standard, were but half-hearted in her cause; and Bothwell’s conduct had not increased their sympathy with her. As soon as they found themselves hemmed in between the infantry on the one side, and Kirkcaldy’s horse on the other, they began to desert in great numbers, and it is asserted that Mary and Bothwell were left with only sixty gentlemen and the band of arquebusiers. Seeing this, the Queen asked who led the cavalry. On learning that it was Grange, she sent Cockburn of Ormiston to summon him to an interview with her. After having informed the Lords of the message, and obtained their consent, Sir William rode forward. Although the Queen had pledged her word for his safety, it is asserted by Sir James Melville, that Bothwell had instructed a soldier to shoot him. Mary perceived the man, as he was taking aim, and uttering a loud cry, she exclaimed, ‘Shame us not with so foul a murder!’

In his conversation with the Queen, Kirkcaldy assured her that all in the field were ready to honour and serve her on the condition that she abandoned the Earl of Bothwell, who had murdered her husband, and who could not be a husband to her, as he had but lately married the Earl of Huntly’s sister. Hearing these words, Bothwell, who was standing near, exclaimed that he was ready to fight, in single combat, any man who laid Darnley’s death to his charge: ‘You shall have an answer speedily,’ said the Laird of Grange; and riding back, he obtained the Lords’ permission to do battle as their champion in the quarrel. On his return, however, he was objected to by Bothwell, as being neither Earl, nor Lord, but only a Baron, and consequently not his equal. The Laird of Tullibardine next offered to fight, but was refused on the same ground. ‘Then,’ exclaimed his elder brother, Sir William Murray, ‘I at least am his Peer; my estate is better than his, and my blood nobler.’ Him too Bothwell rejected, on the pretence that Tullibardine was not his equal in degree of honour, and, wishing he said, to have an Earl as his adversary, he selected Morton, who at once answered that he would fight on foot with a two-handed sword. Here, however, Lord Lindsay of the Byres put in his claim, as a relative of the murdered Darnley, and begged to be allowed to meet Bothwell. This was granted him, and Morton presented him with his own sword, a weapon he highly valued as having belonged to his ancestor, the famous Earl of Angus, ‘Bell-the-Cat.’ But all those preliminaries led to no result. Whether from pusillanimity, as some have maintained, or because of the Queen’s interference, as others have asserted, or, according to a third opinion, because the Lords, amongst whom were some of his former confederates, wished him well away, for fear lest being taken he might have revealed the whole plot, he retired from the field, without having struck a single blow.