929.2
D74502f
v.l
1628760
REYNOLDS H'.STORICAL
GENEALOGY COLLECTION
b<^
ALLEN COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 1833 01208 9774
-^===== — 1 Y-f Vf V^ b==?
rt^M '^^ ^^ -i
162.S7G0
Contents of aolunte first.
TITLE-PAGE. ^"'"
GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS, . . . i-H
SU.ALMARY OF INTRODUCTION AND .MEMOIRS, . iii-xvi
INTRODUCTION, ...... wii-lxxxviii
THE ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY OF DOUGLAS, 1-36
MEMOIRS OF THE EARLS OF DOUGLAS, . . 37-496
PEDIGREE OF THE EARLS OF DOUGLAS, . 497-5° '
ILLUSTRATIONS IN VOLUME FIRST.
Charter by King James the First (holograph), to Sir Williaiii
Douglas of Drumlanrig, of Drumlanrig, Han-ick, and Selkirk,
30th November 1412, .... betKee7i\\yX\and\\s:X\
Grant by Archibald, fifth Earl of Angus, to David Scott of
Buccleuch, of the Castle of Hermitage, . . . ,, xlii rr//^/ xliii
Precept by Archibald, fourth F.arl of Douglas, to James de Gled-
stanes, his bailie in Sproustoun, to infeft John de Cranstoun
in land in Sproustoun, 4th November 1413, . . ,, xlvi i?;;^/ xUii
Holograph Receipt by David Hume of Godscroft, . . „ Ixii and Ixiii
Facsimile Title-page of Godscroft's History of Earls of Douglas, ., Ixiv and Ixv
Facsimile Title-page of Godscroft's History of Earls of Angus, . „ Ixiv and Ixv
Monument of Sir James Douglas in St. Bride's, Douglas, . 180 and 181
Sword given by King Robert the Bruce to Sir James Douglas, . 184 and 185
Armorial Bearings of the Lord of Galloway of old, and of Douglas,
Earl of Wigtown, from Sir David Lindsay's Heraldry, 1543, 328 a/id ^2<^
Douglas and Moray Armorial Stones at Bothwell Castle, . 350 and 551
VOL. I. 0,
CONTENTS.
Armorial Bearings ofthe Lord of Nitlisdale of old, and of Douglas.
Lord of Nithsdale, from Sir David Lindsay's Heraldry, 1542, 358 and 359
Armorial Bearings of Douglas, Earl of Douglas, and of Douglas,
Earl of Angus, from Sir David I,indsay's Heraldry, 1542, . 360 and ^^di
Monument to ALirgaret, Countess of Douglas, in Lincluden, 398 and 399
Inscription upon the Monument, .... 398 and 399
Armorial Stones on the Monument, .... 398 and 399
Armorial Bearings of the Douglas Family in Lincluden, . . 398 and 399
Monument of Archibald, second Duke of Touraine, and fifth
Earl of Douglas, in St. Bride's, Douglas, . . 420 and ^,21
Monument of James, seventh Earl of Douglas, in St. Brides, 442 and 443
Armorial Bearings and Inscription on that Monument, . . 442 and 443
Armorial Bearings of Douglas, Earl of Moray, and Douglas, Earl
of Ormond, from Sir David Lindsay's Heraldry, 1542, . 450 atid 451
ARMORIAL SEALS. Woodcuts of-
Sir William of Douglas (Le Ilanii), 1296, 17
Briceof Douglas, Bishop of Moray, 120S, 52
William, Lord of Douglas, [?] c. 1332, . 190
Hugh of Douglas, Canon (1333-1342), . 199
William, first Earl of Douglas and Mar
(1342-1384), 291
Isabella Douglas, his daughter, c. 1400, 290
Archibald, third Earl of Douglas (1389-
1400), 354
Archibald, first Duke of Touraine (1400-
1424). 400
Princess Margaret, Duchess of Touraine,
Archibald, second Duke of Touraine
(1425-1439)
William, third Duke of Touraine (1439-
1440),
James, seventh Earl of Douglas ^1440-
1443).
Archibald, Earl of Moray (1445-1455),
William, eighth Earl of Douglas (1443
1452)
James, ninth Earl of Douglas (i452-i4i>S
4G0
422
430
446
450
476
496
SIGNATURES. Wcodcuts of—
David Hume of Godscroft. 1594, 1626, l.xiii
Opening words of Charter by Brice
Douglas, Bishop of Mor.ay, 120S,
James, ninth Earl of Douglas, 1454.
3J
496
SUMMARY OF THFi
INTRODUCTION AND MEMOIRS
OF
THE EARLS OF DOUGLAS.
INTRODUCTION.
Origin and arrangement of the work : the Earl of Home and the Douglas Muniments,
•'The Chancellor of the Exchequer's Box" at Bothwell Castle : progress of this work
Royal origin of Godscroft's History- : vicissitudes of the Douglas Muniments, .
Contents of the four volumes of this work : facsimiles of charters as illustrations,
Anuorial Seals of the Douglas and Angus Earls : The Douglas heraldic stakes,
Important part played by the Douglases in the national history : their privileges.
The Heroes of Douglas and Angus : the Good Sir James : valour of the Douglases,
William, first Earl : the hero of Otterbura : the Douglases of Drumlanrig, .
Douglas tombs at Melrose : offer of Dukedom to Archibald, third Earl of Douglas,
Ac<iui3ition of Dukedom of Touraino and Earldom of Longueville in France, .
Magnificence of the Douglases : death by treachery of the sixth and eightli Earls,
Ilebellion of James, ninth Earl : his fliglit : death of the last Earl of Douglas,
The Earls of Angus : offer of English Dukedom to iTeorge, fourth Earl : " Bell-theCat,
Gavin Douglas, Bishop of Dunkeld : " Greysteil " : great power of the sixth Earl,
The Regent ilorton : succession of the (Tleubervie line to the Earldom of Angus,
Creation of the Marquisate and Dukedom of Douglas : extinction of elder male line,
Two Douglas Bishops, Brice and Gavin : Royal alliances of the Douglases,
Extensive territories of the Douglases : the Gledstanes of that Ilk, their bailies,
Catlet branches of the Douglases : Dukes of Hamilton : Dukes of Queensberry,
Various other peerages and titles : the Douglas Earls of Morton : ancient couplet,
I'revjous histories of the Douglases : Sir Richard Maitland's manuscript history,
History of the Houses of Douglas and Angus by Hume of Godscroft, .
I'AIJK
xvii
xviii
xix
xxii
xxiv
xxvii
\xix
xxxi
xxxii
xxxiv
XXXV
xxxvi
xxxvii
XX xix
xli
xli
xlii
xliv
\Iix
I
liii
Iv
SUM M All Y OF THE MEMOIRS OF
PACi:
Personal history of Mr. David Hume : his lands of Godscroft: styles himself Then(jrlu.<<, Iv
" Delineamentis, instructions, and noates" made by William, tenth Earl of Angus, . Ivii
ilanuscript copy of Godscroffs Histor>' at Hamilton I'alace, .... \\\\
Dedication to King Charles the First : .Sir George Douglas, Godscroffs literary executor, Iviii
Godscroft obtains lands of Brockholes : his handwriting and signatures, . . Ix
Printing of Godscroffs History : title-pages : displeasure of the Marquis of Douglas, Ixiii
Sale of History interdicted by Lord Angus : opinions of historians on the work, . Ixv
Expedients to promote sale of History : editions of it by Ruddimau and other?, . lx\'i
Douglas genealogy by Peter Pineda, a Spaniard : Herd's projected History, . . Ixx
Writers on the origin of the Douglases : tabular pedigi-ee tree at Bothwell Castle, . Ixxi
The precedency rivalry among peers : retours of William, eleventh Earl of Angus, . Ixxiii
The Douglas Cause : litigation in the Court of Session : adverse decision, . . Ixv
Appeal to the House of Lords : duel between lawyers : final judgment by the Lords, . Ixxviii
Reminiscences of Lady Jane Douglas by Lord Mansdeld : rejoicings for victory, . Ixxxi
Lord Monboddo and the Cause : Margaret, Duchess of Douglas : Mr. Thomas Carlyle, Ixxxiii
Long continuance of the family in Douglasdale : changed state of the Borders, . lxxx\-i
Acknowledgments of contributions of Charters, etc., ..... Ixxxviii
THE OKIGIX OF THE FAMILY OF DOUGLAS.
Discussion of the subject by historians : Theories of Wyntown and Godscroft,
Supposed common descent of families of Douglas and Moraj' : documentary evidence,
Earlier members of the two families : colonisation of Moray : the Flemings, .
Freskin de Moravia and his descendants own lands in Lothian and Moray,
First historical notice of the Douglases : William of Douglas, 1174-1199,
Archibald and his brothers, the sons of William of Douglas, settle in Moray c. 1200,
Connection between the families of Douglas, Moray, and Freskin of Kerdd considered
Ancestry of Freskin of Kerdal : his descendants and their connections.
Armorial bearings of the families of Douglas and Moray : first Douglas seal, 1259,
Hume of Gorlscroit's traditions : insurrection of Donald Bane : Sholto Du glasse,
Examination of Godscroffs narrative of the first Douglases : the Scoti of Italy,
Donald Bane's insurrection : the real Sholto — William of Douglas in 11 S7,
Flemish origin from Theobald put forward by George Chalmers : his theory refuted,
Probabilities of a native or Celtic origin : name of Douglas derived from the lantls,
Mr. Riddell's suggestion of a Northumbrian origiu : summing up of evidence, .
1
3
4
9
10
11
12
15
20
21
24
27
29
33
I. — WILLL4JVI OF DOUGLAS, the first known of the Douglas
F.uiiLY, e. 1174-c. 1214.
His parentage unknown : possessed the lands of Douglas before 1 1 98,
Lands and water of Douglas mentioned previous to 1 IGO : name derived from lands, .
37
38
THE EARLS OF DOUGLAS.
Witness to charters of King William the Lion : early eminence of family, . 39
His children : Alexander, his third son, a Canon of Spynic, and Superior of the Hos-
pital at Elgin : Freskin, parson of Douglas, . . • • .40
IL— SIE ARCHIBALD OF DOUGLAS, Knight.
Circa 1213-czrra 1240.
Son of William of Douglas : resigns Hailes, and receives Livingston and Hermistou. . 44
Created a knight : witness to charters in Moray and elsewhere, . . .45
His wife and children : Andrew, probable ancestor of the Douglases of Morton, 46
BRTCE OF DOUGLAS, Bishop of Moray, younger son of Willi.ui
OF Douglas, first of Douglas, 1203-1222.
Prior of Lesmahagow : appointed Bishop of Moray, 1203 : the diocese of Moray,
Spynie his episcopal seat : bull for erection of cathedral : college at Spyuie founded,
Rejection of Spynie for Elgin : cathedral afterwards built there by his successor.
Arbiter at the Royal Court : his episcopal seal : the king witnesses his attestation.
Additions made to the See of Moray during his episcopate,
He is excommunicated by the Pope, and afterwards absolved. .
Dies 1222 : buried at Spynie, and canonised, . . . ■ -
III.— SIR WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, surnamed Longleg.
Constance, his wife. Circa 1240-1 27 G.
Son of Sir Archibald : his birth : surnamed " Longleg " from his stature, . 56
National and English parties in Scotland : William of Douglas joins English party, . 57
Manor of Fawelon in Northumberland : Disputes with Gilbert of Umfraville, and others, 5S
How Fawdon was acquired : its history : Marriage with the Family of Batayle, • 61
Contract of marriage between the families of Douglas and Abernethy 1259, . ■ 65
Witness to Charters : grant of lands of Polnele : commissioned to measure Pencaitland, 66
His death: his wife and children : his armorial seal, . . • .6/
IV.— 1. HUGH OF DOUGLAS. MARJORY of Abernethy, his wife.
Married a.d. 1259.
Little known of him : marriage with Marjory of Abernethy : terms of the contract, . 68
Charter to him by his father : his character by Godscroft : Patton Purdie's ambuscade. 70
Hia death : Douglas buried in St. Bride's : tomb of Marjory of Abernethy there, . 71
47
49
49
50
53
54
55
SU3IMAnY OF THE MEMOIRS OF
IV._2. SIK WlLLlAiAl OF DuUGLiVS, suiinamed " Le Hardi.'
ELIZABETH STKWART, ins first wife.
ELEANOR OF Lovain or Ferrers, his second wife.
1288-1302.
Early history : obtains land in Wariulun : severely wounded in defeiiee of Fawdon, .
Marries Elizabeth Stewart : receives knighthood : he probably joined the crusaders, r270
Recalls charters from Abbot of Kelso : abduction of Eleanor de Ferrers, his second wife,
His English possessions seized : demand by Edward for his surrender,
Douglas is imprisoned in Leeds Castle and fined : confiscation of his lands in England
The treaty of Salisbury : the Sheriff of Xorthuraljerland in iiursuit of Douglas,
GeofiFrey de Lucy claims pasture of Fawdon : he prosecutes Dougks unsuccessfully,
Assassination of Duncan, Earl of Fife : death of cbief assassin in Douglas Castle,
Death of Maid of Norway : Douglas and other Scotch nobles pay homage to King Edwai
The Monks of Melrose and their right of way past Douglas Castle.
King John Baliol : is summoned to perform homage, and stand trial, .
Contempt for Baliol : answers to charges, and ].laces himself in the King"s mercy.
The independence of Scottish throne asserted: Douglas takes j.art against the English
Appointed commander of the Castle of Berwick : siege an-l capture of Berwick, I20G
Taken and imprisoned in Benvick, but is liberated and performs homage to Edward,
Restoration of his Scottish estates : summoned to join English expedition to Flanders
Rise of William Wallace : Douglas joins him : capture of the Castle of Sanquhar,
Robert Bruce the Younger: invasion of English : surrender of the Scots at Irvine,
Douglas once more imprisoned iu the Castle of Berwick : removed to Tower of London
His death in the Tower : his character : his marriages and his children,
74
76
78
•SO
SI
82
S.3
85
86
87
>8
>;8
91
98
!)5
96
99
101
v.— 1. SIR JAMES OF DOUGLAS, commonly called the
Good Sir James. 129S-1330.
Prefatory remarks : only a youth wheu his father clie.l : he seeks refuge in France,
Returns to Scotland : takes service with Lamberton, Bishop of St. Andrews, .
His personal appearance : craves restoration of his lands from Edward and is refuse*
Resolves to share the fortunes of Robert the Bruce : joins him at Erickstane, LWG,
Coronation of Bruce at Scone : Battle of Methven : escape of Bruce and Douglas,
Wounded by Lord of Lorn : shares Bruce's privations : passage of Lochlomond,
Sojourn in Island of Rachrin : he relates to Bruce the incident of the spider, .
Return to Scotland: successes iu Arran and Carrick : Turnberry Castle taken,
Visit to Douglasdale : scheme for taking Douglas Castle : "The Douglas Larder,"
Douglas Ciistle rebuilt by Sir Robert ClilTonl : Douglas slays the new warden, .
Returns to Bruce : defeats English force under Mowbray at Ederford : Bruce's successes
105
106
107
108
109
110
112
113
114
115
116
THM EARLS OF DOFGLAS.
Uctrfat of English armies : death of Edwar<l the First : feeble attempts of successor, .
Third assault on Douglas Castle — "The Adventurous Castle," or " Castle Dangerous,"
Hu destroys the castle : captures Kaudolpli and Stewart of Boncle in Tweeddale,
Conjunction of forces of Bruce and Douglas : defeat of Lord Lorn : Argyll surreuders
Capture of castle of ilutherglen : Douglas attends the first Parliament of the King,
F5ruce is acknowledged King of Scotland by the Pope and the French King, .
Frustration of the attem^its of the King of England against Scotland, .
llaids upon northern counties of England by Bruce and Douglas,
('apture of castles of Perth and Edinburgh: Douglas takes the castle of Roxlnirgh, l.'US
Battle of Bannnckburn : Pursuit of Edward to Dunbar, by Douglas,
Warden of the Marches : Raid into England : Parliament at Cambuskenneth, .
Another descent on the north of England: Parliament at Ayr : siege of Carlisle, 1315
Cn successful attack \ipon Berwick : more raids into England, ...
Bruce goes to Irelau<l : Douglas appointed Warden of Scotland during the King's absence
Renewal of warfare by the English : Douglas's camp at Lintalee : Justiciar of Lothian
Sir Thomas Riclimond slain l>y Douglas : Lintalee invaded : Edmund de Caliou slain,
Boast of Sir Robert Neville : slain by Douglas : return of Bruce : capture of Berwick.
Lenity of the Scots towards the English : the Douglas Tower in Berwick,
Peter Spalding rewarded : Berwick committed to the High Steward : raid into England
Parliament at Scone : new settlement of the succession to the Crown,
Douglas appointed to succeed Randolph in the Regency : he takes the oath of fidelity,
Irritation of Edward the Second at success of Bruce : unsuccessful siege of Berwick,
Incursion by Bruce and Douglas into England : the " Chapter of Mitton,"
More raids : agreement to a truce : letter by Bruce and Scottish nobles to the Pope.
Grants of lands to Douglas : bounding charter of Donglasdale : the Soulis conspiracy.
Negotiations between the Scots and the Earl of Lancaster : raid into England,
Edward resolves to chastise Scotland : Bruce anticipates him by a raid into England.
Edward invades Scotland as far as Edinburgh, but is obliged to retreat,
English army harassed by Douglas : l]ruce enters England : battle of Biland Abbey,
Douglas receives from Bruce tiie Emerald Charter, 1324 : grant of Buittle in Galloway
Parliament at Scone : provision for rebuilding the Abbey of Melrose : visit to Tarbert
Truce with England: Bruce acknowledged King of Scotland by Edward ii. and the Pope
Edward in. succeeds to throne of England : Bruce provoked to break the truce.
Siege of Norham : Scottish and English soldiery in 1327 : Scottish army in England,
Prolonged search for the Scottish array : discovery and challenge by Edward, .
Stratagems of Douglas : invades English camp : story of the fox and the fisherman.
Departure of Scots homewards without a battle : deserted camp — chagrin of English,
Bruce and Douglas besiege and take Norham Castle : assault on the castle of Alnwick
Truce agreed to: the English Parliament recognise the independence of Scotland, 1328.
Treaty between England and Scotland : restoration of Fawdon and other English lands,
Illness and death of King Robert Bruce : Douglas intrusted with the king's heart, 1329,
Douglas's preparations for carrying Bruce's heart to the Holy Land : gifts to Church,
IVparturc from Scotland : offers his services to Kine Alphonso against the Saracens,
PA.OK
117
lis
ll!»
120
120
121
122
123
123
125
127
129
132
133
133
135
137
140
141
142
142
U3
144
14G
147
140
150
151
152
155
15f.
157
158
159
IGl
1G7
if.S
170
17i»
171
172
170
17S
Vlll
."^SUMMARY OF THE 2IE2fOinS OF
Slain on the plains of Andalusia. lii;50 : conflicting accounts,
Body brought to Scotland and buried in the Kirk of St. Bride : his mouument'there,
Tributes to his memory by Fordun, Bower, and Godscroft,
Description of sword presented to him by Bruce : his sons William and Archibald,
180
181
1S2
1S3
VI.— 1. WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, Lord of Dougi^is, son of
THE Good Sir James. 1330-1333.
Inherited as Lord of Douglas in succession to his father.
Views of historians as to the succession to the Good Sir James,
Complaint by monks of Coldingham against William, Lord of Douglas, and his uncle,
Death of William, Lord of Douglas, at Halidon Hill, while under age, .
Supposed Armorial Seal of William, Lord of Douglas,
185
186
187
188
190
^- — 2- HUGH DOUGLAS, Lord of Douglas, brother of the
Good Sir James. 1333-1342.
His retired Ufe and consequent obscurity in history due to his being a churchman.
His birth : detained in England when a child: educated for the Church,
A canon of Glasgow Cathedral: held the prebend of Old Roxburgh,
The Douglas estates after the battle of Halidon in English hands"
Bravery of the knight of Liddesdale : Hugh served heir to Sir James Douglas,'
Grants of lands by Lord Hugh to William Douglas of Lothian,
William Douglas receives the lordship of Liddesdale from King David the Second,
Resignation of the Douglas estates for the .purpose of entailing them to the next heir.
Restoration of the prebend of Old Roxburgh to Lord Hugh by the King of England,
Lord Hugh founds and endows chapel at Crookboat of Douglas— his armorial s°eal.
iOl
192
192
194
195
1P5
19G
190
197
198
v.— 3. SIE ARCHIBALD OF DOUGLAS, Knight, Eegent
of Scotland.
BEATRICE LINDSAY (Crawford), his wife.
129G-1333.
His birth and parentage : charters of lands from King Robert Bruce, . . .200
Erroneously desigTiated by historians Lord of Galloway : impetuous an.l hasty temper, 201
Regents of Scotland after Bruce's death : Randolph Earl of Moray : Donald Earl of Mar, 202
Battle of Dupplin : siege of Perth : success of Edward Bahol : Baliol cro^vned at Scone, ' 203
THE EAliLS OF DOUGLAS.
His subsequent movemeuts : chased by Douglas from Aunau into England. . 204
Baliol re-enters Scotland : cnunter incursion by Douglas into Northumberland, "JUO
Appointed Regent of Scotland : Berwick invested bj' Baliol and the English king, . '1()~
Battle of Halidon Hill : defeat of the .Scots, and death of the itegent, . . 211
His wife anil children : Eleanor, Countess of Carrick, . . . " . .214
VI.— 2. SIR WILLIAM DOUGLAS, Kni(;ht, Lord of Douglas,
Created Eaul of Douglas, and Eakl of Douglas and Mai:.
LADV MAKGARET OF MAR. ins Countess.
1342-1384.
His birth: education iu France: return to Scotland: drives English from Douglasdale, 216
First appearance in political life : mistaken charge of treason, .... 218
Subjection of the chiefs of lialloway, lo53 : death of Knight of Liddesdale, . . 220
Circumstances of that event : the debated ownership of Liddesdale, . . . 22o
Kegrant of the Douglas estates, 1354 : negotiations with England, 1355, . . 227
Skirmish of Nisbet Moor : invasion by Edward m. : the "Burnt Caudlemass," 1356, . 229
Douglas goes to France : knighted by French king : at the battle of Poitiers, . . 231
Negotiations for liberation of King David the Second : created Earl of Douglas*. 135S, 233
In England as a hostage for King David's ransom : grants Cavers and other lands, . 235
Justiciar of Scotland south of the Forth : embassy to England, . . 238
Foundation of chaplainry in St. Giles's Church, Edinburgh, for benefit of Earl's soul, . 240
Insurrection against King David: Douglas surprised at Lanark: escapes and submits, . 241
Pilgrimage to Canterbury : Prince Lionel of England proposed as next king of Scotland. 242
Rejection of proposal : terms of peace with England : renewed sacrifices by Scots, . 244
Earl absent from Parliament : Margaret Logie : grant of Annandale to John of Logic, 247
Dissensions among nobles : imprisonment of Steward : Douglas accused of cuni]>licity, 2.'iO
Truce with England for fourteen years, 13G9: expedition to North of Scotland, . 251
Resignation of barony of Dalkeith, 1370 : The Earl's connection with Dalkeith, . 253
Accession of King Robert the Second, 1371 : alleged claim to the Crown by Douglas, . 256
Pays homage to the new king : acquisition of castle of Tantallon and North Berwick, 260
Patronage of Cavers : the Earl remonsti'ates with the monks of Melrose, . . 263
Disputes between the Earl and the English Border wardens: commissioners appointed, 265
Letter about John Mercer, and the Earl's clerk, 1376 : the Earl imports victuals, . 267
His accession to earldom of Mar : Mar title and estates : arrangements for succession. . 27o
(Conflicts with the f^nglish : taking of Berwick and capture of Sir Thomas Musgravf . . 275
Invades England, and burns Penrith : invaders bring the pestilence from England, . 27S
Truce with England : Duke of Lancaster visits Scotland : Earl's movements, . .281
Siege of Lochmaben : invasion of Scotland : Teviotdale restored to its allegiance, . 283
The Earl's death : burial at Melrose : his marriage : survived by his wife : his children, 286
Isabella Douglas. Countess of Mar : her hu3ban<ls : Margaret. ( onntess of Angus, . 2ss
VOL. [. ].
NUMMARY OF THE MEMOIRS OF
VII. — 1. JAMES, sKcoxr) F.akl of Doiclas and Mau.
THE PRINCESS ISABEL STEWART, iiis Countess.
138-1-1.388.
I'AiJK
His birth, c. 135S: early life at Dalkeith: marriage to i'rinctss laaljel, 1373, . iOi
He is knighted : paynumts by the king to him : obtains lordship of Liddesdale, . 293
Error of Godscroft regarding embassage of Sir James to France in 1381, . . 294
Succeeded his father in 13S-i; events of that year : expeditious into Teviotdale, . 29.')
Visit of French knights to the Scottish Court : irritation of Scots against England, . 296
Invasion of England by the Earl and the French knights ; embassy to England, . 297
Treaty with England and France : arrival of French army under Sir .John de Vienne, . 298
Reception of French by Scots : joint attack on Roxburgh and north of England, . 300
King Richard the Second enters Scotland with large army : failure of his expedition, . 301
Scots and French besiege Carlisle : departure of French troops, . . 302
Invasion of West Marches of England : interval of peace — Border truce, . 304
Charters granted by .James as Earl of Douglas and Mar ; Drumknrig and Cavers, 30.5
Preparations for war with England : muster of large army at Southdean, 1388, 305
Party detached under Douglas : rapid and silent advance — attack on Newcastle, 307
Single combat of Dougla.s and Percy— capture of Percy's pennon : march to Otterburn, 309
Description of camp — attack on Otterburn tower — pursuit by Percy, . . 310
Sur])rise of Scottish camp: Froissart's account of battle: bravery of Douglas— his death. 312
The dying Earl's last speech : victory of the Scots : other incidents of the battle, . 314
Funeral of the second Earl of Douglas at Melrose Abbey : character of the P]arl, . 3 1 .'»
Percy's pennon : question of genuineness of pennon preserved at Cavers, . . 316
Date of battle of Otterburn — variety of opinions — evidence and conclusion as to date, 317
Council at Linlithgow : decision as to Earl James"s tenandry of North Berwick, 317
His Countess : the families of Queensberry and Cavers descended from him, . 319
Vr.— 3. SIR ARCHIBALD DOUGLAS, third Eaul of Douglas,
Lord of Galloway, surnameu '' The Grim."
.lOAXNA MORAY (Bothwell), his Countess. 1388-1400.
Parentage of Sir Archibald : his succession to title and estates of Douglas, . . 321
At the battle of Poitiers : his adventures there : temporary imi)risonment in England, 322
Knighted : Constable of Edinburgh Castle : Sheritf of Edinburgh, . 324
Warden of West Marches : in Parliament : pilgrimage to St. Denis in France, . . 325
Conservator of truce with England : dispute with Lord of Menteith, . . . 326
Signs treaty of 1369 : charters ship to trade between England, Scotland and Ireland, 327
THE EARL.S OF DOUGLAS.
Ac<iuisition of lordship of Galloway, 1369 : purchases the earldom of Wigton, 1372, . 32!>
Ambassador to France : reasoas for em))assy : expenses: accession of Hobert li., . 329
Again ambassador to France : preparations for mission : success of embassy, . .331
Charter founding an hospital at Holywood : grants of land : witness to royal charters, 332
Letter as Warden to King Edward iii. : Commissioner to arrange peace with England, 334
Skirmish with the English at Melrose : Froissart's account of his mode of fightmg, . 335
Truce with England : his Border Laws : holds Justiciary Court at Dumfries, . . 330
Expiry of truce : siege and capture of Lochmaben : state of the Highlands, . . 337
Peculiar legal customs of r4 alio way : French expedition of Sir John de Vieune, 13S5, . 339
Invasion of England by the Scots: the battle of Otterburn, 13SS, . . 340
Becomes third Earl of Duuglas, 13S9 : his succession confirmed by Parliament. . 341
Vaunts of English Marshal : expedition into England; truce with France and England, 342
The Earl of Douglas and the English envoys : Legacy to Earl from Douglas of Dalkeith, 343
Prolonged peace with England : Border duels between Englishmen and Scotchmen, . 344
Diets of truce : English claim to Jedburgh Forest : Cambuskeuueth and the Keirs, 345
Creation of Dukes of llothesay and Albany : the Earl refuses the proffered dignity, . 34f>
Member of Duke of Rothesay's Council, 1390 : last year of Earl's life : his death, . 347
The Earl's daughter married to the Duke of Rothesay : his benefactions to the Church, 34S
Liacluden College : Sweetheart Abbey : founding of collegiate church of Bothwell, . 349
Character of the Earl by his contem[)oraries : his marriage to Joanna Moray, . . 351
His Countess heiress of Bothwell : survives her husband : their children, . . 353
Sir WiLLLur Douglas of Nithsdale, natural son of
Archibald, third Earl of Douglas.
Marries Princess Egidia : brilliant military career : valour at siege of Carlisle. . 355
Expedition against Ireland and Isle of Man : departure for Dantzic, . . . 356
Chosen admiral of fleet against the Saracens ; assassinated by Lord Clifford, . . 357
His two children : Egidia, Countess of Orkney : Sir William Douglas of Nithsdale, 35S
VII. — 2. ARCHIBALD, first Duke of Touraine, fourth Earl of
Douglas, Lord of Galloway and Annandale, etc.
(scrnamed Tineman).
PRINCESS MARGARET STEWART, his Duche.ss.
1400-U24.
Succeeds his father as fourth Earl of Douglas : origin of his surname of " Tineman," . 360
HiH birth : marries the Princess Margaret : is provided in the lordship of Douglas. . 361
^UAfMARY OF THE MEMOIRS OF
Styled ^Master of Douglas : iippointed k.eei>er of the castle of Edinburj^'h for life, 1400,
Takes possession of Dnnbar Castle and the domains of March and Annandale,
Defeats Earl of March and Henry Percy in East Lothian : pursues them to Berwick.
Succession as fourth Earl of Douglas : power and inliuence of the familj-.
Warden of the Marches : correspondence about truce with King Heniy the Fourth,
Death of David, Duke of Rothesay, his brother-in-law : charged against Douglas,
Act of Parliament exculpating Douglas and Albany from complicity in Rothesay's death.
Expeditions into England : battles of Nisbet-Moor and Homildon Hill,
Charge by the Earl of Douglas : defeat of Scots : Swinton and Sir Adam Gordon,
Douglas severely wounded and taken prisoner : confined in Alnwick Castle,
Disaffection of Percys to their king : Douglas estates conferred upon Henry Percv,
Alliance between Percy and Douglas : battle of Shrewsbury: Douglas aLiain taken.
Negotiations for the Earl's ransom and release : number of hostages required, .
Frequent visits to Scotland on jiarole : principal bailie of the Priory of Coldino-ham,
Indentures between Douglas and the King of England al.)out prolonged parole,
Douglas refuses to return : remonstrance by Henry : final arrangements for release.
Restoration of earldom of March, except Lochmaben Castle and Annandale, .
Earl of Douglas called Lord of Annandale : friendship between him and Albany,
Marriage of the Earl's daughter Elizabeth to Albany's son John, Earl of Buchan, 141;;.
Ambassador to Flanders, 1412 : difficulties of the voyage : visit to Inchcolm,
Treaty of alliance between the Earl and John Duke of Burgundy,
Warden of the Marches : Border duel : Douglas and the custumars of Edinburgh,
Negotiations for the release of King James from English captivity.
Dispute between the monks of Melrose and Haig of Bemerside : the " Foul Raid,"
Negotiations by Douglas at London for temporary liberation of King James. .
Douglas engages to serve the King of England, 1421 : death of Henry the Fifth,
The Earl enters the French service : gifts of lands to the Church : departs to France.
Swears fealty to the French King : appointed Lieutenant-General of the French forces.
Created Duke of Touraine, 1424 : gift of Duchy ratified by French Parliament,
Consternation of the inhabitants of Tours : they send a deputation to the king.
Triumphant reception in Tours : appoints Governor of town and castle of Tours,
Siege of castle of Ivry : its relief attempted by the Duke : battle of Verneuil,
Defeat of French and Scottish allies : Duke of Touraine and his second son slain,
Ransom of the bodies of the Duke and his son from the English : burial in Tours,
Margaret, Duchess of Touraine : lordship of Galloway : resides at ca.stle of Thrieve,
She claims her terce, and rents of the Duchy of Touraine : the French king's reply.
She resigns the lordship of Galloway : her death, c. 1456. at Thrieve Castle, .
Burial of the Duchess in the church of Lincluden : description of her monument,
The children of Archibald, first Duke of Touraine : Sir James of Douglas,
Laily Elizabeth Douglas : her three husbands, John. Earl of Buchan, Sir Thomas
Stewart, and William Sinclair, third Earl of Orkney: her crypt in Roslin Chapel,
Armorial seals of Archibald, fourth Earl of Douglas, and Margaret, Duchess of Touraine,
MM
;}G2
;{»>;{
;}6:{
:i64
^M:^
Ul
3r.s
86«J
;>7o
.371
372
.373
37.5
377
37 S
379
.380
381
382
383
384
3S.-,
386
387
388
38 1»
380
390
.391
392
393
394
39.")
396
397
398
399
399
4(»0
<^
THE EARLS OF JJO COLAS.
VIII.— 1. ARCHIBALD, second Duke (^f Touraine, fittji Earl
OF Douglas, Earl of Wigtown and Longueville,
Lord of (Calloway, etc.
LADY EUPHEMIA GRAHA^I (Menteith), his Countess.
U24-U39.
His birth : early years s)>eut iu England as a hostage for his father, 140,j-14l;i.
Relations with the custumars : confirnis charters granted by his father,
State of afifairs in France : mission of the Duke of Vendome to Scotland,
JJ<juglas and Earl of Buchan sent with an army to Eiance : created Earl of Wi'Tto\vn
Victories of the Scots in France : Battle of Bauge, 1421,
Created Earl of Longueville in Normandy, and receives the lordship of Duularoy,
Returns to Scotland, 1423: attends King James at his coronation, and is knighted, 14'24
Sits as one of the assize at the condemnation of Albany and other nobles,
Succession to Earldom of Douglas and Dukedom of Touraine : fate of tliat Duchv,
The Douglas estates : arbiter between monks of Melrose and Haigs of Bemerside,
Attends Parliament : accompanies King James against the Lord of the Islea.
Imprisonment of the Earl in Lochleven Castle, 14.31 : His bearing towards the kino-,
Charters by the Earl : Dispute with Athole about lands of Dunbarny and Pitcaithly,
Death of James the First: Douglas appointed Lieutenant-General of the Kingdom, 1437
History of the period, as given by Boece and other historians, unreliable.
Important measures passed during the Earl's lieutenancy : custody of the young king
Story of removal in a clothes-chest of the young king from Stirling a myth.
The Earl with the king at Rothesay: Queen's marriage to the Black Knight of Lorn,
Death of Earl at Restalrig, 143<J : monument in church of St. Bride's, at Douglas,
r^y Euphemia Graham, his Countess : her second marriage to James, Lord Hamilton
Children of Archibald, fifth Earl of Douglas : his armorial seals,
PAGE
401
402
403
403
405
400
407
40S
401)
410
411
412
413
414
41.-)
410
417
417
4l!»
420
421
^X- — WILLIAM, third Duke of Touraine, sixth Earl of Douglas,
Lord of Galloway, etc.
JANET or JAXE LINDSAY (Cra^^tord), his Countess.
U39-U40.
Hu birth : succession to the Earldom of Douglas : Knighted at Holyrood, 1430,
Splendour of his retinue : story of his paying homage for Duchy of Touraine, .
A member of the General Council at Stirling, 1430 : jealousy of Crichton,
•^npposed charges against the Earl : he is treacherously invited to Edinburgh,
423
424
42r,
427
Murder of the Earl and lu3 brother David in Edinluiryh Castle, 1440,
Remarks of Boece aud other historians on this tragedy,
The Earl's uncle erroneously charged with complicity in his death,
Execution of Sir Malcolm Fleming of Cumbernauld as an adherent of the Douglases,
Division of the Douglas estates : loss of Galloway and Annaudale.
Lady Janet Lindsay, Countess of William, sixth Earl of Douglas : no issue,
PACK
427
428
428
42 ••
429
4;io
VII. — 3. JAMES, .sEVKNTH Earl of Douglas, first Earl of
AVONDALE, and LoRD BaLWVNY, CALLED " TlIE GrOSS."
LADY . . . STEWAKT (Albany), his first Wife.
LADY BEATRIX 8INCLAIK (Orkney), his Countess.
1440-144:3.
James, second son of Archibald, third Earl of Douglas, succeeds as heir-male, . 4;]|
His corpulency and soubriquet, " The Gross:" impetuosity and turbulence in youth. . V.il
Acts as receiver from the custumars of annuity of his sister, the Duchess of Rothesay, 432
Bums town of Berwick : spirited reply to letter of King Htnry the Fourth of England, 433
Capture of Prince James of Scotland by the English : date of this event, . . 434
Slaughter of Sir David Fleming by James Douglas : probable reasons for this deed, . 43r>
Warden of the Marches : charges of depredation on the customs, . . 43G
Imprisons custumars : receives extensive lands from his brother, the fourth Earl. . 437
Return of King James the First from England : James Douglas on jury against Albany. 438
Created Earl of Avondale and Lord Balvany : appointed .lustice-Ceueral of Scotland, 43!)
Protest by Egidia Douglas, Countess of Urknty, as proprietrix of Nithsdale, . . 439
Douglas also Sheritf of Lanark and conservator ol the truce with England, . . 440
Meeting at Bute with the Lord of the Isles : dispute between the Homes, . 440
Succeeds to earldom of Douglas : alleged connivance at death of his grand-nephew^, 441
Death of the Earl at Abercorn, 1443 : his monument in St. Bride's Church, Douglas, . 442
His two wives : their children : his seal a.s Justice-General, .... 443
AECHIB.ILD DOUGLAS, Earl of Mor.w.
Elizabeth Dune.u^ Countess of Moray, his Wife.
14 4.")- 14."..
Twin-brother with James, ninth Earl of Douglas: receives the Earldom of Moray, 447
He attends Parliament, 1445 : one of the conservators of a truce with England in 1449, 447
Harrying of Strath bogie, 1452 : title of Earl of Moray bestowed on Sir Jamts Crichton, 448
King James the Second attempts to crush the House of Douglas : battle of Arkinholm, 44S
l»offi»t of the Dmiylases, and death of Archibald, Earl ui Moray, 1455,
«-'har"cJ with fortifying castles uf Luchiudorb and Daruaway: great hall of L»aruaway,
Kliza'x'th, Countess of Moray, — the " Dow of Diiubar : " their children,
PACE
449
44'.»
450
HUGH DOUGLAS, Kaul of Oumond. liio-lioo.
<,'ri'ated Earl of Ormond in 1445 : his estates : gains a victory over the English, 144S, 451
In charge of Douglas estates during his brother's absence: defies king at .Stirling, . 451
Sheriff of Lanarkshire, 1454: taken prisoner at Arkinhohn, and executed, . . 452
His estates confiscated : his son and daughter : Hugh, Dean of Brechin, . 452
JOHN DOUGLAS, Lord of Balvany. UoO-1463.
Heir of entail to the Douglas estates in 1451 : his lands in BanfTshire, . . 45.*}
At battle of Arkinholm : withdraws to England : his estates forfeited, . . 453
Visit to the Lord of the Isles : schemes of war against Scotland, . . 454
Taken prisoner on the Borders : confiued in castle of Edinburgh, and beheadeil, . 454
VHL — 2. WILLIAM, Eighth Earl of Douglas, Second Earl of
AvoNDALE, Lord of Galloway, etc.
LADY MAKGARET DOUGLAS, the Fair Maid of Galloway,
HIS Countess.
1443-1452.
His birth: obtains knighthood in 1430: succeeds to Earldom, 1443, . . . 456
In favour with King James : appointed Lieutenaut-Geueral of the kingdom, . . 456
Induences the king against Crichton : takes Barnton : Crichton deposed, 1443, . 457
Marries Margaret, tlie Fair Maid of Galloway: alliance with Hamilton and Livingstone, 458
I'H'sieges Etlinburgh Castle: Crichton capitulates, 1445 : grant of money, . . 459
'.'barter to monks of Melrose, who claim to be free from his jurisdiction, . 460
Kamily arrangement anent the succession to the Douglas estates, 1447, . .461
B<irdcr warfare : negotiations with France : claims the Duchy of Touraine, . 462
Tournament at Stirling: downfall of the Livingstones : Parliamentary enactments, . 464
•"hararter of Earl of Douglas in the office of Lieutenant- General of the kingdom, . 465
Wit to Rome at celebration of the papal jubilee : his reception in England and Rome, 466
"tj against him in absence : strongholds besieged by the king: returns from Rome,, 467
LtToncdiation with the kin-j : numerous charters granted to him by the king, . 468
XV i SUMMARY OF THE MEMOIRS OF THE EARLS OF DOUGLAS.
X>)alition with Earls of Crawford and Ross against Cricbton and Tiirubnll,
Charges against Earl : tradition of his beheading Maclellan of Bomby examined,
Invrited to Stirling, and slain there by the king and courtiers, 1452,
Motives of the king for this deed : Act of Parliament exonerating the king,
Passionate nature of King James the Second : complicity of Crichton in th^e murder.
Letter by James to the king of France : Lady Margaret Douglas, his Countess,
PAOt
469
471
47'-'
47.'>
474
47o
Vlir.— 3. JAMES, Ninth (and last) Earl of Douglas,
THIRD KVRL OF AVONDALE, ETC.
LADY MARGARET DOUGLAS, the Fair .^LvID of Galloway,
HIS Countess.
14o2-1488.
His birth: agreement between him and his twin brother Archibald as to seniority, 1447,
Activity in military affairs: one of the combatants in the tournament at Stirling^
Accompanies his brother William to Eome ; negotiations with the English,
Resents the death of his brother : makes hostile demonstration, and burns'stirling.
Defeat of Crawford at Brechin : Douglas displays contempt for king and Parliament.
Submits to the king at Douglas Castle : terms of agreements with tlie king.
Safe-conduct to travel into England : further agreement with King James°'the Second
Marries his brother's widow : restoration of the Earldom of Wigtown,
Negotiates truce with England : visits Earl of Ross at Knapdale : Sheriff of Lanark,
Jealousy of the king, who besieges and demolishes Douglas's castle of Inveravon,
Possible justification for hostilities on the king's part : siege of Abercorn Castle,'
Douglas deserted by Lord Hamilton and other adherents, and retires to Englan.l,
Fall of Abercorn : battle of Arkinholm : forfeiture of the Douglases,
The Earl of Douglas in England : gives Thrieve (.'astle to the English king,
HostiHties between Scotland and England : embassy to the Earl of'Ross: re^'volt of Ross
Joins the enterprise of Alexander, Duke of Albany, and returns to Scotland,
Is taken prisoner, and sentenced to captivity in Lindores Abbey, 1484,
King James the Third applies to Douglas for assistance against his own son.
Death of the last Earl of Douglas in 14S8 : burial in Abbey of Lindores,
Lady Margaret, Countess of Douglas : her marriage to John, Earl of Athole,
Alleged marriage of ninth Earl of Douglas to Anne Holland or Nevill in England : no issue
477
47S
479
4S1
48-2
48;;
48;j
484
485
487
488
488
489
491
491
492
493
49;^
494
495
49(;
INTRODUCTION.
ORIGIN AND ARRAXGEMENT OF THE WORK.
f\^ the death, in January 1859, of the Hunourahle Jane Margaret Douglas
^^ of Douglas, Dowager Lady Montagu, the extensive estates of Douglas
and Angus devolved upon her eldest daughter, Lucy-Elizabeth Douglas of
Douglas, Countess of Home. Along with the territorial estates the Countess
of Home also inherited an extensive collection of charter muniments relating
to the families of Douglas and Angus and their territories.
The husband of the Douglas heiress was the late Cospatrick Alexander,
Earl of Home. Soon after the Douglas succession opened to the Countess
his Lordship asked me, in the year 18.59, to make an inspection of the
Douglas Muniments and report upon them generally. Having previoush'
examined a part of them in reference to the ancient title and dignity of
Earl of Angus, the extent and value of the collection, and its historical
importance were already known to me. Believing that the opening up of
the muniments of the illustrious houses of Douglas and Angus would be a
valualile addition to the history of Scotland, I took the liberty of suggesting
to Lord Home that the more important of the charters and correspondence
should be printed, and form one of the series of Scottish Family Histories on
vr>r.. I. r
INTRODUCTION
which 1 was then engaged. His Lordship and Lady Home were pleased to
entertain my suggestion favourably, and authorised the work to be proceeded
with. His Lordship was pleased to write—" I am very desirous that some
skilful and fricndli/ hand should be employed, and if you are ever able to do
it, I shall be much gratified." ^ In another letter, dated five days later, his
Lordship wrote — " It would be selfish in those who can afford the expense
to refuse to allow the publication of papers of general interest. ... I shall
certainly feel it my duty to consent to anything which may make Hume of
Godscroft more interesting."
It was in this liberal and enlightened spirit, which was so conspicuous in
every action of his long and honourable life, that Lord Home listened to the
suggestion which I had ventured to submit to him. From time to time his
Lordship received from me reports on the extensive collection of Douglas
muniments as they were ingathered from various sources. In these reports
he was much interested, and his extensive general knowledge of the history
of the Houses of Douglas and xlngus, as well as of his own distinguished
Border House of Home, was readily available when any difficulty occurred
in collecting together the scattered muniments. A valuable portion of them
nearly escaped observation through an accidental derangement of the lock of
a box. This is graphically explained in a letter from Lord Home, dated
31st January 1860, in which he says : " There stands in the hall at Bothweil
Castle a handsome chest, with the royal arms upon it, called ' The Chancellor
of the Exchequer's Box.' It was inherited by Lady Douglas from her
mother, the Countess of Dalkeith, who married as her second husband the
famous Charles Townshend. That chest has a curious lock, defended by a
spring." Lord Home further explains that he was assured that the secret of
opening it had died with the late Lord Douglas. AVith the assistance of the
carpenter. Ids Lordship cut the Gordian knot, by breaking open the chest,
* Letter, dated Douglas Castle, 12th September ISoO.
ORIGIN OF THIS HISTORY
whon it was found that the lock had gone wrong. The papers Mere then
forwarded to me, and were found to contain several of the most valuable of
tlie collection.
Five years later, when progress was made in tlie work, Lord Honu-
wrote : — " I can assure you I never think of tlie Douglas papers other-
wise than with satisfaction that they are in your safe keeping, and that it
.should have so happened that one so admirably qualified as you are should
be able and willing to undertake the task, in your case a labour of love, of
an-anging, and indeed preserving them from destruction."
In subsequent letters Lord Home referred in his usual kind and generous
terms to the " incalculable benefit being rendered to us," adding " No one
appreciates the favour you do us more than T do."
Li this way did Lord Home, always frank, friendly, and cordial in his
correspondence, co-operate with me and encourage me in the task which 1
liad undertaken, till his lamented death in the year 1881. The two volumes
of charters and correspondence, being nearly completed, had previously been
submitted to him. Since his Lordship's death, and, indeed, since the death
of the Countess of Home in 1877, her son and successor in the Doughus
estates, the present Earl of Home, has had the control of this work, which
has now been completed in four quarto volumes, under his direction, with
the valuable assistance of his brother, the Honourable James Archibald
Home, barrister-at-law, Loudon. The proof sheets of the memoirs of the
Eiirls of Douglas and Angus, in the first and second volumes, have been
revised by Mr. Home with great ability and learning. Both brothers have
dutifully fulfilled the wishes of their parents.
The present History of the Douglases cannot boast of a royal origin like
the previous well-known History of the Houses of Douglas and Angus by
Mr. David Hume of Godscroft. The originator of that history was no less a
I"Tsr,nage than King James the Sixth of Scotland. Although not himseli
IXTIiODVCTIOA.
possessing much of the heroic iu his character, the kin- was pruud of his
•lescent from the house of Douglas. His grandmother, Lady Margaret
Douglas, the mother of Darnley, was the only child of the marriage of
Archibald, the sixth Earl of Angus and tlie Princess Margaret of Engdand,
the widowed queen of King James the Fourth. King James the Sixth was
on terms of intimate friendship with his kinsman, William, tenth Earl of
Angus, and induced the Earl to undertake a history of the Douglas family.
Obeying his :\rajesty's commands, the Earl commenced the work and wrote
outlines as to how it should be treated. He, however, confided the real
labour to Mr. David Hume of C^odscroft, who was a relative and friend of the
family, and who made the history a life-labour.^ But though the present work
cannot boast of such an illustrious origin as the previous histoiy, it is hoped
that from the importance of the family to which these volumes relate, this
new history of the Douglases may be considered an acceptable addition to tlie
Family Histories which have appeared in recent years.
At a date so early as the year 1288, there is a notice of the existence of
charters of the Douglas family. Sir William of Douglas " le Hardi," father of
the (lood Sir James, granted to the Abbot of Kelso a receipt for his charters
which had been intrusted to the Abbot,'- probably for safety, in the cell of
Lesmaliagow. The castle of Douglas was as fatal to the cliarter muninit-nts
of the family as it was dangerous to many of its keepers and castellans. All
the charters of the family previous to the time of King llobert the Bruce
were lost and destroyed in the successive burnings of the castle, when it was
held by the Englisli during the wars of indei)endence. The muniments of
the family which then existed did not escape that general destruction of the
» In a subsequent part of thi.s introduction special notice will be taken of that history as
well as of the various editions of it whicli have been printo.l.
- Liber de Calchou, vol. i, p. 1G8.
VICISSITUDES OF THE DOCGLAS MUXIMEXTS.
• asile kuowu as the '• Douglas Larder." Subsequent forfeitures of the
fiUiiily anil burnings of their castle made further havoc of their muniments.
« July a very few of the original charters of the Earls of Douglas have been
ureserved. These charters came into possession of the fourth Earl of Angus
when he obtained the Douglas estates soon after their forfeiture in 1455.
WTiile the Douglas documents were thus unhappily lost, those of the
P^jirlf? of Angus have been preserved. But even these ran the risk of sharing
the same fate as those of Douglas. One adventure attending the Angus
muniments is related in the memoir of the sixth Earl of Angus. Wlien he
was forfeited by the Parliament of King James the Fifth in 1528 the Earl
made laudalde exertions to save his charters. He had recourse to a large
brass beef-pot, whicli formed part of the furniture of the kitchen of Tantallon,
and was of such dimensions that the kitchen boys who stirred the spits
could easily lie in it for warmth. With the aid of the captain of the
castle, and a stalwart trooper, both of whom were pledged to secrecy, the
Earl transferred the muniments from the charter-chest to the pot. The lid
was securely clasped with iron, and the pot was buried under a little bridge
near the farthest gate of the castle. The three feet of the pot stood upon the
solid rock, so as to preserve it from water, and there the charters remained
for fifteen yeai-s until the Earl's return from England.^
The Angus nnmiments which were thus preserved contained the oldest
•.liiirters now in the charter-cliest. Several of them refer to the ancient
family of Abernethy, the Stewarts of Boncle, and the Bruns of Preston in
•>:irly times. These charters, and the additions which have accumulated
in the course of the subsequent three centuries in connection with the Angus
' I'he iiiteiment of cbarters in times of muniments of the Maxwell-Herries families,
'l*i>i,'er was often resorted to. The mimi- however, were buried in the garden at
meats of the Maitlands of Lauderdale were Terregles, and preserved without injury,
hnried, but were destroyed by damp. The
xxii I XT HOD I 'C TIOX.
family were, wlien intrusted to the author for the present work, contained in
twelve large old oak chests.^
Dealing with such a large collection of miscellaneous ancient muniments
for the purpose of making selections, and reducing these into tlie form of
the present work, was necessarily a slow and tedious process. Much care
and labour wore necessary, as well as anxious consideration as to the
moulding of the almost chaotic mass into shape. The work has now been
finally arranged and finished in four volumes.
The First Volume contains a detailed history of the Eakls of Douglas
and Dukes of Toukaine in France, and their ancestors from William of
Douglas, in the time of King William the Lion, to James, the ninth and
last Earl of Douglas, who died at Lindores Abbey in 1 t88. The First
Volume also contains a Summaey of the memoir of each successive inheritor
of the Douglas estates, and a Tabular Pedigree of the Earls of Douglas.
The Second Volume contains a similar detailed history of the Eai;ls of
Angus from George Douglas, who was the first Earl of Angus of the familv
of Douglas in the reign of King Kobert the Third, down to his lineal male
' There is no properly detailed inventory of that during these three years, Mr. Chalmer
the Douglas muniments. A modern inventory went through all the Duke's writs and papers.
in two folio volumes exists ; but it chiefly and made an accurate inventory of the whole
refers to the writs of the lands purchased b\' from the time of Kingllobert theEruce [Vol. ii.
the Duke of Douglas and the feudal investi- of I'rinteil Papers in the Douglas Cause con-
tares of his successors. In the printeil taining the Answers]. But that inventory
answers for Archibald Douglas of Douglas and lias not been found. Short inventories of
his tutors, dated 12th January 17G2, in i\\v jiortions of the Douglas writs arc in the
" Douglas Cause,"' reference is made to an in- charter-chest. In one of tliem, there is de-
ventory of the whole writs and evidents of the scribed a charter by King William the Lion to
Duke of Douglas's estate, made by Mr. Andrew Walter Barclay [Berkeley], then chamberlain
Chalmer, writer in Edinburgh, the law-agent to the king, of the lands of Inverkeillor-
of the Duke, after Mr. Archibald Stuart, for without date. But that charter has not been
three years, from 175G to IT.IO. It is .stattd found.
ARRANGEMENT OE THE WORK. xxiii
(lescendant, Archibald, tlie tirst and ouly Duke of Douglas, who died in the
year 1761, and the descendants of his sister, Lady Jane Douglas. His
(Jruce was the last of the direct male line of the first Douglas Earl of An^rus.
The Second Volume also contains a Summary of the memoir of each succes-
sive inheritor of the Angus title and estates, and a Tabular Pedigree of the
Maris of Angus and their cadets, the Douglases of Glenbervie. It like-
wise contains the collected Armorial Seals of the Earls of Douglas, Dukes of
Touraine, and Earls of Angus, and their signatures, all specially engraved
for this work ; and, as an Appendix, a history of the L.VXDS, B.veonies and
Castles of the Earls of Douolas and An«nis
The Thikd V(3Lume of this work contains the Ciiahters relating to both
lines, the Earls of Douglas and Angus. The charters of lands which were
granted by the successive sovereigns of Scotland to the Earls of Douglas and
their ancestors, are known to have been very numerous. The oldest Douolas
charters now in the Douglas charter-chest, consist chiefly of a few of the
grants of lands by King Eobert the Bruce to hLs faithful companion in arms,
tlie Good Sir James Douglas.
The charters connected with tlie Angms estates are much more abundant.
They are also the most ancient. Tlie intermarriages between tlie Stewart
Karls of Angus and the family of Abernethy, brought into the Angus charter-
chest the old charters of Eoncle and Preston, and several old and interesting
Abernethy documents.^
Besides these charters many others, either granted by or to the Douglas
family, have been traced in other private charter-chests. Through the
liberality of the owners, these charters are either printed at length or ample
abridgTnents of them given in that volume, which also contains a detailed
Ab.stract of all the charters printed in full.
^ Vol. iii. of this work, pp. 1, 7, 349, .350, .Sr),5.
I NT RO DUCT TO X.
The facsimiles of charters in the third volume form a special feature as
illustrations. They are of considerable extent and variety, ranging from the
year 1226 to the year 1591. One of the earliest writs, of which a facsimile
is given, is an indenture of marriage between Sir Hugh of Abernethy and
Sir William of Douglas, for the marriage of Hugh of Douglas and Marjory
of Abernethy, dated on Palm Sunday, 1250. This is the oldest contract
of marriage which has yet appeared in the history of any Scottish family.
There are also preseiwed in the Douglas charter-chest grants by the two
rival kings, Bruce and Baliol, and facsimiles of two of these are given, side
by side, in the third volume. Facsimiles ol" other three Douglas charters are
given in this Introduction.^
The Fourth Volume contains the Cokrespondenck of the Earls of Dougla>
and Angus, Any family correspondence of an early date probably shared
the fate of the charters in the destructions of the castle of Douglas. Mimy
of the letters printed have ])een collected from the public records as well as
private repositories. This volume also contains a detailed Abstract of the
correspondence, and a comprehensive Index of persons and places men-
tioned in the four volumes. Such is a brief outline of the general arrange-
ment of the Douglas Book.
In the first and second volumes there is a series of armorial seals of the
Douglas family, from Sir William of Douglas, " le Hardi," in 1296, to Archi-
bald, Duke of Douglas, who died in 1761. The seals of the nine Earls of
Douglas are complete with the exception of those of the second and seventh
Earls. The first Earl had at least four seals, and each of the subsequent
Earls had more than one seal. The great seal of the ninth and last Earl is
^ With few exceptions, the lithographs by Messrs. M'Lagan and Cumming, of &lin-
of the charters in this work have been made burgh.
r ~ ~
AEMORTAL SEALS OF THE DOUGLASES.
])erhaps the most striking in the whole collection. The charges in the fourth
([uarter of that seal are not in any known seal of the previous Earls of
Douglas. These charges have been read as "six piles for Brechin."^ But
that appears to be a mistake, as Brechin is invariably represented by oiilv
three piles. The charges referred to indicate in form and appearance stakes
made of wood, such as Sir James Douglas probably used in his famous suc-
cessful stratagem against the English in Jed Forest. The exploit seems to
be commemorated in other forms both in earlier and later Douglas and
Angus seals. The Earls of Angus, after the fifth, also bore stakes in the
third quarter, five in number, which were afterwards reduced to four, and
ultimately to three. The latter number has induced the belief that they
represented the piles of Brechin. But apart from the discrepancy between
the numbers six and three, it is improbable that the ninth and last Earl
of Douglas would adopt any representation of the piles of Brechin, as he
had no known connection with the family of Brechin, either by descent
or marriage, which would warrant his assumption of their armorial bearings
in any form.
With the view of making the series of armorial seals quite complete,
special inquiries were made for the seal of the second Earl of Douglas, tlie
hero of Otterburn. In Mr. Paddell's " Stewartiana," published in IS 13,,
there are many references to the Douglas family. He describes a charter by
Earl James and his armorial seal in the following terms : —
" I not long ago met with an original and interesting old charter, without date,
by Jacobus de Douglas, filius et haeres domini WilHelmi comitis de Douglas et de Mar,
dominus baronie de Onile in Mar, — in other words, the hero of Otterburn, whereby
he confirms a grant which ' Johannes Ranulphi, comes Moravie, dominus Vallis Anandie
et Mannie, fecit domino Patricio de Carnoto, militi, de manerio suo de Lunfannan,
oum parco ejusdem.' But it has especially a seal of the young hero well executed, in
fine preservation, the only one of his I believe I have seen, exhibiting the Douglas
^ Laing'a Catalogue of Scottish Seals, vol. i. p. 46.
VOL. I. ^
IXTRODUCTIOX
arms, the heart being uncrowned, with the usual chief, u^jou which is a hihel of three
points, not unlike what an elder son and heir-apparent might ulso bear at present.
The supporters are two lions, and the crest a plume of feathers. The latter, tlie true
supporters and crest of the house of Douglas, were carried besides by Earl Vv'illiaui
his father. I have been at the greater pains in noticing this grant, which is from the
charter-chest of the ancient and knightly family of Burnet of Leys — where there are
also other attractive ancient muniments — owing to every remnant of so gallant a
personage as the former being iuteresting."^
On application to the present Sir Eobert Burnett of Leys for inspection
of the charter and seal of James, Earl of Douglas, quoted by Mr. Eiddell, Sir
llobert and liis agent made a search in the charter-room at Crathes, without
finding either the charter or the seal. In the absence of the seal, Mr.
Eiddell's description of it may be held to be accurate, especially as he says
he was particular in his description of it.
No armorial seal of the seventh Earl of Douglas has been discovered, uur
any seal used by him as Earl of Avondale ; but the armorial bearings wldcii
he used as Earl of Douglas are still to be seen on his monument in St.
Bride's church at Douglas. They are in good preservation, notwithstanding
the neglect to which they were long sttbject. Part of the original gilding on
the arms is still preserved. Separate drawings of the monument and of the
arms are given in this volume. The seventh Earl of Douglas held the office
^ Stewartiana, pp. 131, 132. In a foot- " apud lajiiJem de Mygbethe in Crumar."
note Mr. Riddell exjilaius that the manor Mr. Riddell then asks, "is the stone of Mac-
of Lunfanuan conveyed by the charter of beth here Macbeth's cairn, or the stone which
James, Earl of Douglas, above quoted, is a commemorates the faU of Macbeth's son?'
remarkable historical place, where Macbeth On examination, however, it appears that
was overcome and fell. Mr. Eiddell adds an Mr. Riddell had misread the letter "v '" in
excerpt from a charter by Thomas, Earl of Mygvethe for '"b,"' and converted Mygvethe
Mar, in the fourteenth century, contirming into Mygbethe. The ancient Earls of Mar
to Duncan, the son of Roger, the lands of had a court at Migvie or Mygvethe, where
Abergeldy, etc., in Mar, which contains a sasine was taken for their earldom.
rcuderin<i to the crranter of certain services
ARMORIAL SEALS OF THE DOUGLASES
of Justice-general of Scotland. An impression of his official seal has
roceiitly been discovered, and an engraving of it is also given. It is the first
time that it has been printed in any work, and it does not appear in the
puljlished catalogues of Scottish seals.
The armorial seals of the Earls of Angus are also nearly complete, only
that of George Douglas, the first Earl of Angus, being wanting. The seal
of James, third Earl of xVngus, has not been engraved, as, except the differ-
ence in the Christian name, it is identical with that of his brother George,
the fourth Earl. Several of these seals are very beautiful as works of art —
that of the fourth Earl being particularly graceful. After describing twentv
armorial seals of the Earls of Douglas and Angus in Laing's Catalogue of
Scottish Seals, the following note is appended, having, we are aware, been
written by the late Mr. Cosmo Innes, with reference to them: — " It would l)e
improper to pass these fine seals of the Douglases without recommending
them to the particular attention equally of the herald and the admirer of
mediicval art. These descriptions convey a very imperfect idea of the beauty
of their designs and the general excellence of their execution. In filling an
important chapter of Scottish heraldry, they furnish at the same time perhajts
the best evidence of the state of art of their periods, and no small proof of
the taste and splendour of that illustrious house." ^
An exhaustive history of the families of Douglas and An^us almost
includes the history of Scotland. At an early period in the annals of their
country the Douglases are found prominent in battle, in the church, and at
Cmirt. In the national struggles for freedom and independence, their names
and memories are cherished second only to those of Wallace and of Bruce. As
warriors, they long held the distinguished position of leading the van of
Catalogue of Scottish Seals, 1850, p. 48. this work have been engraved on wood l>v
^\ ith a few exceptions, the armorial seals in Mr. J. M. Corner of Edinburgh.
INTRODUCTIOX.
the royal armies in battle, and as senators, of giving the first vote in
jiarliament, and also of carrying the crown at royal coronations. They thus
long held the hereditary right of doing what in modern times was ascribed
to one great member of another illustrious house, who was said —
" To shake alike the senate and the field."
In the great " Douglas Cause," to be afterwards noticed, frequent reference
is made to the historical importance of the Heroes of Douglas. In one of the
pleadings for the Duke of Hamilton the following tribute is paid to them :
In the earlier periods of the Scots monarchy, when the power and authoritv
of the Kings of Scotland was feeble and weak, the noble and great families
were the chief support of the crown against intestine rebellions, and the
bulwark of the state against foreign invasions. The house of Douglas stood
in the front rank of these distinguished families, possessed of a great estate,
extensive territories and numerous dependencies. It was closely connected
with the royal family by frequent intermarriages, and produced a series of
heroes whose gallant and martial achievements in the service of their country,
however fatal upon many occasions to themselves, has stamped upon the
minds of all ranks and degrees of persons indelible characters of esteem,
respect and veneration, which neither length of time, nor the degeneracy of
later ages, have been able to efface.^
Without anticipating the detailed memoirs of the successive representa-
tives of the Houses of Douglas and Angus, which are related in this and
the Second Volume, a slight glance may here be taken at the more pro-
minent members.
"• Information for George James, Duke of Hamilton and Brandon, dated ISth April 1762.
Vol. ii. of Printed Papers.
THE GOOD SIR JAMES OF DOUGLAS.
XXIX
THE HEROES OF DOUGLAS AND ANGUS.
Tlie heroic deeds of the Douglases inspired the muse of Barbour, in
whose great poem of "The Bruce," Sir James of Douglas, the "Good Sir
James," is constantly referred to as the "doughty Douglas."^ This was
no mere alliteration, but a description of the character of one who was the
greatest soldier of his age, and who gained more battles than any other
commander of his time.
He is reputed to have been engaged in seventy battles, and to have been
victorious in all except thirteen. Sir Walter Scott, in his account of the
personal combat between Sir James Douglas and Sir John de Walton, the
famous English knight, says that the number of conquests in single combats
achieved by the Douglas in these wars was so great as to make it doubtful
whether he was not in personal strength and skill superior even to Bruce him-
self, and he was at least acknowledged as nearly his equal in the art of war.
Such was the influence of his name, not only in his own country, but
throughout England, and such awe had his achievements inspired amongst
the old enemies of his country, that English mothers are said to have quieted
their children by the mere threat of bringing upon them the Black Douglas.
This hero who was thus dreaded abroad, was beloved and trusted in his ow-n
country. His brilliant achievements for his sovereign were rewarded by
.:n-ants of many lands, which along with the original Douglas territory, formed
a vast estate. One w^rit known as the Emerald Charter is unique. It was
so called from the fact of King Bobert having, in token of investiture in
tiie piivileges conferred by the charter, with his own hand placed a ring con-
taining an emerald stone on the finger of Douglas, to abide as a memorial.
Xeither that ring, nor the original charter with which it was associated, is
The same designation of " doughty Lindsay in his poems specially refers to the
f)ouglas" is frequently used in the Buke of "docbtie Erlis of Dowglass." [Works, vol. i.
the Howlat by Holland, and Sir David p. 3I9.J
xxx
IXTBODCCTIOX.
known to «i.t. But the ter„,s of the grant are asc^tained fro^^he reoo,.,
of die Great Seal of Bruce.
The n^emoir of this great warrior r. gi.en in a subsequent chapter. an,l
men ron nray ere be n.acle only of the dying bequest by his rova, nLter of
ns I.eart to be carried to the Holy Sep„,cl,re. That sacral trust was
farth „lly undertaken, but at the cost of the life of the courageous Dou^la.
-ho fought w,th a heroism which was truly in the spirit of the words- ' '
" Like Douglas conquer, or like Douglas die."
The character which Holland, the author of the " Buke of the Howlat ■'
applies to the whole race of Douglas—
" 0 Douglas. 0 Douglas, tendir and trewe ! "
has been deemed specially applicable to the "Good .Sir Jame. » who i.
celebrated by the same writer as "tenderest and deir" to Bruce in his
greatest need.^
In the progress of the present work an interesting fact has been disclosed
m reference to Sir James Dougla.s. In all former histories of hin, it has
been stated that he had no legitrn.ate issue, but only one natural son who
became the third Eal-1 of Douglas and was himself a noted hero li ha.
now been ascertained that Sir James was succeeded in his estates bv ^
egrtrmate son. Willian. Douglas, who, however, drd not Ion. survive 'his
father, having been killed at Haiidon Hill in 1333. Another hiterestin. 1., t
has been ascertained in reference to Hugh Douglas, the immciiate voun-^er
brother of Sir Jan,es, and the successor of him and his sou William in The
IJouglas estates. In previous liistories the position of Hu,h Do„.-d,s has
been misunderstood. He has been supposed to have been w«,k ,„ .mud and
1,1V en to the Duugkbes as an armorial bear-
VALOUR OF TUE DOUGLASES.
I.o.ly, as he did not appear in arms with his relatives. This is now explained
liy his having become a priest, which prevented his joining in warfare.
His interesting armorial seal has been misread by heralds. Instead of dis-
playing a knight on horseback, as represented in the Catalogue of Scottish
Seals, it is a human heart supported by a unicorn.^
Several instances of the prowess of the Douglases are given by their
historian, Godscroft. AYilliam Douglas, Lord of Xithsdale, a grandson of Sir
James, was possessed of great physical strength, far beyond any of his con-
temporaries. Whomsoever he struck once with mace, sword, or spear, the
blow carried death with it, and never required to be repeated. At the battle
of Otterburn, James, the second Earl of Douglas, fought with a huge iron
mace, which was heavier than any ordinary man could wield, and dealt death
to all around. Archibald, Earl of Angus, " Bell the Cat," in his duel with
Spens of Kilspindie, cut off his thigh, through bone and all, with a single
stroke of his sword.
Sir Archibald Douglas, the youngest brother of Sir James, possessed many
of his valorous qualities, and as shown in his memoir, he became regent of
Scotland at a very critical period of its history. Sir Archibald Douglas was
lord of extensive estates througliout different districts of Scotland.
AVilliam, the first Earl of Douglas, son of Sir Archibald, the Eegent, and
nephew of the good Sir James, was also a distinguished warrior, and his
'•xploits at Poitiers gained him great renown. On the death of King David
Bruce, Douglas at first disputed the right to the Scottish throne with the firsr
of the Stewarts. Through his power and influence he added the extensive
Mr. Riddell noticed this seal, which he seal, and he does not appear to have noticed
says, "though not entire, has the heart that the heart was sup])cirted by a unicorn,
uncrowned, being the oldest instance of that Xor does he give the legend on the seal,
charge hitherto discovered in the family." which has an important bearing on the
[.Stewartiana, p. 140, note.] This is the only hitherto obscure history of Hugh Douglas,
description which Mr. Eiddell <:ive3 of the
JNTRODUCTIOX.
earldom of Mar to Ids own earldom of Douglas. His natural son, George
Douglas, inherited the ancient earldom of Angus, and was the ancestor of the
subsequent Earls of Angus, the Marquises of Douglas, the Duke of Douglas,
and his successors in the Douglas and Angus estates, as well as of the
Douglas Dukes of Hamilton.
James, the second Earl of Douglas and Mar, was the hero of Otterburn.
He was mortally wounded in that sanguinary conflict. But the fact was
concealed. The Douglas war-cry was raised as if the hero himself were
leading his army to victory —
" And Douglas dead, his name hath won the field."
He was the ancestor of the Douglases of Drumlanrig, and the Dukes of
Queensberry, and of the family of Douglas of Cavers. It is of this Earl of
Douglas that Burns wTote —
" One Douglas lives in Home's immortal page,
But Douglases were heroes every age."
An interesting fact regarding Sir William Douglas of Drumlanrig, son of
the hero of Otterburn, is, that in 1412, he received from James the young
Kinf^- of Scots, then a prisoner in England, a charter written with the king's
own hand, confirming all the grantee's lands, Drumlanrig, Hawick, and
Selkirk. A facsimile of this charter, dated at Croydon, is here given.^
After the second Earl of Douglas fell at Otterburn, his body was conveyed
to ^lelrose Abbey, and interred there with gnreat solemnity. The tombs
of the Douglases were in the north side of the chancel, the aisles and
1 After the memoirs of William, first Earl Mar, with ranking next after the earldom of
of Douglas and Mar, and of his son James, Sutherland. The Act also reserves to Walter
second Earl of Douglas and Mar, were printed, Henry, Earl of Mar and Kellie, the honour of
the Earldom of Mar Eestitution Act was Earl of Mar created by Queen Mary in favour
passed on 6th August ISS5. It restores to of John Lord Erskiae in 1565, with ranking
John Francis Goodeve Erskine the earldom of as of that date.
Mar, as held by Isabella Douglas, Countess of
OFFER OF A DUKEDOM TO TUIED EARL OF DOUGLAS, xxsiii
the diapels. These were wantonly destroyed by the English in 1544.
The sixth Earl of Angus resented this desecration, and inflicted punishment
upon the offenders at the battle of Ancnim Moor, In the charter of donation
by "William, first Earl of Douglas, to the abbot and convent of Melrose of the
lands of Penangushope and Xether Caldecleuch, in the barony of Cavers, for
the welfare of the soul of Sir William of Douglas of Lothian, who was slain
by the granter, it is stated that the body of Sir William rests in the church
of ]Melrosc before the altar of St. Bridget the Virgin.^
The successor of Earl James in the earldom of Douglas was his kinsman
Archibald, Lord of Galloway, who appears to have inherited the dark swarthy
features of his father Sir James, as he was commonly known as " The Grim "
or the Black Earl of Douglas. He acquired by purchase in 1372 the earldom
of Wigtown from Thomas Fleming, who was unable to hold it on account of
disputes with the petty chieftains of the territory, and was obliged to
surrender the earldom to Douglas, figuring afterwards as plain Thomas
Fleming, " alias Come? de Wigton." -
By his marriage with the heiress of Moray of Bothwell the third Earl of
Douglas added the barony of Bothwell as well as many lands in Morayshire
to his Douglas and Galloway possessions. When King Eobert the Third, in
the year 1398, created his eldest son, Prince David, Duke of Eothesay, and
his brother Piobert, Earl of Fife, Duke of Albany, the king also desired
to create Sir Archibald, the Black Earl of Douglas, a Duke. But the
Earl declined the honour, and when the heralds called out to him " Schir
Duk, Schir Duk," he mockingly replied " Schir Drak, Schir Drak." He
would only accept the name of Earl, which was an ancient dignity in Scot-
land, while that of Duke was only then created for the first time.^
The Earl of Douglas, however, was not devoid of ambition. He arranged
' Vol. iii. of this work, p. 19. 3 xim Book of Pluscarden, edited by Felix
' KegiatrumMagniSigilli.voLi.p. 114,Xo.5. J. H, Skene, ISSO, vol. ii. p. 254.
VOL. I. e
INTRODUCTION.
for the marriage of his daughter Mary to David, Duke of Rothesay, Prince of
Scothmd, and of his eldest son to the daughter of the king. This third Earl
was also a good friend to the Church, as will be seen from his memoir in a
subsequent chapter.
Archibald, fourth Earl of Douglas and second Lord of Galloway, succeeded
his father, the third Earl. He had more experience than success in warfare,
and was popularly called " Tyneman," owing to his loss of many battles. But
he always displayed distinguished bravery. By his power and influence he
added still further to the importance of his family both in his own country
and also in France. The Earl acquired the Lordship of Annandale, and for
services rendered to Charles the Seventh of France, was created Dl'KE of
TouRAlNE in that kingdom. He was also made Lieutenant-general of the
French forces. This was on the eve of the sanguinary battle of Verneuil in
Normandy, fought in the year 1424. The Duke and his second son James
were both killed in the battle, and their bodies were interred at Tours, the
capital of his duchy.^
The subsequent Earls of Douglas and Dukes of Touraine were prominent
in the State, though less publicly distinguished than their predecessors.
Archibald, fifth Earl of Douglas, besides succeeding to the dukedom of
Touraine, also acquired the title of Earl of LonguevUle in France. William,
the sixth Earl of Douglas and third Duke of Touraine, was only in his six-
teenth year when he succeeded to his father, the second Duke. According to
^ It is this Earl of Douglas who is made to Lady Mary Douglas, Duchess of Rothesay,
figure so conspicuously in "The Fair Maid of Her father was the "Grim" Earl of Douglas,
Perth," as the father-in-law of Rothesay. Sir and died before the death of Rothesay. The
Walter Scott, however, is historically inaccu- Earl of the romance was the fourth Earl,
rate in that fascinating romance. The Earl afterwards Duke of Touraine, who was the
of Douglas, who is made to announce to the brother, not the father, of the Duchess of
Duke of Albany the death of the Duke of Rothesay.
Rothesay, is represeuted as the father of
1628760
MAGNIFICENCE OF THE DOUGLAS EARLS.
Godscroft he imitated royalty, creating knights, holding courts like parlia-
ments, and having in his ordinary train a thousand horse. The name
of Doufjlas was then so great
" That scarce above it tower'd the royal throne,"
but their greatness created jealousy and caused their ruin. The youn^^ Earl
was accused of regarding himself as a foreign and independent prince, and of
meditating evil against his country. He was invited to the castle of Edin-
burgh by Chancellor Crichton, and after a mock trial was, with his only
brother, David Douglas, beheaded in the castle on 24th November 1440.
On the death of the sixth Earl the titles of Duke of Touraine and Earl
of Longueville both passed away from the Douglases. James Douglas, Earl
of Avondale and Lord Balvany, the granduncle of the sixth Earl, succeeded
to him as seventh Earl of Douglas. He had, in 1437, been created Earl of
Avondale in his own right. He only enjoyed the earldom of Douglas for
three years, as he died in 1443. He was popularly called "the Gross,"
from his uncommon corpulence.
His son, William, became eighth Earl of Douglas, and restored the power
of his house by his marriage with his second cousin. Lady Margaret Douglas,
" the Fair Maid of Galloway." She was the only daughter of Archibald,
fifth Earl of Douglas and second Duke of Touraine. This Earl William
was for a time in great favour and influence with King James the Second,
and became Lieutenant-general of Scotland. In the course of fourteen
months — between May 1450 and July 1451 — he received the large number
of thirty-two charters from King James the Second under the Great Seal.
These charters, although they included great earldoms, regalities, lordships,
baronies, lands, castles, forests, burghs, offices, patronages, etc., did not
actually add to the Earl's possessions, as they were granted on his own
resignation to himself and a series of heirs, but the enumeration of these
charters shows the vast territorial possessions of this Earl of Douglas. In
xxxvi IXTRODUCTIOJ.
1452 the Earl became involved in trouble with his sovereign. Under an
assurance of safety he was invited as a guest to Stirling Castle, wliere
he was mortally stabbed by the king's own hand in an apartment still
known as the " Douglas room." That blow from the royal hand was fatal
to the Earls of Douglas. James, the ninth Earl, and the three younger
brothers of the murdered Earl endeavoured to avenge his fate, but after a
brief struggle, the Douglases submitted and returned to their allegiance to
the king.
The reconciliation, however, was only a hollow truce. The murder by
the king rankled in the minds of the Douglases. The Earl and his three
brothers still harboured feelings of revenge for the cruel fate of the sixth
and eighth Earls. The king, however, was the first to take the field, and
though Douglas mustered an army, his hesitation to fight produced defec-
tion in his camp, and he was obliged to fiee. His brothers were defeated
at the decisive battle of Arkinholm on 1st May 1455. One of them was
slain, and another captured and beheaded. The Earl of Douglas himself
escaped into England, where he was received into favour by King Edward
the Fourth, and invested with the Order of the Garter. He joined the Duke
of Albany in invading Scotland in 1484. Douglas was captured, and brought
into the presence of King James the Third, who ordered him to be confined
in Lindores Abbey. He submitted to become a monk, retiring from the royal
presence with his back to the king, who was the son of the murderer of his
brother. He died in the year 1488, about the time when the king himself
was slain at Sauchieburn. This was the last Earl of Douglas. The title
had been enjoyed by the family for ninety-eight years, being an average of
only eleven years to each Earl.^
1 Tlda frequent change in the succession is the Douglas family. Between 1711 and 1810
in marked contrast to the enjoyment of the — a period of one hundred years — the duke-
dukedom of Queensberry by that branch of dom was possessed by only two Dukes.
TEE ANGVS LINE.
xxxvu
The Angus Line of the house of Douglas was also an illustrious race, and
many members of tliat line performed distinguished services to the state as
regents, chancellors, statesmen, and warriors. George Douglas, the first Earl
of Angus, accompanied his kinsman, the fourth Earl of Douglas, to the battle
of Homildon in the year 1402. He was taken prisoner, and died of the
pestilence in the same year.
His son William, the second Earl of Angus, was employed in important
embassies to England between the years 1423 and 1430, and held the office
of "Warden of the Middle Marches. He was in command at the battle of
Piperdean in the year 1435, and gained the victory.
George, the fourth Earl of Angus, was guardian of the East Marches. As
warden of the marches he, in 1455, led the royal forces against his kinsmen,
the brothers of the ninth Earl of Douglas, who had taken up arms against
the king. For his success in this enterprise Angus was rewarded with a gift
of the forfeited estates of Douglas. This gave rise to the saying that the
Eed Douglases, as the Angus line was named, had swallowed up the Black
Douglases, as the Douglas line was called. Thus possessed both of the
Douglas estates and of the earldom of Angus, this Earl became a very powerful
nobleman, and was known as the " Great Earl," When King Henry the Sixth
of England was dispossessed of his rule by King Edward the Fourth, and took
refuge in Scotland, the Earl of Angus entered into an important indenture with
him at Edinburgh on the 22d November 1462. For the assistance promised
by Angus, King Henry engaged to create him a Duke of England, to hold to
him and the heirs-male of his body for ever, with lands north of the Trent
and Humber to the yearly value of 2000 merks English, and that within a
month after Henry regained possession of his kingdom, or of the greater part
thereof. That indenture is still preserved with the signature of the king
affixed, and his Great Seal appended, which he had carried with him from
England to Scotland. But Angus died before the promised dukedom could be
xxxviii INTRODUCTION.
obtained. This was the second instance of the title of Duke being lost to
the Douglas family, and it did not come into the Angus line till very late
in their history.^
The eldest son of the fourth Earl, Archibald, fifth Earl of Angus, and
Chancellor of Scotland from 1493 to 1498, was popularly known as "Bell
the Cat." This appellation was derived from the well-known incident con-
nected with the despatch of the favourites of King James the Third at Lauder.
This Earl accompanied King James the Fourth on his fatal expedition
into England. Eemonstrating with the king against his mode of conducting
the advance of his army, the king taunted Angus with being afraid. This
affront to the veteran was inexcusable, and Angus left the field in sorrow,
but he commanded his eldest and second sons, and all their followers, to
continue with the king. They fell at Elodden with 200 Douglases. The Earl
died the same year in the Priory of Whithorn. Godscroft, the family historian,
describes Angus, and praises him for his personal virtues and accomplishments.
In Marmion, tlie author is not satisfied with one description of the
personal appearance of " Bell the Cat." He recurs to his hero in several
stanzas : —
" His giant form, like ruin'd tower,
Though full'n its muscles' brawny vaunt,
Huge-boned, and tall, and grim, and gaunt,
Seem'd o'er the gaudy scene to lower :
His locks and beard, in silver grew ;
His eyebrows kept their sable hue."^
* This fourth Earl of Angus commended prayers for protection against the darts of the
himself to the favour of the Prior and con- fierce enemy, and after death be happily
vent of the Abbey of Hexham. In letters united to the Author of Salvation. Vol. iu.
dated from the Chapter House of Hexham, of this work, p. 82.
13th August 14.j6, they refer to the devoted
attachment of the Earl to their Abbey, for ^ Marmion, by Sir Walter Scott, canto v.
which he should be remembered iu their stanza iv. edition 1857, p. 193.
^'BELL-THE-CATr
" Beside him ancient Angus stood,
Doffd his furr'd gown, and sable hood :
O'er his huge form and visage pale,
He wore a cap and shirt of mail ;
And lean'd his large and wrinkled hand
Upon the huge and sweeping brand,
Which wont of yore, in battle fray,
His foeman's limbs to shred away,
As wood-knife lops the sapling spray.
He seem'd as, from the tombs around,
Rising at judgment-day, "
Some giant Douglas may be found
In all his old array ;
So pale his face, so huge his limb.
So old his arm, his look so grim."^
« On the Earl's cheek the flush of rage,
O'ercame the ashen hue of age : •
Fierce he broke forth — ' And darest thou then
To beard the lion in his den,
The Douglas in his hall 1
And hopest thou hence unscathed to go ? —
No, by Saint Bride of Bothwell, no !
Up drawbridge, grooms ! — what, Warder, ho !
Let the portcullis fall.'"^
Gavin Douglas, the learned Bishop of Dunkeld, was one of the younger
sons of " Bell-the-Cat," and Archibald Douglas of Kilspindie was another.
1 Manrnon, by Sir Walter Scott, edition of the defenceless village of Douglas — that the
1857, canto vi. stanza xi. pp. 216, 217. ancient Lords of Douglas adhered to their
2 Ibid., stanza xiv. p. 218. The " im- prejudices against fortifications, and their
pregnable Tantallon," so well sung by the opinion of keeping the field, quaintly expressed
gifted poet in the same work, and the other in the well-known proverb of the family, "It
great castles held by the Douglas family, are is better to hear the lark sing than the mouse
rather at variance with Sir Walter's account cheep." Castle Dangerous, ed. 1833, p. 480.
xl INTRODUCTION.
The latter iu his youth was a special favourite of King James the Fifth, who
familiarly called him his " Greysteil." But losing the favour of his sovereign,
he was treated with that harshness which the king meted out in his " hasty
wrath" to all of the name of Douglas. The king's cruelty was specially
inflicted on a granddaughter of " Bell-the-Cat," Janet Douglas, Lady Glamis.
She was burnt to death on the Castlehill of Edinburgh as if she had been a
witch, although the crime of witchcraft was not even laid to her charge, nor
any proof offered of such a crime.
For his services to the Crown the fifth Earl of Angus received from James
the Third and James the Fourth, kings of Scotland, various grants of lands.
Among these were the lands of Crawford-Lindsay, which were forfeited by
the Earls of Crawford. In a decreet-arbitral, which finally adjusted the right
of Angus to those lands, it was provided that he should infeft John, Earl of
Crawford, in three acres of the lands called Stroroholme Knowe, in Crawford-
Lindsay, for the reservation and keeping of his style of the earldom of Craw-
ford. That reservation shows how, in the end of the fifteenth century, a
connection between a personal peerage of an ancient date and the land from
which the name was derived, was respected.^
The grandson of "Bell-the-Cat" became his successor as sixth Earl of
Angus in 1514. In the same year he married Queen Margaret, widow of
King James the Fourth. Like his grandfather, this Earl also held the ofiice
of Chancellor, and for a time the chief power and influence in the state were
wielded by him in conjunction with his younger brother. Sir George Douglas
of Pitteudriech, who was a very able and experienced statesman.
Allusion has been made in the notice of the third Earl of Douglas to his
1 Vol. iii. of this work, p. 155. This fifth appears from the safe-conduct by Henry the
Earl of Angus made a mark in the history of Seventh, in 1493, to the Earl to travel into
Scotland. Although he did not display such England with a train nut exceeding forty per-
a royal style as his predecessor, the sixth Earl sons, aud an equal number of horses, etc. Ibid.
of Douglas, he had no mean following, as p. 144.
SUCCESSION OF THE GLEN EERY IE LINE. xli
peculiar refusal of tLe title of Duke. In reference to that dignity a similar
story is told of Archibald, sixth Earl of Angus. When he was informed
by Queen Mary of Guise, then regent, of her intention to make Huntly a
l)uke, Angus vowed by St. Bride of Douglas, "that if he be a duke, I
will be a drake." This threat of Angus continuing to be supreme over
Huntly, even should he be raised to be a Duke, intimidated the queen,
and diverted her from her purpose of carrying out the intended creation, and
it was not till centuries afterwards that the representatives of the Angus and
Huntly families received the dignity of Dukes. _-■ •
The sixth Earl of Angus, although he was the stepfather of King James
the Fifth, and had been guardian to the king in his youth, was for many
years cruelly treated by the king, wlio forfeited his titles and extensive
estates, and banished the Earl and his relatives from the kingdom.
The Regent Morton was a Douglas of the Angus line, being the younger
son of Sir George Douglas, brother of the sixth EarL His efforts to secure the
earldom of Angus for his nephew Archibald, the eighth Earl, were successful,
although he had to contend against the powerful influence of the heir of line.
Lady Margaret Douglas, daughter of his uncle, the sixth Earl, and Countess
of Lennox. Morton's nephew became also, in 1587, Earl of Morton. He is
known in history as the Earl of Angus and Morton, and as the Good Earh
On his death, without surviving male issue, the Angus title devolved on the
Glenbervie branch of the Douglases, who carried on the line of descent. It
was the second Earl in the Glenbervie line, William, the tenth Earl of Angus,
who commenced the history of the houses of Douglas and Angus at the
express command of King James the Sixth, It was he who received from
King James the Sixth a special ratification of the privileges of his family,
and of their place in Parliament.
The eleventh Earl was created Marquis of Douglas in 1633. His great-
grandson Archibald was third Marquis of Douglas, He was created Duke of
VOL, I. /
introduction:
Douglas, and on his death without issue the elder male line of the Earls of
Angus carae to an end. Lady Jane Douglas was his only sister. The romantic
story of her chequered life is told in a subsequent chapter in a more exhaus-
tive form than in any previous memoir. Her only surviving son Archibald
Douglas succeeded to the Douglas estates on the death of the Duke, after a
protracted litigation, well known as the great " Douglas Cause," with George
James, Duke of Hamilton, then a minor, who claimed them as the collateral
heir-male of the Duke of Douglas. Archibald Douglas of Douglas was, in
1790, created Baron Douglas of Douglas in the peerage of Great Britain.
His present successor and representative in the estates of Douglas and Angus
is Charles Alexander, Earl of Home, who is also Baron Douglas of Douglas, a
title which was recreated in favour of his father, the late Earl of Home, after
the extinction of the former title by the death, without issue, of James, the
last surviving son of Archibald, first Baron Douglas.
THE TWO DOUGLAS BISHOPS, BRICE AND GAVIN.
While the houses of Douglas and Angus were famous in war and in the
state, two of the younger members were distinguished for their eminence
in the church and in literature. So early as the second known generation
of the Douglas family, Brice, a younger son of William of Douglas, first
of Douglas, became a priest, and afterwards Bishop of the extensive diocese
of Moray, which office he held for nearly twenty years, between 1203
and 1222.
The Angus line also produced an eminent and learned divine, Gavin
Douglas, who was Bishop of Dunkeld from 1516 to 1522. He became even
more famous as a poet, being author of the " Palice of Honour " and " King
Hart," as well as other poems. He translated the iEneid of Virgil into
Scottish verse. It is the greatest of his poetic productions. Short memoirs
ROYAL ALLIASCES OF THE DOUGLASES. xliii
of these two bishops will be found at their proper dates in the first and
second volumes of this work.
In "Marmion," Bell-tlie-Cat is made to say, —
" Thanks to Saint Bothan, son of mine,
Save Gawain, ne'er could pen a line."
]]ut that is a poet's licence. Three at least of the sons of Bell-the-Cat, as
well as himself, were good penmen, as appears from specimens in facsimile in
their respective memoirs. In addition to these there is a grant by " Bell the
Cat" to David Scott of Buccleuch, of the castle of Hermitage, dated 17th
April 1472, which contains the signature of " Archibalde, Erl of Angus," as
will be seen from the facsimile of the charter here given.
Sir Walter Scott, however, was as happy in his description of the personal
appearance of the poetic bishop, as he was in the delineation of his father,
already quoted —
" Amid that dim and smoky light,
Chequering the silver moonshine bright,
A bishop by the altar stood,
A noble lord of Douglas blood,
With mitre sheen and rocquet white ;
Yet showed his meek and thoughtful eye
But Uttle pride of prelacy ;
More pleased that in a barbarous age
He gave rude Scotland Virgil's page,
Than that beneath his rule he held
The bishopric of fair Duukeld." ^
ROYAL ALLIANCES OF THE DOUGLASES.
Both the houses of Douglas and Angus were frequently allied in marriage
with the royal family of Scotland. James, the second Earl of Douglas and
^•lar, married the Princess Isabel, eldest daughter of King Eobert the Second.
^ Marmion, by Sir Walter Scott, edition 1S57, canto vL stanza xi. p. 216.
xliv
IXTRODUCTIOX.
The gallant "William Douglas of Xithsdale married Egidia, another daughter
of King Eobert the Second, and acquired the lordship of Nithsdale as a mar-
riage portion with his wife. He was a son of the third Earl of Douglas, and
a grandson of the Good Sir James.
Archibald, the fourth Earl of Douglas, married the Princess ]\Iargaret,
eldest daughter of King Robert the Third. The Lady Mary Douglas, sister
of that Earl, married Prince David, Duke of Rothesay. George Douglas, the
first Earl of Angus, married the Princess j\Iary, youngest daughter of King
Robert the Third. After the death of Angus the Princess Mary married
successively other three husbands. The grandson of her first marriage, James,
third Earl of Angus, was betrothed to the Princess Johanna, daughter of
King James the First.
Archibald, the sixth Earl of Angus, married the Princess Margaret of
England, widow of King James the Fourth. The only child of that marriage
was Lady Margaret Douglas, who was tlie mother of Henry, Lord Darnley,
afterwards King of Scotland, as the husband of Queen Mary. From that
marriage her present Majesty, Queen Victoria, is lineally descended.
EXTENSIVE DOUGLAS TERRITORIES.
The power and influence of the house of Douglas may be estimated by
their extensive territorial possessions. These territories may be taken at two
different periods ; one in the time of William, eighth Earl of Douglas, who
succeeded in the year 1443, and was killed by King James the Second, in the
year 1452, and the other in the time of Archibald, eighth Earl of Angus, who
succeeded in 1558 and died in 1588.
Besides the lordship of Douglas, extending in length for about sixteen
miles, from the mountain of Tinto on the east to the hill of Cairntable
on the west, the eighth Earl of Douglas possessed several other earldoms
regalities, and baronies, in eleven counties of Scotland. He held the lands of
TERRITORIES OF THE DOUGLASES.
x\y
Fernie and Eiitherglen in the county of Lanark, with the barony of Abercorn
uiinexed to the earldom of Douglas in free regality. In the same county he also
possessed the baronies of Bothwell and Cormannock, and the lands of Blair-
niuiks, Culter, and Crawford-john ; in Ayrshire the lordship of Stewartou and
Duidop, with the lands of Trabeath ; in the stewartry of Kirkcudbright the
lordship of Galloway and the earldom of Wigtown; in Dumfriesshire the
lands and regalities of Eskdale and Stabilgorton ; in Selkirkshire the forests
of Ettrick and Selkirk ; in Eoxburghshire the baronies of Sprouston, Hawick,
Bedrule, and Smailholm, with the lands of Brondon ; in Berwickshire the
lordship and regality of Lauder, with the lands of Brigham and Hassington ;
in Peeblesshire the barony of Gleuquhim; in Haddingtonshire the barony of
Bolton ; in Linlithgowshire the lands of Culter and Ogleface, the half-lands
of Dundas and Echlin, and lands in Dalmeny and Queensferry ; and in
Aberdeenshire the barony of Aberdour, with the castle and rock of Dundarg.
Of these extensive territories the eighth Earl of Angus appears to have pos-
sessed only Douglasdale and Bothwell. To these, however, were added the lands
forming the great earldom of Angus and the large barony of Crawford. He also
succeeded his uncle, the Piegent Morton, in his title and territorial possessions.
At one time, indeed, in the zenith of their greatness, the Douglases might
almost have travelled on their own lands from Garioch in the north of Scot-
land to Galloway in the south. Even at the present day, when shorn of their
former extensive territories of Galloway, Annandale, and Nithsdale, the
Douglas owners of the Castles of Douglas and Drumlanrig can walk or ride
to and from those castles on their own land without requiring to touch on the
property of any conterminous owner. The distance is about thirty miles.
THE DOUGLASES AND THE GLEDSTANES.
One of the few remaining Douglas muniments relating to William, first
Earl of Douglas, which has been preserved, requires special notice : It is a
xlvi
INTRODUCTIOX.
letter of protection aLldressed by the Earl to Sir William of Gledstanes,
kuight, as his bailie of the barony of Cavers, charijing him to defend the
abbot and convent of ^lelrose in their freedoms and privileges, as lords of
the lands of Riugwood, within that barony. The letter bears date at ]\Ielro6e,
on the 24th of April 13G0. It is written in the French language, which the
lirst Earl of Douglas frequently used, having been educated in France.^
The family of Gledstanes of Gledstanes, like that of the Douglases, was con-
nected with the county of Lanark from an early date. Herbert of Gledstanes
is the first of the name who has been found on record. The Christian name
of Herbert was a very common one in the subsequent history of the family.
Herbert swore fealty to King Edward the First in the year 1296 for lauds in
the county of Lanark. These were, no doubt, the lands of Gledstanes in the
parish of Liberton, now the united parish of Liberton and Quothquan.
Besides holding the important office of bailie under the first Earl of
Douglas, Sir William of Gledstanes was associated with the Earl in his
military exploits in France. He accompanied the Earl to that country in
the year 1356, and w^as belted a knight at the battle of Poitiers.-
The office of bailie held by Sir William of Gledstanes under the first Earl
of Douglas, was continued in the family of Gledstanes in the time of Archi-
bald, fourth Earl of Douglas, afterwards first Duke of Touraine. This
appears from a precept which was granted by that Earl to James of Gled-
stanes on the -ith November 1413.^ The connection between the Earls of
Douglas and the family of Gledstanes, indeed, appears to have lasted as loni?
as the Earls of Douglas themselves. Forty years after the forfeiture of the
ninth Earl and his brothers, in the year 1455, Hugh Douglas, dean of Brechin,
who was son of Hugh Douglas, Earl of Ormond, brother of the last Earl of
' Vol. iii. of this work, pp. 21, 22, and ^ Original at Floors Castle. The date of
facsimile of the letter and seal there given. 140.3 should be 1413. A facsimile of the
- Fordun, ed. 1S71, vol. i. p. 377, note. Precept is here given.
;«=!W5>*^ifSf : **«'«rS<>»«!»^^-!<"3»««S«?»l*«'
r
THE DOUGLASES AND THE GL EDS TAXES.
xlvu
Douglas, entered into an indenture at Edinburgh, on the 24th January
1490, with his kinsman Archibald, fifth Earl of Angus, then Chancellor of
Scotland, and best known as " Bell the Cat." Amongst other matters agreed
ou between the two kinsmen, the dean became bound, immediately after
entering to the lands of Glenf[uholm, Pettinane, Gledstanes, or any other
lands belonging to the Earls of Douglas, or Earl James, Lord Avondale, or
the dean's father, the Earl of Ormond, in the shires of Lanark, or Peebles,
or elsewhere in Scotland, to resign into the hands of the king the fee of such
lands in favour of the Earl of Angus and his heirs, reserving to the dean
only the liferent of the lands resigned till he obtained promotion to a dignity
or benefice by the help of the chancellor.^
George, fourth Earl of Angus, had obtained from the crown a grant of
the forfeited estates of Douglas, in the year 1457, but his son and heir, " Bell
the Cat," may have had difficulty in making the grant efi'ectual, in so far as
related to Gledstanes and the other two landed estates mentioned in the in-
denture. The chancellor, therefore, deals with his cousin the dean as heir-male
of the Earls of Douglas, Avondale, and Ormond, to complete his feudal title
to Gledstanes and the other lands, and thereafter to dispone the fee to Angus.
We know from other records that Pettinaiu belonged to the Earl of Ormond
at the time of his forfeiture. Portions of Pettinain were granted to other
persons than the Earl of xVngus, and " Bell the Cat " may have wished to
dispute these grants, as coming in place of the Earls of Douglas, Avondale,
and Ormond. This accounts for Angus dealing with his cousin the dean
to assist him in recovering the lands of Gledstanes, and others.
From that claim of the Earl of Angus, as coming in place of the Earls of
Douglas, to the lands of Gledstanes either in superiority or property, it may
be inferred that these lands had originally belonged to the barons of Douglas
along with their other Lanarkshire estates, and been granted by them to
1 Indenture, vol. iii. of this work, pp. 160, 161.
xlviii
INTRODUCTION.
Herbert of Gledstanes, whose descendants continued to be closely connected
officially with the Earls of Douglas.
The descendants of Sir William of Gledstanes continued to make a figure
on the Borders for many generations till about the middle uf the last century.
Their principal residence was Cocklaw, a castle situated in the parish of
Cavers, in Eoxburghshire, while their lands lay in the adjoining parish of
Kirkton, and also in the parish of Manor, in Peeblesshire. The Gledstanes
of Cocklaw were also known by the territorial designation of Gledstanes of
that ilk.
Another branch of the family of Gledstanes was also known as of that ilk,
and latterly of Craigs and Kelwood, or Upper Kelwood, in the parish and
shire of Dumfries, — both families being probably descended from the original
stock of the name in Lanarkshire.
The Gledstanes of Cocklaw and Craigs failed in the direct male line,
and came to be represented respectively by an heiress and two co-heiresses.
Janet Gledstanes, the heiress of Cocklaw, died unmarried about the year 1734,
and the property was sold about the year 1741. The two co-heiresses of
Craigs, Agnes and Elizabeth Gledstanes, succeeded their father, John Gled-
stanes, in Craigs and Kelwood about the year 1620.
A third line was the Gledstanes of Arthurshiel, near the old place or
castle of Gledstanes, in Lanarkshire. The first of the Gledstanes of Arthur-
shiel who has been traced was William Gledstanes, who, before the year 1565,
was Laird of Arthurshiel. His lineal male descendants continued as owners
of that property for many generations, until William Gledstanes disposed of
it, and went to reside in the town of Biggar about the year 1679. Sir Thomas
Gladstone, Baronet, of Fasque, in the county of Kincardine, and his brother,
the Eight Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P., of Hawarden, are descended
in the direct male line from William Gledstanes of Arthurshiel, in the time
of Queen Mary, and William Gledstanes, last of Arthurshiels and of Biggar,
CADET BRAXCHES OF THE DOUGLASSES. xlix
who was their great-great-grandfather. Their lather, the late !Sir John Glad-
stone, Baronet, of Fasque, obtained a royal licence to drop the final letter •»
in his surname. Previously the letter e in Gled had been changed to o ;
and Gladstone is now the prevailing form of using the ancient Scottish name
of Gledstanes.
The connection between the three lines of the Gledstanes family which
have now been noticed, and Herbert of Gledstanes of 1296, has not been
ascertained. But it is probable he was the common ancestor of all those lines
of which that of Arthurshiel alone is now represented by male descendants.
CADET BRANCHES OF THE DOUGLASES.
Besides the main lines of Douglas and Angus, tliere were many branches
of the family who became very distinguished. Although it is not within the
scope of the present work to give a detailed history of these branches, they
may be briefly referred to.
THE DOUGLAS DUKES OF HAMILTON.
Lord William Douglas, second surviving son of William, first Marquis of
Douglas, was created Earl of Selkirk. He married the Lady Ann Hamilton,
who was Duchess of Hamilton in her own right, and he was then created
Duke of Hamilton for life. He was the direct lineal ancestor of the present
Duke of Hamilton, who is thus a Douglas in the male line.
THE DOUGLAS DUKES OF QUEENSBERRY, EARLS OF MARCH, ETC.
The Dukes, Marquises, and Earls of Queensberry, and also Dukes of
Dover, Marquises of Beverley, and Earls of Eippon, were also another distin-
guished branch of the Douglas family which rose to the highest rank. Theii-
ancestor was James, second Earl of Douglas and Mar, who was the hero of
Otterburn in 1388. He left two illegitimate sons. One of them, William
VOL. L U
1 INTRODUCTION.
Douglas of Dmmlanrig, was the ancestor of the Dukes of Queeusbeiry,
who are now represented in the female line by the Duke of Buccleuch and
Queensberry, while the Marquisate of Queensberry is inherited by the heir-
male, John Sholto^ Douglas, the eighth and present Marquis. The other son
of James, second Earl of Douglas and Mar, was the ancestor of the Douglases
of Cavers, who long held the office of hereditary Sheriff of Teviotdale.
The title of Earl of March, which was created in Lord William Douglas,
son of William, first Duke of Queensberry, in the year 1697, was inherited
by his grandson, William, third Earl of March and Earl of Euglen, who
succeeded as fourth Duke of Queensberry in 1778. He had thus three
peerages in his person. Dying without issue in December 1810, the title
and estates of March were inherited by Francis, Earl of Wemyss and :March,
grandfather of the present Earl of Wemyss and March.
The titles of Earl of Solway, Viscount Tibberis, Baron Douglas of
Lockerby, Dalveen, and Thornhill, which were created in the person of
Charles Douglas, Earl of Drumlanrig, in the year 170G, merged in the duke-
dom of Queensberry in 1711, and became extinct on the death of the Duke
in 1778 without surviving male issue.
Besides the dignities now referred to as created* in the Douglas family,
there were also the peerages of Earl of Ormond, Earl of Forfar and Lord
1 The uame of Sliolto, stated by Goclscroft Queensberry ami the Earls of Morton have
to have been the founder of the Douglas adopted the name of Sholto as Christian
family, does not appear to have been con- names. The only commemoration of the
tinned either in the line of the Earls of fabulous Sholto connected with the territory
Douglas or of the Earls of Angus-at least of Douglas is a great oak, known as" Sholto's
tiU quite recent times. This is not what Club." It stood, a remarkable object, where
usually occurs. Respect for the name of the Douglas Dale was bounded by several scat-
founder of a great family generally insures tered trees, the outskirts of the forest and
that his Christian name at least occasionally hill country. [Castle Dangerous, edition 1833,
appears when he has a long line of descend- p. 417.]
ants. Lately the families of the Marquis of
THE DOUGLAS EARLS OF MOllTON.
Wiuidell, Earl of Uumbartou and Lord Ettrick, Viscuuut of Belhaveii mid
Ivord Mordington, created in different members of the Angus line. Of
these dignities the only one now subsisting is that of Earl of Selkirk, which
lately merged in the Duke of HamOton as the heir-male of the late Dunbar
James, Earl of Selkirk. Tiie others are either extinct or dormant.
THE DOUGLAS EARLS OF MORTON.
The Earls of Morton were another distinguished branch of the house of
Douglas. Their reputed ancestor was Sir Andrew of Douglas, who was the
younger son of Sir Archibald of Douglas, eldest son of William, the first
known Douglas in the time of King William the Lion. Sir Andrew was
the great-grandfather of Sir William Douglas of Liddesdale, commonly called
" the Knight of Liddesdale," and " the flower of Chivalry." He was the first
Douglas who acquired the baronies of DalJveith and Aberdour. He also
obtained a gi-ant of the earldom of Athole in 1335, but only held it for about
seven years, having resigned the earldom in 13-42. The Knight of Liddes-
dale was killed by his kinsman and godson, William, first Earl of Douglas,
while hunting in Ettrick Forest, an episode explained in the memoir of the
first Earl of Douglas. He left an only child, Mary, and was succeeded by
his nephew, Sir James Douglas of Dalkeith, who was also a distinguished
knight.i
^ Mr. lanes, ia his preface to the Cartulary Mr. Kiddell lias, at great length and with
of Moray, refers to a charter granted by Sir severity, vindicated the Knight of Liddesdale
William Douglas of Liddesdale, and adds, from the imputation of bastardy made by
"The granter, I sujjpose to be the bastard Godscroft and Mr. Innes. He says, " I may
son of good Sir James Douglas " [p. xxxviiij. observe, by the way, that all mere supposition
This ia a serious mistake, into which Mr. should be entirely banished from genealoL-y :
Innes was led by Godscroft, whose statement it ia a stem and impracticable subject to deal
he should have tested, when he styles him with, neither susceptible of fancy, poetry, nay
rather irreverently "the gossipping chronicler even of the noblest flights of the imagination "
of the House of Douglas." [Stewartiana,p.83], The learned Ruddiman,
Hi
INTRODUCTION.
The testament of Sir James is printed in the Kegistrum Honoris de
Morton. It is one of the oldest known wills existing in Scotland, and bears
evidence that Sir James had a refined taste for books in several branches of
literature, including law and romance.
James Douglas of Dalkeith, a successor of that Sir James, was created
Eael of Moktox. The third Earl dying without male issue in 1553, the
earldom of Morton was inherited by the husband of Lady Elizabeth, his third
daughter, James Douglas, who became the famous Eegent Morton. He was
a Douglas of the Angus line, and was succeeded by his nephew, Archibald,
eighth Earl of Angus, as Earl of Morton, as already explained. The eighth
Earl left no male issue, and his title of Earl of Morton descended to Sir
William Douglas of Lochleven, as sixth Earl, who was the ancestor of Sholto-
George Watson Douglas, the present Earl.
A writer in " British Family Histories " thus refers to the greatness of the
Douglases : — " In the long course of years from the defeat of the English till
the establishment of the Eeformation, what a part the Douglases have played !
A Douglas received the last words of Eobert Bruce ; a Douglas spoke the
epitaph of John Knox. They were celebrated in the prose of Froissart, and
the verse of Shakespeare. They have been sung by antique Barbour, and by
Walter Scott, by the minstrels of Otterburn, and by Bobert Burns. Indeed,
it is matter of general consent among our Scottish neighbours that the
Douglases are their most Olustrious family." ^
A race so illustrious gave rise to the couplet quoted by Godscroft : —
" So many, so good as of the Douglases have been,
Of one surname were ne'er in Scotland seen."
in his edition of Godscroft"s History in 1743, but son lawful to Sir James Douglas de
noticed the mistake as to Sir William Douglas, Laudonia" [vol. i. p. 115].
and corrected it in these few words : " He is * Quarterly Keview,No. cxcvi., March 1S56,
not son to Sir James the Good Lord Douglas, p. iO-t.
PREVIOUS HISTORIES OF THE DOUGLASES. liii
PREVIOUS HISTORIES OF THE DOUGLASES.
The history of the houses of Douglas and Angus by Hume of Godscroft,
afterwards to be noticed, is commonly believed to be the only, as it is the
best known account of the family. But though not generally known, and
only casually referred to by Hume of Godscroft, and never by any other WTiter
on the Douglas family, another history of the Earls of Douglas was written
in the sixteenth century, and appears to have been finished in the year 1.5 GO.
The author was Sir Eichard Maitland of Lethington. The original manu-
script, or a contemporary transcript, is preserved in the charter-room of His
Grace the Duke of Hamilton. It is a small quarto volume consisting of
forty-six leaves written in a careful hand of the sixteenth century. A leaf
or two at the beginning, containing the first part of the Preface or Introduc-
tion, is now missing. The volume is bound in parchment, part of which
seems to have been originally used for the engrossment of a legal instrument
bearing the date of the year 1607. From names of persons which have been
scribbled on the blank leaves at the end of the volume it appears to have be-
longed successively to different owners. The crumpled edges of the leaves,
and the tattered binding, indicate that the volume has been much handled.
Sir Richard Maitland, the author of that history, was born in or about the
year 1496, and was the eldest son of William Maitland of Lethington and
his wife, Martha Seton, daughter of George, second Lord Setou. Sir Eichard
was educated at the University of St. Andrews, and became an accomplished
^holar. He afterwards studied law in France. He was appointed an
extraordinary Lord of Session in the year 1551. About nine years afterwards
lie had the misfortune to lose his eyesight, but his blindness did not
mcapacitate him for business. Sir Eichard died on the 20th of ^larch 1586,
at the age of ninety years. Xotwithstanding the blindness under which he
suffered for a long period of his life, he was a diligent historical writer and
^i^ ■ INTRODUCTION.
poet, as well as collector of legal decisious, and of early Scottish poetry. The
best of his own poems are " The Blind Barons Comfort," and a " BaUat
of the Creation of the World." His poems were printed in 1830 for the
members of the Maitland Club, which was named after him. In the previous
year, the club had printed his history of the House of Setou.
Sir Eichard's history of the Douglas family begins with a narration of
the exploits of the good Sir James, chiefly drawn from Barbour's poem of the
Bruce, and ends with James, the ninth and last Earl of Douglas. It is
prefaced by some remarks upon the parentage of Sir James Douglas, and his
succession, but the author is unable to solve the difficulties he° propounds.
The history is verj- meagre, and contains little information on the real history
of the Douglases. It has been quoted in the present work ; but the refer-
ences to it are very fe^^■. In a concluding paragraph Sir Eichard excuses
himself for not writing the history of the branches of the Douglas family
at the same time as the Earls. He expresses a hope to be able, at some
future time, to write the history of the branches also ; but he recommends
that each branch should make a perfect history of their own house. "And
so ends," he adds, " this historye of that noble and famous hous of Dowglass
and Erlis thairof, coUectit and set furthe be Sir Eichard Maitland, of Lething-
ton, Knycht, ane of the Senattouris of our Souveranis College of Justice,
the day of Anno i^v'^lx." ^
1 Mary Maitland, the second daughter of Sir Scottish Poems, 17S6, vol. i. preface p vi j
Eichard, appears to have acted as his amanu- The Poems of Sir Richard Maitland were
ens.s after his blindness. His poetical collec- printed in the year lS30, by the Maitland
tions are contained in two volumes. One is a Club, under the editorial care of Mr Joseph
quartern her handwriting. On the first page Bain, advocate. Amongst the works of
IS her name, and the date 1585. Pinkerton Sir Richard which are mentioned in the
says that Sir Richard had lost his sight before Preface, his History of the Earls of Douglas
1561 : and the daughter, writing from the is not included, being unknown. [Preface,
diction of the venerable old bard, would form p. Ixvi.]
an admirable subject for painting. [Ancient
ORIGiy OF GODSCROFTS HISTORY.
Iv
HUME OF GODSCROFT'S HISTORY.
The History of the Douglas family by David Hume uf Godscroft is a
much more elaborate and exhaustive work than that of Sir Iiichard Maitland.
As already mentioned, the fame of the Douglases had impressed the youthful
mind of King James the Sixth, whose grandmother was a Douglas, and in
obedience to the royal wish, the tenth Earl of Angus began a history of the
family. He was, indeed, so identified with it as to be the reputed author of
" A Chronicle of the House of Douglas." ^ His son, the eleventh Earl, states
that his father actually drafted, with his own hand, the first " delineaments,
instructions, and noates " for the history. But the tenth Earl did not live
long after the work had been commenced, and died many years before it was
completed. The real authorship of the history, as we now know it, is justly
attributed to Godscroft, to whom the tenth Earl confided the work. Gods-
croft must ever be remembered as the historian of that great family, to whom
he showed so much devoted attachment, both as a relative and a retainer.
Godscroft's own personal history, so far as it is known, may be briefly
stated. He was born in or about the year 1560, and appears to have been
the third son of David Hume of Wedderburn, and his wife, Mariota Johnstone,
daughter of Andrew Johnstone of Elphinstone." Godscroft inherited the blood
1 Moule'a Bibliotheca Heraldica. George wlio had access to many of the Charter-chests
Crawfurd, ia his Peerage of Scotland, pub-
lished in 1716, states that the Earl of Angus,
" from the Scots history, and the documents
of his family, wrote a chronicle of the Dou-
glasses,— a much more elaborate work than
that put out in the year 1G44, dedicated to
the Marquis of Douglas." [Peerage, p. 105.]
In that statement Crawfurd appears to have
fallen into error. Sir Robert Douglas in his
Peerage does not adopt the statement, and
Mr. Wood in his edition of Douglas only
mentions it in a modified form. Crawfurd,
in the west of Scotland, had probably seen
the bulky MS. History of Godscroft, now at
Hamilton Palace, and without strict examina-
tion, had hastily inferred that it was a separ-
ate chronicle of the Douglas family by the
Earl of Angus. But no such separate chron-
icle ia known to exist, although diligent
inquiry has been made for it.
2 Mr. James, Mr. David, and John Hume,
as brothers - german to George Hume of
Wedderburn, granted discharges to him for
Ivi
INTRODUCTION
of Douglas from his grandmother, Alison IJouglas, the wife of David Hume
of Wedderburn, his grandfather. She was a daughter of George, Master of
Angus, eldest son of " Bell the Cat." The name of David Hume is entered in
the Register of Students at the University of St. Andrews, as incorporated in
St. Leonard's College, in the year 1578. The entry probably applies to our
historian, who afterwards took the territorial designation of Godscroft from
a small property of that name situated in the parish of St. Bathans, Ber-
wickshire. It now forms part of the estates of Colonel Milne-Home of
Wedderburn, who is in possession of the title-deeds of Godscroft so far back
as the year 1589.
The lands of Godscroft ^ were held in feu from the collegiate church of
Dunglas, and the provost of that church, with consent of the patron,
Alexander, Lord Home, granted, on 2d April 1589, a charter uf these and
other lands, to Mr. John Home, brother to George Home of Wedderburu.
Five years afterwards, in August 1594, Mr. John Home disponed to his
brother David the lands of Godscroft and Luckiesmill, granting on the
28th of the following September a formal feudal charter of these lands to
David Home and his spouse, Barbara Johnstone, daughter of James
Johnstone of Elphinstone. Thenceforward David Hume was designated of
Godscroft. The lands continued to be possessed by him tUl his death, in
or about the year 1632. On the 1st March of that year, John Hume, as
his eldest surviving son, renounced his claim to enter heir to his father,
in favour of Dame Mary Hume, Lady Arniston.- On the 29th of the same
month of March, she obtained a decree of adjudication, adjudging from John
their provisions under their fathers testa-
ment, dated 17th June and 20th July 1589,
and both recorded in the Books of Council
and Session, 14th January 1590. [Vol. iii.]
^ The natives pronounce the name Gowks-
croft, gowk in the Scottish language being
applied to the Cuckoo. Hume sometimes
styled himself Thcarjrius.
^ She appears to have been a niece of
Godscroft.
/
COPIES OF GOnSCROFTS HISTORY IN MANUSCRIPT.
Huiue the lands of Godscroft and others. These lands remained in the
fiiniily of Dundas of Arniston for several years, and were acquired before
1725, by Mr. Ninian Home of Billie, from whom they appear to have
descended to the present owner, Colonel Milne-Home.
Godscroft enjoyed many advantages for writing his Histor\^ About the
year 1582, as appears from his own work, he became the confidential agent or
secretary of Archibald, the eighth Earl of Angus and fifth Earl of Morton.
When, at a later date, he was employed by William, tenth Earl of Angus.
to write the history of the Douglases, he was able to gather many traditions
of the family, and had full access to their muniments.
As the first " delineamentis, instructions, and noates " made by the tenth
Earl for the history, and also the original draft of the work as completed by
Godscroft, are missing, it is impossible to say how much of the history was
written by the Earl, and how nmch by Godscroft. But the work, as we now
know it, both in contemporary manuscript and the printed edition, bears to
be written by Godscroft.
A copy of the History in manuscript is still preserved at Hamilton Palace.
It appears to have been acquired by Lord William Douglas, the first Douglas
Duke of Hamilton. A sheet of holograph notes by his Grace criticising the
history, is preserved with the manuscript. This copy forms a large folio volume
bound in vellum, and is divided into two nearly equal parts — the first part, re-
lating to the Earls of Douglas, contains 356 pages, while the second portion, the
history of the Earls of Angus, contains 341 pages. Both parts together form
a bulky volume of 697 folio pages, all closely written. This appears to be the
copy which the eleventh Earl of Angus intended to be printed by himself and
his revising assistant. It contains many additions and corrections through-
out holograph of the Earl. The work was dedicated by Godscroft to that
Earl, and by him rededicated to King Charles the First. The copy of the
letter of dedication by Godscroft, which is in the Hamilton copy of the work,
Vol. I. h
Iviii INTRODUCTIOX.
is addressed to the eleventh Earl as Marquis of Douglas, and subscribed
" David Hume." But this dedication to the " Marquis " is an anachronism,
as Godscroft had died shortly before the Earl was created a Marquis.^
The exact year in which King James the Sixth expressed his wish for a
history of the Douglas family has not been ascertained. But it was probably
about the year 1595, or four years after the succession of the tenth Earl to
the title. The work was probably commenced by Godscroft in or about that
year, and it was finished during the lifetime of the King, who is referred to
in the preface as " Now happily the first King of Great Brittaine, France
and Ireland." But although the history was thus finished in manuscript
before the year 1625, in which King James died, a delay of six years occurred
before a licence was obtained in 1631 to print it, and a further delay took
place before the work was printed and published in 1644.
The following letter of dedication written by William, eleventh Earl of
Angus, afterwards Marquis of Douglas, to King Charles the First, explains
the origin of the work. The letter is undated, but it had been written before
the 17th of June 1633, when tlie Earl was created Marquis, and probably
after 14th September 1631, when a licence to print was obtained.
To the King's roost Excellent Majestic, Charles, etc.
It will please yow, sir, the king your father, of ever blissed memorie, was pleased
to give ordour vnto my lord and father to looke into his evidentis and other records,
thereby to inforrae his Mtyestie of the true original!, descent and pedegree of the howse
of Dowglas and Anguss, which hath the honowr to haue been the roote and stock of
his royeall progenitouris vpon the father's side ; which direction my lord, my father,
in his time did carefully endeavour (according to his bounden dutie) to performe, by
drawing with his owne hand the first delineamentis, instructions and noates for the
penning of this present historie ; and therefter. by recommending the more paineful
parte of the exact searching and setting doun particulars by waye of an historical!
* Godscroft was also the author of a His- Abbotsford Club in the year 1839. He like-
tory of the House of Wedderburn by a son wise wrote several poems,
of the family, which was printed for the
DEDICATION TO KING CHARLES THE FIRST.
lix
iiarratiou vnto the care and industrie of this honest and learned gentleman, whose
n;inie is here prefixed to the worke. And he hauing now acquitted himself of that
charge with that candour which well befitted a faithfull and vnpartiall wrj-ter, he was
induced by his owne reasons to dedicate his labouris vpon this subiect vnto me (as is
apparent by his subsequent epistle). But I, considering that the first motion and
occasion of raiseiiig and reviving of these auncyent worthies from the dust of a long
and obsolete obliuion proceeded from the most praiseworthy and generous mynde of
your royeall father, thought it most reasonable and best beseeming me, humbly to
surrender vnto his late Majestie and to yourself that which I accounte more honour
than belougis to me, where any of your princely names are but mentioned. And
therfore I do, in all submission, entreate your excellent Majestie to be graciously
pleased to sufi'er these good endeavouris to retume back again vnto that princely point
where thay took thare first beginning, by accepting of the same into your favourable
protection ; which I do presente vnto your Majestie with my verie best affections and
most dutiful service, as being confident that your -Majestie will no les refuse at some
houres of leisure, to cast a favorable eye vpon these true memoriallis of these your
princely progenitouris, than your royeall father did to heare and reade with applause
certain congratulatorye Latin verses, wherewith this author was bold to entertaine and
Wellcome his late Majestie at his ioyefuU retume into his native countree from Eng-
land in the year 1616; a parte of which verses were as follows : " Atque hsec inter
tot diademata," etc.^ And Englished, " But, sir, desdaine not," etc.
Your Majestie's most humble and most obedient, Anguss.-
Another letter, or rather an old copy of a letter, is bound up with the
manuscript copy of the History which is at Hamilton Palace. It refers to
the many painful years in which the author had laboured on the work, and
his great anxiety even on his deathbed to have the work published. The
followinac is the letter : —
It may please your Majestie,
This learned gentleman, the author of this book, haueing often in his life t\Tne
and but a few dayes before his death, earnestlie entreated (nay coniured) me by our
^ The congratulatory poem by Godscroft - From the original or an old copy letter
here referred to was entitled, " Regi suo affixed to MS. copy of Godscroft's History in
gratidatio." the Advocates' Library, Edinburgh.
Ix
INTRODUCTION.
long contiuued freudship and education together, and for my own name's sake, not
to suftcT this birth (for bringing foorth whereof he had beene in labour soe manie
painfull yeares) to perish and be smoothered in the cradle ; which vehement desire of
the dead, and last testimonie of his loue and confidence in me, I haue beene exceeding
loth to disappoint : Tlierefore after diligent pervseiug of the same, I haue by the good
assistaunce of a persounadge of speciall note, and chieflie interessed in the bussines,
done my best to bring it thus to light. The author hath withal left me these twoe
subsequent epistles to be prefixed theirevnto. But myself haueing thus this smale
interesse therein (though claymiug nothing of it but the faultes), and being one growne
old in the service of the king your lyiajestie's father, of ever blessed memorie, and
therethrough haueing been, amongst diuers others, an eare-witness that his late
Majestie gaue the first occassion to this research by his expresse comaundemente to the
late Earle of Angus (William the 4 that died at Paris),^ whoe accordinglie set downe
the first grounds thereof, from his auncient evidentes and other recordes ; as likewise
haueing the honour still to coutinewe one of your Highnes owne domesticks withalh
I could not be aunswerable to myself in duetie, without presenting it vnto your
excellent Majestie as your proper due, and submissiuelie peticcioning your gracious
protection to this posthume orphan that dares not otherwise venture to come vppon
the stage, and vndergoe the curious censure of the world : Wherevppon, when your
Majestie shalbe pleased to cast your fovourable eye, theare may be scene that besydcs
the nomerous race of your royall progenitours, theise alsoe not a few nor to be con-
temned worthies, are to he likewise reckoned in that list, with many rare examples of
vertue, and forceible stirrings vpp to generous actions, wliich was not vnfitlie expressed
by this same author to the king, your Miijestie's father, in souie Latine verses, where-
with he welcomed his Majestie at his la.>t progresse in Scotland in anno 1617, a few
lynes whereof are sett downe on the other syde as not impertinent to this purpose.
Your Majestie's most humble and most obedient servant,
G. D.
The writer of this letter, whom Godscroft thus made his literary executor,
has been identified as .Sir George Douglas of Mordington, a grandson of
Sir George Douglas of Pittendriech, who was brother of Archibald, sixth Earl
of Angus. His father was known a.s George Douglas of Parkhead, havino-
married ]\Iary Douglas, the heire.ss of that estate, as narrated in the second
• This refers to the tenth Earl of Angus, father of the tirst Marquis of Douelaa.
GODSCnOFTS LITERARY EXECUTOR. ixi
volume of tliis work.i Sir George Douglas of Mordington, like Godscroft,
was a compauion of the eighth Earl of Angus during the latter's exile in
Kngland in 1581, and also in his adventures during 1583.2 After the death
of that Earl, George Douglas entered the service of King James the Sixth,
its appears from a receipt in his name in lo89.-^ He continued to act as a
Gentleman of the Bed-Chamber for many years, probably until the death of
King James, and received the rank of knighthood. Beside the principal manu-
script copy of Godscroft's work, already noted, there is at Hamilton Palace a
careful manuscript transcript of tlie Angus portion of it, made about the year
1662 or later. On a blank leaf of this transcript is a reference to Sir George
Douglas, in the form of an epitaph, composed by himself before his death.
He claims that he " did familliarlie converse with all the antient worthies of
the name " of Douglas, and that " some ingredients he put in the charmes,
that maks those long-neglected lords reviwe." Sir George Douglas did not
long survive his friend Godscroft, as he died on 7th September 163i, and he
was interred in St. Bride's, Douglas, by the favour of the Marquis of Douglas.
Another epitaph, by a later hand, informs us that he was a great lover of the
muses, who are represented as mourning his decease.^ Perhaps he aided in
contributing the curious Latin verses which appear in Godscroft's History at
the end of each memoir.
Godscroft was, in his capacity of secretary and confidential agent, in con-
stant correspondence with Archibald, the eighth Earl of Angus, who died in
1588, and was much trusted by the ninth, tenth, and eleventh Earls of
Angus. But notwithstanding all tliis intimacy with these four successive
Karls, there has not been found among the muniments of the Douglas
family a single original letter of their laborious historian. His correspon-
dence may have perished in the fire which, in the year 1758, destroyed
* Pp. 168, 169. - 3 VoL iii. of this work, p. 294.
* Ihkl. pp. 3.39, 348, note. 4 ^js. at HamUton Palace, p. 326.
Lxii
INTRODUCTION.
Douglas Castle itself. The only document which has been found in the
Douglas Charter-chest relating to Godscroft is an original contract entered
into at Edinburgh on 7th December 1G26, between him and William,
eleventh Earl of Angus. In it the Earl narrates the good, true, and thankful
services, other gratitudes, pleasures, and good deeds done by Godscroft to him
and his predecessors in time bygone, and binds himself and his heirs to infeft
Mr. David Hume and his heirs, by charter and sasine, in the lands of Wester
Brockholes, in the lordship and regality of Boncle and Preston, and shire
of Berwick.^ This was duly done, the charter bearing date 7th December
1626.- The lands, however, were granted under reversion for the sum of
one thousand merks Scots, redeemable at the Earl of Murray's tomb in the
Kirk of St. Giles, Edinburgh, after the death of Mr. David Hume. Part of
the good services and deeds done by Godscroft no doubt had reference to his
history of the Douglas family, which appears to have been completed about
the time that the contract was made.^
While no other specimen of the handwriting of Godscroft has been found in
the Douglas Charter-chest, a discharge written and subscribed with his own
hand in the year 1616, has been found at Castle Menzies. This document,
of which a facsimile is here given, is of much importance as proving that
manuscript copies of Godscroft 's History, which are occasionally offered for
sale as in the handwriting of the author, are really in other and unknown
handwritings. The terms of the holograph receipt by Godscroft are as
follows : —
^ CJontract in Douglas Charter-chest.
2 Douglas cartulary, ms., vol. L folio 112,
in the Douglas Charter-chest.
3 An earlier notice, in the fifteenth century,
of these lands of Brockholes is interesting, as
showing the form then in use of annulling an
infeftment. Lady Elizabeth Dmmmond,
spouse of George, Master of Angus, on 6th
August 1495, proceeded to the ground of the
lands of Brockholes, and there broke a wooden
dish in token of breaking a sasine of the
lands, which had been too hastily granted to
Peter Carmichael. Vol. iii. of this work,
p. 14G.
"'t*T*?'?siW55Rrr»'5^?!^'^'^^*'^BK
E^5»«A**^ /W**\ -if^o -f'^*>v ^<^>«S^ yi^^^ »r»»i^V«^ / vjw*'_
GODSCROFT'S HAND WRITING.
Ixiii
I, Mr. David Hwme of Godscroft, grants me by this present to have receved from
James Nasmithe, servitour to Sir Alexander Meinzes of that ilk, the sowme of fourtie
lib. moneye Scots : in respect qhuerof, I, as curator to Gilbert and Anna Jhonstoune,
in qhuais name I have recewed the said sowrae, as for a terraes annwell of ane
obligatioun maid to thair wnqhuyll mother, qhuerto thay ar assignayes, continwes the
said band and payment therof till Mairtimes next to cum ; renuncing ail peualtie that
mycht ensew on the non payment thairof for all termes past : Binding and oblisching
me to warrand this present acquittance from all deadlye, all law. Written and sub-
scryvit with my owen hand: At Edinburgh, the 23 of Junij 1600 and sextein ;
Befor thir witnes, Jhon Hwme my lawful! soon ; Hew Nisbet in Kimnierghame.
D. HUME.1
The earliest and latest specimens of the signature of Godscroft which
have been found are affixed to the contract as to the lands of Godscroft
dated in 1594, and the subsequent contract affecting Brockholes, dated
in 1626. The following are facsimiles of the respective signatures : —
^tuuI-Jowme^
Bound up with the manuscript copy of Godscroft 's History at Hamilton
is " A Copie of the Principall Liscense " given by Archbishop Spottiswoode
to print the work. It is in the following terms : —
Wee by these presentis graunt liscense for the imprinting the Book wryten by
Master David Hume of Godiscroft, of the lives and descent of the familie of Douglas,
and containing in it nothing contrarie to pietie and good manners : And being profit-
able to stirr vpp the posteritie to the imitation of virtuous and noble actes.
Sic subscribitur
Dairsie, 14 September 1631. Sanct Androis.
Advantage was not taken of that licence to print the book in the lifetime
of the author. One of the causes of delay was probably the death,,in 1634,
' Original at Castle Menzies.
Ixiv
INTRODUCTION.
of Sir George Douglas, who appears from his letter above quoted to have
taken great interest in tlie work. But the manuscript copy which has been
preserved bears many traces of careful preparation for the press. Throughout
the whole of it there are many additions in the handwriting of the first
Marquis of Douglas. The death of Godscroft appears to have delayed the
printing, although, as already shown, he had expressed anxiety on the subject
only a few days before his death.
The original title-page, which appears to have been written by the author
himself, is preserved in the manuscript copy of the Douglas part of the work,
in the Library of the Faculty of Advocates, Edinburgh. It is as follows : —
THE ORIGINE
And Descent of the most noble
And jllustrous farnilie, and name
of Douglas :
Conteyning their Lyfes, and valerous
Actes of armes, for the Defence
And glorie of the Crowne
of Scotland.
Collected out of Histories, publike
Monuments, Evidents and others the
Lyke Records of Ancient memorie,
Of the Realme of Scotland ;
And devyded in two traitties
By
Dauid Hume of Gods-croft
Gentilman.
Douglas by Anagrame, Al so gud.
No name, no Race, no pedegree, nor blood
In Albion were ere scene, Al so Good.
The second or Angus part of the history was first printed, but not until
the year 1643. It bears the following fitle : "The Second Part of the
History of the Douglasses, containing the House of Angus. By Master David
H
THE
I S T O R Y
OF
THE HOUSES
O U°G LAS
AND
ANGUS.
Written hj ci5MCaJier Davip Hume
Cy^GoBSCROFT.
^c ::'^'
EDINBURGH,
Trinted hy E van Tyi>ei^, Trinter to
- fi?^ -^'^^>^ ^5^ Excellent ^J\fajejlie^,
. I (5 4 4.
THE
SECOND PART
O F Th E
HISTORY OF THE
LASSES,
THE HOUSE OF
ANGUS.
By Mafter David Hume of Godicroft.
EDINBURGH,
Printed by Evan Tyler, Trinter to the
I\ings mojl Excellent (iS\faje/iie. 1^45.
_ - —
PlilNTIXa OF GOBSCROFTS HISTORY. Ixv
Himiu of Godscroft. Edinburgh, printed by Evan Tyler, printer to the
King's most excellent Majestie, 1643."
The first or Douglas part bears the date of 1644, with the following title-
page : " The History of the Houses of Douglas and Angus, written by Master
Dav-id Hume of Godscroft. Edinburgh, Printed by Evan Tyler, printer to
tlie King's most excellent Majestic, 1644." Exact facsimiles of these two
title-pages are here given. Neither of tlie title-pages are in the revised copy
of the manuscript history at Hamilton.
Both parts of the work were published in one folio volume in the year
1644, or rather printed with the intention of being published in that year, as
the publication was interrupted. On a comparison of the copy prepared for
the press with the edition tirst printed, it appears that the print is quite
different in many portions from the revised copy. Many parts of the latter
have been omitted in printing. Mr. John Hume, the son, and Anna Hume,
the daughter of Mr. David Hume the author, incurred the expense of print-
ing the work from another copy which may have been inherited from their
father. Owing to the careless editing and extensive abridging of the manu-
script, the print gives only an imperfect idea of Godscroft 's work. This gave
dissatisfaction to the first Marquis of Douglas and his eldest son Archibald,
Earl of Angus. The displeasure of the ^Marquis is expressed in a letter dated
25th January 1644, while the printing was proceeding, in which he states his
willingness to " compone " with the editors, to pay a part of the expense of
printing, and to let them have the benefit of the " trew richt coppie." ^
The Earl of Angus, eldest son of the Marquis, being then, by an arrange-
ment with his father, in possession of the family estate, was so much displeased
^^ath the history as printed, that he obtained from the Privy Council of
Scotland an injunction, or arrestment as it is called, against the sale of the
Vol. iv. of this work, p. 252. No. 241. This evidently refera to the copy revised by
himself, and now at Hamilton.
VOL. r. 4
kvi INTRODUCTION
work. That injunction lasted for two years, after which an arrangement was
come to, as appears from the following order of the Privy Council dated 30th
July 16-16. "The Lords of Counsell discharges lieirby the arrestment layd
vpon the bookis of the historic of Douglas and Angus at the instance of
Archibald, Lord Angus, to the effect the same may be vended and sold for
the vse of Anna Home and Mr. John Home, minister at Eccles, at whois
charges they wer printed." '
Such were the unfortunate circumstances which attentled the publication
of the great life-labour of Godscroft. Througliout his entire work he displays
the most devoted loyalty to his patrons, and he extols the Douglases as the
greatest family known to the Avorld either in ancient or modern times. He
records their praises under four principal heads : antiquity, nobility, great-
ness, and valour.
Eecent writers have differed as to the merits of the work of Godscroft.
Mr. Tytler, though great as an historian himself, seems to have entertained
as much prejudice against the historian of the Douglases as he too fre-
quently displays against many members of the Douglas family. Of Hume he
writes : — " As a biographer Hume of Godscroft not unfrequently gives us
characteristic traits which I borrow from his pages when they bear the marks
of truth. As an authentic historian no one who has compared his rambling
eulogistic story with contemporary documents, will venture to c|uote him." "
A writer on " British Family Histories " gives a more favourable estimate
of the work of Godscroft in the following notice of his book : —
'• ' The History of the Houses of Douglas and Angus ' ends witli the death of
^ Reijist. Secreti Concilii — Decreta MS. H.M. - Mr. Tytler's History of Scotland, third
General Eegister House, Edinburgh. Anna edition, 1S45, vol. iv. pp. 3.3.3, 334, note. It
Home was also an independent authoress, and maybe stated, however, in justice to Gods-
wrote the "Triumphs of Love, Chastity, and croft, that Mr. Tytler never saw the manu-
Death," translated from Petrarch, Edinburgh, script, which is much suiierior to the printed
1644, 12 mo. work.
PUBLICATION OF GODSCROFrs HISTORY. Ixvii
Archibaltl the eighth Eaii of Augus, a friend of the historiau's, iu 1588.^ With all its
defects, occasional exaggerations iu the early part-s, and here and there a genealogical
error, which the more accurate science of the day enables us to correct, and in spite of
a certain pedantic tediousncis and prolixity, this book of Hume of Godscroft still remains
an excellent specimen of its class. Antiquaries esteem it as a good general authority ;
and its loyalty of spirit, antique dignity of style, and occasional gleams of picturesque
colour, make it worthy of a larger number of readers than it has lately found. It were
to be wished that any English family of corresponding rank had a historj' of correspond-
ing excelleuce. But it is a curious circumstance, that while England is a tliousandfold
richer than Scotland in antiquarian literature — in county histories, for example, those
monuments of the greatness of English families — Scotland has produced the best
family histories from the days of Godscroft to the days of the ' Lives of the
Lindsays.' " -
The sale of Godscroft's History appears to have been unsuccessful. The
injunction against the sale for two years probably injured the market. Suc-
cessive attempts appear to have been made to show its importance by an
alteration in the title-page. The first of these alterations was in the year
1648, four years after the printing of the work was completed, and two years
after the injunction against the sale of it had been withdrawn. The new
title-page of 1648 was in the following terms : " The History of the House.<
of Douglas and Angus — wherein are discovered the most remarkable passages
of the kingdom of Scotland, from the year 7G7 to the reign of our late sover-
aign Lord King James the Sixth, written by Master David Hume of Gods-
croft. Edinburgh: Printed by Evan Tyler, Printer to the King's ]\Iost
Excellent Majestic, and are to be sold by T. W. at the King's Arms, in
Paul's Churchyard, London, 1648."
With the exception of that new title-page no other portion of the impres-
sion of 1643 and 1644 was altered or added to, though the addition made to
' Thia refers to the printed edition— the - The Quarterly Review, No. cxvi., March
M.i. at Hamilton Palace continues the work 1856, p. 299.
to 1611, when the tenth Earl of Angus died.
Ixviii INTRODUCTIOX.
the title-page indicated that the work included a history of Scotland from
the year 767 to the reign of King James the Sixtli.
Nine years after the new title-page of 1648 appeared, another title-page
was substituted in the year 1657. That new title still further expanded the
idea of representing the work as a general history of Scotland, in the
following terms : — " A Creneral History of Scotland from the year 7G7 to the
death of King James ; containing the Principal lievolutions and Transactions
of Church and State, with Political Observations and Ptetlections upon the
Same, by David Hume of Godscroft. London : Printed for Simon Z^Iiller
at the Starr in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1657." The title-page of the Angus
part of the work, with the date of 1643, remains as originally printed, as well
as all the other portions of the book.
These successive alterations of the original title-page have given rise to
the idea that each alteration was attached to a new edition of the entire work,
but both in 1648 and 1657 there was no alteration of the work as printed in
1643 and 1644, with the exception of the title-page of the first or Douglas
portion of the book. On both occasions the second or Angus portion, and the
original title-page of 1643, remained as then printed, and the original mistake
of ending the first or Douglas part of the book with page 211, and commenc-
ing the second or Angus part not with page 212 as it should have been, in
strict order, but with page 205, was still continued in 1648 and 1657.
EDITIONS OF GODSl'KOFT\S HISTORY.
It was not till the year 1743, exactly a centur}- from the date of printim;
the second or Angus portion of Godscroft's History, that a second edition
was published. It was in two volumes 8vo. It bears to be " Printed by
T. W. and T. liuddiman, for L. Hunter, and sold by him and other Book-
sellers in Town." [Edinburgh.} It is dedicated by the publisher to his
Grace Archibald, Duke and Marquis of Douglas, as chief of the illustrious
EDIT loss OF GODSCROFrS HISTORY. Ixix
liuuse of Douglas. Pretixed to that work there is a note or preface by " The
rublisher to the EeaJer." Although it is in the name of the publisher, it was
probably ^vTitten by the printer, the learned Thomas Ruddiman. It is interest-
ing to have his opinion of Godscroft and his work in the following terms: —
" That he was a person of a genius equal to his undertaking ; that he had great
ojtportunities, being permitted to see the charters and arciiives of the family ; and
that, as he was a man of learning and sagacity, he has made the best use of these
advantages. He has also been well versed in the history of Scotland, on which he
makes a great many just and judicious remarks. And really, if the author have any
faidt, it is the number and prolixity of his reflexions : but that ouglit not so much to
be imputed to him as to the humour of the times in which he wrote ; and even these
are made in such a munly way, so full of strong substantial sense, and so mixed with
ancient Scottish phrases and proverbs, that as they are generally solid and instructive,
so they will be to many no lesii entertaining." ■ ^
The favourable opinion of Godscroft thus expressed, was also extended by
tin; learned grammarian to his work, as follows : —
" It is, indeed, a loss to the publick that the author did not live to revise his work
from the press ; and the editor of the first edition, who has been a man nowise quali-
fied for that business, has committed innumerable mistakes, chiefly by his endeavouring,
in many places, to turn the Scottish phrases of our author, which he very ill under-
stood, into the English of the times wherein he lived. He has hkewise been very
neghgent in the spelling of the proper names of persons and places, many of which, if it
had not been for the author's original manuscript, frequently, I confess, not very
legible, and the assistance of other historians, I should never have been able to have
rectified. I have also taken upon me to alter some old obsolete expressions ; but in
tbi.s I have acted very sparingly."
The edition of 1743 was reprinted in 1748, also in two volumes Svo.
In tiie edition of 1748, instead of the woodcut ornament which is near the
I'Mjt of the title-page of the edition of 1743, there is substituted the words
"The Fourth Edition." There is also in one of the volumes of the edition of
1748 a list of subscribers, which includes the name of the Duke of Douglas
tor six copies, and also of Lady Jane Douglas.
Another edition of Godscroft's History was projected in the year 1820
Ixx I NT RO DUCT 10 y.
under the title of " The History of the House aud Kace of Douglas and
Angus. London, printed for Mortimer aud ^VPLeod, Aberdeen, 1820," 8vo.
It contains the preface of L. Hunter, the publisher, or Thomas Ituddiniau.
the printer, to the edition of 1743; also the original preface of Godscroft.
and his history of the family down to and including James the ninth and
last Earl of Douglas, but not the Angus branch.
Among the Harleian manuscripts in the British Museum there is a
manuscript history or observations on Godscroft's History by Mr. Thomas
Crawford. This manuscript consists of two distinct works : Part i., ff. 2-21^, is
paged 1-36 ; Part ii., ff. 22-9P, is folioed 1-70. These partsdiffer but little
from one another in arrangement or narrative of events. Both commence with
the origin of the Douglases in 767. Part i. ends, apparently unfinished, in
1314, while Part li. is continued to the death of Archibald, third Earl, in 1400.
The account of each personage is given in a separate section. Both parts are
paraphrases, but with numerous variations, and possible corrections of the
first one hundred and fourteen pages of Godscroft's printed History. The
variations consist, as a whole, more in transpositions of sentences, and in
phraseology, than in contents. The handwriting of both parts is very similar,
perhaps the same. The name of " ;Mr. Tli. Crawford, 1645," is written on the
margin of the first folio of Part II., and occurs again at the end in a difTerent
hand. The date of the manuscript should be circa 1633-1645.^
In the year 1754 there was published at London, in Spanish and English,
" A Synopsis of the Genealogy of the most ancient and most noble family of
the Brigantes or Douglas, by Peter Pineda, who presents this work to tlie
above-mentioned family, London, 1754," one volume 8vo. Peter Pineda had
been inspired in his old age for his work on the Douglases by Charles, third
Duke of Queensberry, who, he says, was pleased to heap favours upon hiiii.
The fabulous origin of the family of Douglas as related by Godscroft sounds
* Information by Mr. Ellis of the British Museum.
DOUGLAS GENEALOGY BY PETER FIXE DA. Ixxi
iilinodt like truth and soberness when compared with thu tables of Pineda.
He traces the Douglases back to Gatlielus, the founder of the Scottish
monarchy, and Sayas, the founder of the Biigautes, Douglas or Angus, which
he says, is one and the same, and that their descent can be deduced for above
three thousand years past.^ In another part of liis work Pineda states that
one of the four governors of Scotland in the year 605 was the famous
(^^olenus, grandfather to Sholto Douglas.- The author goes far beyond Gods-
iToft in antiquity. But his work is a very poor performance, and he pleads
an excuse on account of his age.^
After the final judgment of the Douglas Cause in the year 1769, James
Herd, a publisher in Edinburgh, projected "The History and Martial
Atchievements of the Houses of Douglas, Angus, and Queeusberry." It is
dedicated to her Grace, Margaret, Duchess of Douglas, on 6th April 1 796, which
appears to be a mistake for 1769. The preface to this work consists chiefly of
tlie preface by Godscroft to his History, followed by extracts from Pineda
al)out Gathelus and Sayas and their connection with Moses. Then follows a
partial reprint of Godscroft's history down to and including a portion of the
memoir of the Good Sir James Douglas. A copy of Herd's history belonged
to the late Dr. David Laing, who inserted a note stating that the book " was
never completed. It breaks off with page 75."
In addition to the writers above noticed who have professed to write
special histories of the Douglas family, their early history has been incidentally
noticed by Mi-. George Chalmers, Mr. John P.iddell, Mr. Cosmo Innes, Mr.
Joseph Ptobertson, and :\Ir. G. V. Irving.-^
Preface, page xvii. 2 Pagg Ixiii. Stewartiana, pp. 82-5 ; Registrum Episco-
Pinedawaa also the aiithorofaSpanishand patua Moraviensis, pp. xliv-xlvii ; Liber S.
Knglish Grammar, 172G, Spanish and Eiiglibli Marie de Calchou, vol. i. pp. xxvii, xxviii ;
Dictionary, 1740, Learning Spanish 1751. Origines Parochiales Scotise, vol. i. pp. 152-
' Caledonia, vol. i. pp. 579-584; Remarks IGO ; Upper Ward of Lanarkshire, vol. li.
npon .Scotch Peerage Law, pp. 174-178; pp. 56-1.39.
Ixxii INTRODiCTIOS.
There is preserved at Bothwell Castle a lar<,'e tabular genealogy of tlu-
Douglas family. It is an elaborate work in three sections. The centre
portion, which is as large as the other two combined, contains the pedigrees
of the main lines of Douglas and Angus, their branches of Morton, Queens-
berry, Cavers, Mains and others, and several of the families, loyal and noble,
with whom they intermarried. The portion on the right side ^ives the
pedigree of the Scoti of Piacenza in Italy, who claim descent from a pre-
historic member of the Douglas family. The portion on the left side displa\ s
the descent of Cecily Drury, the wife of Dr. George Douglas, from a Xorman
family of high antiquity. George Douglas, Doctor of Divinity, who married
Cecily Drury, was the second son of Sir Eobert Douglas of Glenbervie and
gi-andson of William, ninth Earl of Angus. It was at his instance and cost
that this genealogy was prepared about the year 1636. It is written on
parchment, the whole presenting a surface of seven feet four inches in lenf^th
by six feet in height. Armorial shields and coats of arms of all the prominent
members of the families traced are profusely emblazoned at their proper places
in the pedigree. The genealogies are presented in the form of trees, and at
the foot of the principal one of Douglas, stands the semi-nude figure of a
savage, the usual Douglas supporter, and which is offered as a representation
of the original Sholto Douglas. There are also equestrian figures of the
Good Sir James, attired as a Turk with uplifted scimitar, and of Kint:
Eobert the Bruce. Of warriors on foot, figures are given of the Kni<dit of
Liddesdale in Highland costume, and of the hero of Otterburu in full
armour. At the top of the tree are given blazons of the later Angus crest, the
Salamander, one of which is embosomed in a Marquis's coronet, in recoc^nition
of the creation of William as Marquis of Douglas, in 1633. This "enealof^v
is, doubtless, "the tree of the famely of Douglas" borrowed by William
Douglas, Duke of Hamilton, in 1671 from the agent of the Douglas family.^
* Vol. iv. of thi.s work, (>. 2G9.
GENEALOGICAL TREE OF THE DOUGLASES.
Ill ret'ereuce to this pedigree there are some notes or memoranda on the
nKinu.scrii»t copy of Gndscroft's history at Hamilton. They are as follows :
" To consieler if it be titt to put the abreviated pedegree in the booke : and if it
l)e necessary to be put, to place it betwixt the twoe volmes of Douglas and
Angus. Item, to send for Mr. Awein, whoe was the contri\er of tree, and gar
abbreviate or enlarge it according to your owne and his opinion ; and if it be
thought nnnecessary to be contained in the booke, it must then be delcate in
the froutespice of the booke, because you may see mention is made thereof
there, and soe refferr all to the great tree, which was made by Mr. Awein — a
remarkable peece which must be soe in them words expressed in the booke :
and cawse Mr. Awyne doe anything that you think fitting or ueedfull con-
cerning the tree." Then follows, apparently in the handwriting of William,
the eleventh Earl of Angus, the statement, " Mr. Awein is deid." The same
hand also interlined the word " abreviated " before the word " pedegree " in
the second line of this quotation. From these memoranda it is apparent tliat
the large tabular genealogy- of the Douglas family at Bothwell Castle was
the work of Mr. Awein.
About the time that Godscroft's history was wTitten, and before it was
published, a rivalry arose amongst several historical families in Scotland to
obtain precedence by tracing themselves back to remote ancestors. Part of
the process by which they hoped to accomplish this purpose was by serving
themselves heirs to these ancestors. Thus in 1630, "William, Earl of
Menteith, who was then President of the Council in Scotland, was served
heir to Prince David, Earl of Strathern, his grandfather's grandfather's
great-grandfather's grandfather (ahavi atari), to Malise, Earl of Strathern,
liis great-grandfather's grandfather's grandfather (jproari ahavi), and to
Patrick Graham, Earl of Strathern, his great-grandfather's great-grandfather's
grandfather {proavi atavi). The first of these services, to David, Earl
of Strathern, ultimately led to the downfall of the Earl of IMenteith. He
VOL. r. /.■
Ix xi V I NT ROD UC riON.
boasted that through his descent from that prince he had the reddest bluod
in Scothxnd, and this unguarded expression, having been reported to the king
with additions such as that the Earl said he shoukl be in the phace of
Charles Stewart, so alarmed the king that it led to the disgrace of Menteith.
William, Earl of Angus, afterwards first Marquis of Douglas, who took so
much interest in Godscroft's history, obtained nine services in the same year,
1630, to ■\Villiam, Earl of Angus, his gi-andfather, to George, first Earl of
Ano-us, his great-grandfather's grandfather's grandfather (proavi ahari), to
Archibald, eighth Earl of Angus, his grandfather's grandfather's brother's
great-grandson {ahavi 'patri^i lupotis), to George, fourth Earl of Angus, his
grandfather's grandfather's grandfather (irifavi), to Archibald, sixth Earl
of Angus, his great-grandfather's grandfather {atavi), to George, ^Master of
An"us his brother's grandfather's grandfather {frafris ahavi), to Lady
Margaret Stewart, Countess of Angus, his grandfather's grandfathers
grandfather's gi-andmother (o.&«rirt: a&ai-i), to Sir William Douglas of Braid-
wood, his grandfather's grandfather (abavi), and to Janet Douglas, lawful
daughter of Archil)ald, fifth Earl of Angus, immediate younger sister
of William Douglas of Braidwood, sister of his gTandfather's grandfather
{sororis abavi).
The Earl of Mar, Earl of Argyll, Earl of Sutherland, and other noblemen
and trentlemen also obtained similar services to remote ancestors at the same
time. Long litigations ensued on the question of precedency between the
rival Houses of Roxburgh and Lothian, Glencairn and Eglinton, Sutherlan.l
and Crawford, and others. These were contested with nearly as much keen-
ness as the famous controversy between the families of Serope and Gmsvenor
in the English Court of Chivalry.
THE DOIWLAS CAUSE. Ixxv
THE DOUGLAS CAUSE.
The celebrated lawsuit popularly known as the " Dou<^la.-5 Cause," requires
u short notice. The high position of the respective litigants, the delicate
nature of the legal questions involved, the romantic circumstances attending
the birth of the twin sons in a foreign country, as well as the large patrimonial
interest involved, all coml>ined to render this one of the most celebrated of
legal competitions. It attracted the attention of the people of this country
more than any private cause ever did. Indeed it drew attention and excited
a keen interest througliout Europe. The evidence of witnesses was appointed
by the Court of Session to be taken at I'aris, Damartin, Eheims, Ehetell*',
Sedan, Liege, Aix-hi-Chapelle, Brussels, Utrecht, Rotterdam, St. Omer.
Dunkirk, Montreuil, and Abbeville, besides places in England and Scotland.
The legal steps which, immediately on the death of the Duke of Douglas
in 17G1, were taken for securing the estates to his nephew, Archibald Stewart
or Douglas, the only surviving son of Lady Jane Douglas, will be found in
the memoir of Lord Douglas. A year later his estates of Douglas and Angus
were assailed at the instance of the Duke of Hamilton, Lord Douglas Hamilton,
his brother, and Dunbar, Earl of Selkirk, as heirs-male collateral of the
Duke of Douglas. The main ground on which they sought the reduction of
the feudal title of Mr. Douglas was, that he was not the son of Lady Jane
Douglas. The litigation in the Court of Session continued with great keen-
ness on both sides from 1761 till 17G7.
At one stage of the proceedings Sir John Steuart, father of Archibald
Douglas, was called into the Court of Session, and examined by the Lords for
three days, the 14tli, Ijth, and IGth December 1762. His declarati(m was
t«aken with closed doors. Only the counsel and agents for the parties, with
clerks and other officers of Court were present, and even they were expressly
Ixxvi INTRODUCTKjy.
prohibited to take any notes of what passed. Although he was then sufleriiig
from sickness, and had left his bed to attend the Court, Sir John is said
to have behaved throughout the wliole of liis examination with extraordinary
spirit and vivacity.
The printed pleadings and proofs extended to at least sevL'U large quarto
volumes. The printed evidence of the witnesses adduced for ]3oth parties
in this country and in France alone exceeds two thousand quarto pages
closely printed. The memorials, answers, replies, petitions, etc., fill several
large volumes. Mr. Burnet, afterwards Lord ^Monboddo, who was one of the
counsel for Mr. Douglas, complained, in one of liis printed pleadings, that he
was literally " pelted with petitions " on behalf of the Duke of Hamilton.
The following account shows the counsel employed on botli sides, and the
days which each counsel occupied in the debate: —
On the 1st of July, a few days after the cases were given in, the hearing
in presence, or the pleadings, began. First, four lawyers spoke for the pur-
suers, viz., Mr. Andrew Crosbie, on Tuesday, July 1 ; Sir Adam Fergusson, on
"Wednesday and part of Thursday ; Mr. William Nairn began on Thursday
and ended on Friday ; and Mr. John Dalrymple began on Friday and ended
on Saturday. Then four lawyers spuke for the defender, viz., Mr. Alexander
^Murray, on Tuesday, July 8 ; Mr. Henry Dundas, solicitoi", on Wednesday
and Thursday ; Mr. Ptobert Sinclair, on Friday ; and Mr. David Puie,- on
Tuesday, July 15. Two lawyers replied for the pursuers, viz.. Sir John
Steuart of Allanbauk, on Wednesday, July 1 G, and Mr. Andrew Crosbie, on
Thursday. Two lawyers duplied for the defender, viz., Mr. Kobert Macqueen,
on Friday, July 18, and Mr. James Burnet, on Tuesday, July 'I'l. ]Mr. Alex-
ander Lockhart, Dean of Faculty, the last for the pursuers, spoke on Wednes-
day, Thursday, Friday, and Tuesday, and ended on Wednesday, July 30.
Mr. James Montgomery, the Lord Advocate, the last for the defender, spoke
on Thursday, and on Friday, August 1. Which ended these pleadings, the
THE DOUGLAS CAUSE. Ixxvii
longest, 'tis believed, that ever were before a court of justice, being, in all,
Lwenty-one days, and the speeches were often two, sometimes three hours
l(Uig. The Court appointed the memorials on these pleadings to be given in
on the 27th of September; permitting either party to give in an additional
memorial on facts only, on the loth of October: and the cause to be advised
on the 2r)th of Xovember.'
Other contemporary accounts add iVIr. Thomas Miller, afterwards Lord
Justice-Clerk, Sir David Dalrymple, afterwards Lord Hailes, ^Mr. William
Johnston and Mr. Walter Stewart as counsel for the Duke of Hamilton ;
and Mr. Francis TJarden, Mr. Islay Campbell, -Mr. John Pringle, and Mr.
(yharles Broun as counsel for Mr. Douglas, in addition to those above
named.^
After the furmal pleadings had been concluded, some information about
two of the important witnesses was specially brought under the notice of the
(Jourt by Mr. Douglas. These witnesses were two of the servant-maids of Lady
Jane Douglas. The Duke of Hamilton's counsel had stated that one of them,
Kflie Caw, was a young girl of no more than eighteen years of age, and easily
imposed upon as to Lady Jane's condition. But the register of her birth
and baptism was discovered, which showed that she was upwards of twenty-
one years old. Isabel Walker, the other servant, was twenty-nine years of
■:»ge." She was examined a second time on 23d June 1767, in presence of the
lords. The examination was chiefly in reference to the condition of Lady
Jane, to which the witness had previously deponed. She was again recalled
^ The Scots Magazine, vol. xxviii. 1766, wards of £23,000 sterling. It was fortunate
l>- 415. for him that he was in possession of the
• The cost of such an array of counsel was estates to meet such heavy annual expendi-
very great. The accounts of the law-agents ture on a single law plea. The costs of the
•>f Mr. Douglas have been preserved. At one Duke of Hamilton were probably similar to
^ta^je of the case his own costs were up- those of Mr. Douglas.
Ixxviii
INTRODVCTIOS
before the lords on the ibllowing day. On these two occasions her deposi-
tions appeared to be very distinct.
The judges were equally divided in their opinions, and by the casting-
vote of Lord President I )undas, judgment was given against ^Nlr. Douglas.
During the litigation public opinion was much dividc<l on the (questions at
issue. In the Douglas district the people were unanimously in favour of :Mi'.
Douglas, while in the country of the Hamiltons opiiuons were naturally in
their favour. The same feeling prevailed to some extent in the metropolis.
Each party had their partisans there. It was the prevailing topic of conver-
sation, and occa.sioned disputes and wranglings in almost every company.
High and low, young and (dd, male and female, interested themselves in this
cause with a warmth equally unprecedented and unaccountable. The plea-
sures of society were h.r a long time embittered by altercation, and whole
evenings, dedicated to cheerfulness, were spent in ridiculous coutest.i Lord
Campbell says that it had almost led to a civil war between the supporters of
the opposite sides, and in England had e.Kcited more interest than any que.<-
tion of mere private riglit had done before.-
The formal decreet of the Court of Session was dated lotli July 1 "67. It
extends in manuscript to ten folio volumes containing in all nine thousand
six hundred and seventy-six pages.^ The adverse judgment was appealed
to the House of Lords, where it was fought with as much, if not greater
keenness than in the Court of Session. The pleadings of counsel in the
House of Lords occupied two months, January and February 1769. Durimr
the pleadings the anxiety of the Duchess of Douglas was intense. .Mr.
Douglas, on the other hand, was quite composed.
In the memoir of j\Ir. Douglas, in the second volume of this work, allusion
^ The Scots Magazine, Nov. 1767, vol. xjcix. vol. v. j». 2SG.
'*• ^^^- ^ Original Decreet in H.M. Guifral Regis
* Lives of the Chancellors, third edition. ter House. Eilinburcli.
TUB DOUGLAS CAUSE. ixxix
will lie fouiiil to the duel whicli wus fought between ]Mr. Edward Thuilow,
iis counsel lor Mr. Douglas, and Mr. Andrew Stuart, agent for the Duke of
Hamilton. Tliis affair of honour arose from remarks made by Mr. Thurluw
in (tpeuiug the case for ^Nlr. Douglas on the conduct of Mr. Andrew Stuart,
who felt aggrieved, and sent a challenge to tight next morning. Thurluw
promised the desired meeting, but not until he had completed his arguments
in favour of Mr. Douglas. After the hearing was concluded, the meetino
t«>ok place on the morning of Sunday the 14th of January 1769, in Hyde
Park. Having discharged pistols at ten yards' distance without effect, they
th-ew their swords, but the seconds interposed and put an end to the affair.
Mr. Thurlow is said to have advanced and stood up to his antagonist " like
an elephant." On his way to tlie tield of battle he stopped to eat an enor-
mous breakfast at a tavern near Hyde Park Uorner.^
The Lord Chancellor and Lord Manstield both spoke in favour of Mr.
Douglas. Tlie speech of the Lord Chancellor referred to the great importance
of the case in the following terms:— "It is, perhaps, the most solemn and
important ever heard at this bar. For my own share, I am unconnected with
the parties; and having with all possible attention considered the matter,
both in public and private, I shall give my opinion with that strictness of
impartiality to which your Lordships have so just and equitable a claim.
The question before us is, ' Is tlie appellant the son of the late Lady Jane
Douglas or not V I am of the mind that he is ; and own that a more ample
itnd positive proof of a child's being the son of a mother never appeared in a
';ourt of justice, or before any assize whatever." -
After stating at great length the evidence in support of his opinion, in
which he referred to the objections to the appellant being refuted, and as
Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors. 'IM .January 1709.
^'>L V, pp. 500, .501 ; Scots Magazine for 1769, - Reports of Appeal Cases by T. S. Patoii.
^■"1. XXXI. p. 107; Edinburgh Evening Courant, vol. ii. p. 107.
Ixxx IXTRODUCTIOX.
only tending to render the virtues of Lady Jane more brilliant and illustrious,
tlie Lord Chancellor concluded his speech in these words : — " The question
before us is short : Is the appellant the son of Lady Jane Douglas or not ?
If there be any Lords within these walls who do not believe in a future state.
these may go to death witli the declaration that they believe he is not. For
my part I am fur sustaining the positive [)roof which T find weakened b\-
uothing brought against it ; and in this mind T lay my hand upon my lireast
and declare that in my soul and conscience T believe the appellant to be her
son."^ While the Lord Chancellor spoke there was such silence that a
handkerchief would have been heard to fall notwithstandinij the crowds in
attendance. Lord Campbell says that Lord Camden attracted chief notice
while Chancellor by his judgment in the great Douglas cause.^
Lord Mansfield said : " This is the greatest and most important cause tiiat
occurs to me : it is no less than an attack upon the virtue and honour of a
lady of the first quality, in order to dispossess a young man of an eminent
fortune, reduce him to beggary, strip him of his birthiight, declare him an
alien and a foundling. I have slept and waked upon the subject, considered
it upon my pillow to tlie losing of my natural rest, and wi[h all the judgment
I was capable, have considered the various articles that make up this Ion"
and voluminous cause." Lord ^lansfield explained that as the Lord Chan-
^ Reports of Appeal Cases by T. S. I'aton, predecessor in the chaneellorsLip was the Karl
vol, ii. p. 167. of Northingtou. He was one ot the peers
^ whom the Duchess of Hamilton solicited very
- The Lord Chancellor referred to was earnestly to espouse the cause of her son. His
('harles Pratt, an eminent lawyer, who was Lordship excused himself that he could not
created Lord Camden in 1765, and appointed do so, as he had not heard the pleadiniTS on
Lord Chancellor in the following year. Horace either side. The Duchess, however, still
Walpole says that, with decency and dignity, continued to press his Lordship, who "ave
he concealed his opinion on the Douglas Cause her a not very delicate final refusal, which is
to the very day of the decision. [Memoirs of recordedin contemporary memoirs. [Memoire.s
George in. vol. iii. p. 30.1] His immediate .Tun Vnyageur qui se rejuise, vol. iii. p. 187.]
FIXAL JUDGMKXT IX THE DOUGLAS CA USE. Ixxxi
cellor had anticipated much of what he intended to speak upon the subject,
h<; only touched upon tlie situation and character of the deceased Lady Jane.
Hi.s Lord.ship spoke from personal knowledge of her Ladyship, and gave
several interesting particulars respecting her. He said he remembered
Lidy June " in the year 175U to ha^-e been in the most deplorable
circumstances. She came to me (I being Solicitor-CIeneral) in a very
destitute condition, and yet her modesty would not suffer her to com-
l)laiu. The noblewuman was every way visible, even under all the pressure
<)f want and poverty. Her visage and appearance were more powerful
advocates than her voice, and yet I was afraid to ofter her relief for fear of
being construed to prufter her an indignity. In this manner she came twice
to my house before I knew her real necessities, to relieve which now was my
aim. I spoke to Mr. Telham in her favour ; told him of her situation with
regard to her brother, the Duke of Douglas, and of her present straits and
lUfficulties. Mr. Telham, without delav. laid the matter before the kino-
His JNLajesty immediately granted her £300 per annum out of the privy
purse ; and Mr. Pelham was so generous as to order £150 of the money to be
instantly paid. I can assure your Lordships that I never did trouble his
Majesty for any other. Lady Jane Douglas was the first and last who ever
had a pension by my means. At that time I looked upon her to be a lady of
the strictest honour and integrity, and tu have the deepest sense of the
grandeur of the family from whence she was sprung: a family conspicuously
great in Scotland for a thousand years past; a family whose numerous
branches have spread over Europe. They have frequently intermarried with
tlie blood royal, and she herself was descended from Henry vii." ^
After these speeches of the two greatest of the law Lords, the House of
' lleiK>rt8 of Appeal Cases, by T. 8. Paton, with the heat and fatigue. [Memoirs c.f
vol. 11. pp. 172-174. Horace Walpole says George iir., vol. iii. p. 304.]
th.-it Lord Maustield si)oke till he faintetl
VOL I. J
INTKOJJLVTIOS.
Lords, at ten o'clock at night, reversed the jiulgnieiit of the Court of ^session,
and affirmed the appeal in favour of Mr. Douglas without a division.^ Thus
practically ended tlie great Douglas cause.'-
In honour of this gi'eat victory the Duchess of Queensberry, one of the
two victorious Duchesses, gave a ball on Saturday, the 11th Marcli 1769.
It was attended 1>y several of the royal family, including the Duke of Cum-
berland and the Queen's two brothers, about 140 people, and six or seven
and twenty couple of dancers. The ball was very fine. The Lord Chan-
cellor invited himself, and seemed in very good spirits. His lad}' and
daughter were nivited. For that civility his lordship wrote; his thanks to
the Duchess, adding that, if she would permit him, he would come and
return his thanks in person. To which the Duchess answered in these
words: — " Katherine Queensberry says, Content upon her honour" — this
being the form of assent by the Lords in the House of Peers.^
The Duchess of Hamilton continually brought up the Douglas Cause to
tlie King and Queen whenever she had an opportunity. But their Majesties
never gave her an answer, and judiciously evaded tlie subject. The Duchess
J Lord Campbell, in bis " Lives of tbe about the jiulgmeut in the Douglas Cause
Chancellors," expresses his own opinion on that Mr. .Tohn Home, the author of
the merits of the Douglas Cause in the follow- " Douglas,"' attributeil the want of success of
ing terms: — " I once studied the case very his tragedy of "The Fatal Discovery," and
attentively, and I must own that I came to the thinness of autliences to hear it at the
the conclusion that the House of Lords did play-houses, to the absorbing interest of the
well in reversing. " [^'ol. v. p. 288, edition Douglas Cause. How different was the pre-
1849.] Lord Campbell, in his •' Life of Lord viously marked success of the tragedy of
Thnrlow," says that it was Thurlow who pre- •' |).)uglas '' by the same author. Crowded
pared the apj)eal case for Mr. Douglas, which and enthusiastic audiences night after night
mainly led to the success of the appeal. Lord were gratified with it. Amidst the applause
Campbell earnestly recommends the appeal one more than ordinarily enthusiastic S(x>tch
case to the law student a.'s a model of lucid admirer was heard triumphantly exclaiming,
arrangementand forcible reasoning. [//*.p.4!)t>.] " Whaur "s your Wullie Shakespeare nooV"
- So great was the excitement in London -^ .lounial of Lady Mary Coke.
LORD MOXBODDO AX I) TIIK DOUGLAS CAUSK.
of Douglas, on the other haud, did not go out of her house, nor solicit any of
the peers for their votes. After the judgment was pronounced in favour
.if Mr. Douglas, the Princess Amelia expressed her satisfaction, and her belief
that the King and Queen were also pleased.^
Amongst the partisans of the Duke of Hamilton was David Hume, the
historian, who displayed great keenness, through his connection with Mr.
Andrew Stuart. Contrary to his custom, Mr. Hume was much out of
humour when the Cause was decided by the Lords, and made several peevisji
remarks, which hurt him.'-
After the final judgment, many pamphlets, including" Durando, a Spanish
Tale," and letters, continued to be published by partisans on either side.
One of the ablest of these productions consisted of a series of Letters
addressed to Lord :\Lansfield by Mr. Andrew Stuart against the opinion of
his lordship. But, while abl}- and even calmly written upon certain points,
the feelings of the disappointed litigant appear throughout.^
In an unpublished manuscript Sketch of the Life of Lord Monboddo, b\-
his daughter, Mrs. Kirkpatrick Williamson, several incidents of his con-
nection with the Douglas Cause are interesting, and worth recording. Mi-.
Burnet was early retained as one of the counsel for Mr. Douglas. His ai^eni
waited on him with a retaining fee, and before the agent had retired,
Mr. Andrew Stuart, agent for the Duke of Hamilton, appeared, intending
to retain Mr. Burnet f(.r the Duke, but had to retire disappointed.
Mr. Burnet became greatly absorbed in the Douglas Cause. Three
duchesses, as interested parties, were also very active,— the Duchesses of
Douglas and Queensberry on the one side, and the Duchess of Hamilton on
'^ Joiirn.-^l of Lady iMary Coke. Mansfield from Andrew Stuart, Esq. I.on-
' ''"'^- don, 1773. 8vo, p. 47.
^ Letters to the Right Honourable Lord
INTRODCCTIOX.
the other. The Duchess of Douglas went to Paris to lacilitate innuirie^s tht iv,
and hired a hotel, where she kept open house for the lawyers. In London
she did the same, and in Edinburgh, QueensLerry House was lier residence.
On account of his great abilities, his intimate ac(j[uaintnnce with th<^ French
language, and his great zeal in the Cause, ]\Ir. Burnet was a favourite with
the Duchess. She presented his young son with a splendid cap of blue tissue,
embroidered with silver and plume of white feathers. To ]\Irs. Burnet her
(Imce presented a magnificent Court dress of pink and silver tissue, with
trimming, etc., to suit, rubies, eamngs, paste necklace, etc., to which her hus-
l)and added a suit of the finest point lace, which cost him one hundred guineas.
^Ir. Burnet's residence in Edinburgh was in St. John's Street, Canongate.
Being very near Queensberry House, the meetings and consultations were
frequent. Dining there one day with her Grace, the subject of the grand
law-plea V>ecame the all-absorbing topic, and Mr. Burnet was more than
usually absent. In the drawing-room, the Duchess said to Mrs. Burnet —
" Go, ma'am, in my chair, dress in the French gown, and your laces and fine
things; powder your bonnie brown hair," which slie was never allowed by
her husband to do, " and we shall pass you off for Lady Sarah Lennox."'
Lady Sarah was then in the meridian of her beauty. K»[uipped accordingly
by the time the gentlemen had finished their wine and their deliberations,
so metamorpliosed and so announced, it was no wonder that the absent-
minded lawyer failed to recognise his own wife, till her laugh and her
remark, " 0 1 B., don't you know me ?" disclosed her disguise.
In March 1705 Mr. Burnet and the other Douglas lawyers repaired
to Paris. Among them was Mr. Francis Garden, afterwards Lord Garden-
stone.^ Of all his coadjutors Mr. Burnet was the most zealous in the cause of
Mr. Douglas. He was a firm l)eliever in the truth of it after having carefully
^ In the famous "Douglas Cause" Mr. the Parliament of Paris, where he was op-
Garden " made a distinguished figure before posed by Mr. Wedderburn (afterwards Lord
MARGARET, DUCHESS OF DOUGLAS. Ixxxv
tnict'il its history and all the secrets. By the time the case came to he
ilecided Mr. Rurnet liad heen raised to the Bench under the title of Lord
.Nfoiiboddo. He gave his judgment unhesitatingly in iuvour of Mr. Douglas.^
According to tradition, tlie Duchess ^vas the last of the nobility who, in
laying visits or travelling about the country, were escorted by halberdiers.
.•<he was also accustomed when she visited any family to leave her dress
behind her as a present. By her testament she left certain lands to Captain
.Vrchibald Douglas, eldest son of her eldest brother, James Douglas, and to
other heirs of entail, the lands to receive the name of Douglas-Support or
Mains-Support of Douglas. The Duchess also directed that the heirs suc-
ceeding to these lands should assume the name of Douglas, and carry the
anns of Douglas and Mains, with the addition of a woman trampling a snake
under her feet and supporting a child in her arms, crowned with laurels."-
I'his device the Duchess applied to herself, and her triumphant support of
her nephew in the Douglas Cause.
In the Memoir of Lord Monboddo it is stated tliat Lady Jane Douglas
resided with her mother, the ]\Iarchioness of Douglas, at Merchiston Castle,
near Edinburgh. Lady Jane sat there for her portrait to James Ferguson,
the famous astronomer, who was then an itinerant painter. He was quite
enchanted with her Ladyship. There are three portraits in oil of Lady
Jane Douglas — two of these are at Bothwell Castle, and one at Douglas
< 'astle. The names of the painters are unknown, and one of the three may
have been the work of Ferguson, mentioned in tlie Monboddo memoir,
although he is said to have painted only miniatures.
A characteristic letter from ]\Ir. Carlyle contains incidental references to
<1iaueellor), and astonished all present by his ment in favour of Mr. Douglas.
It'gal knowledge and tluency in the French
Unguage." [Senators of the College of Justice,
p. 5'28.] Lord Gardenstone gave his judg- - Disposition in Stonebyres Charter-chest.
1 MS. Sketch at Glenbervie.
Ixxxvi
INTRODUCTION.
Lady Jane Douglas and the Douglas Cause. It was written, as it bears, in
acknowledgment of a presentation copy of the Eed Book of Grandtully, in
which a memoii' of Lady Jane Douglas appeared. In his early years Mr.
Carlyle resided for some time in the neighbourhood of Grandtully, and the
late Sir AVilliani Drummond Steuart thought that a copy of the Book wi>uld
be acceptable to him. ^fr. Carlyle wrote as folhnvs : —
5 Ciieyue Row, Chelsea, 8th July 1SG1».
Dear Sik, — I Lave this morniug received the two beautiful quartos, which yc>ur
obliging letter of yesterday announced to nie. They are among the boautifullest volumes
I have seen ; beautifully printed, illustrated, and indexed, — in short, victoriously eciited,
and made clear to every reader. I promise myself a great deal of entertainment and
historical instruction in examining those curious old documents and correspondences,
here brought to light in such a legible form. I beg you will convey to Sir "William
Drummond Steuart, Baronet, my lively sense of the great honour and kindness he has
been pleased to do me. of which I shall not fail to entertain a grateful and pleasant
memory henceforth.
For indeed I had already a kind of shadowy relation to Murthly and its owners :
in my young days, near half a century ago, I lived once a summer and winter in that
neighbourhood, and often enough heard of Murtldy and its then lord in the house where
I lived ^^Kinnaird, near Logierait) ; and within the last ten years, I have, through an
old thin pamphlet of •' Letters by Lady Jane Douglas Stewart," — which you also
seem to know of, — made the acquaintance of the husband of that famous lady, whose
letters dating often from Chelsea, where I now am, touched me deeply ; and in fact
rendered it privately imp'issiV>le for me to believe, or surmise, that such a Lady Jane
was capable of any baseness, or deliberate mendacity whatever. Upon which, indeed,
I fairly ended my study of " The Douglas Cause."
With many thanks to all parties concerned in this pleiisant gift to me, I remaui,
dear Sir, yours sincerely.
T. Carlylk
From William of Douglas, who held the V'ale of Douglas between the
years 1174 and 1199, to his lineal heir and present representative, Charles
Alexander Douglas-Home, twelfth Earl of Home, and Lord Douglas of
Douglas, there are twenty-two generations. These endn-ace a period of seven
C0NCLi::S10X. l.wxvii
(;»Mitiiries. Few families in this country can point to the continued inherit-
ance of the territory which gave them a family name so early as the reign of
King William the Lion in the twelfth century. r»ut amidst all the vicissi-
tudes and changes, often tragic and romantic, wliich the family of Douglas
have experienced, their original dale of Douglas has continued to he inherited
hy their lineal repn'sentatives to the present day.
The Borders of to-day, now as quiet and peaceful as any portion of
•Scotland or England, present a marked contrast to the once distracted state
of tliese districts, as it is disclosed by these memorials of former Douglas
wardens. The " old enemies " on either side are changed to fast friends.
Border feuds frequently involved both countries in war, while, on the Scottish
side, various clans were often engaged in deadly feuds among themselves.
The great houses of Scott and Ker had many a fierce encounter. But this
state of affairs has been long happily exclianged for the closest i-elationships
and the warmest friendships.
The Maxwells and the Johnstones, two great rival Border houses on the
west, with their deadly feuds, were formerly a source of great destruction to
t-ach other, and of increasing trouble to the authorities, who were responsible
for the peace of the country. In the course of their strife, each family lost
two chieftains ; one dying of a ]»roken heart, another in the field of battle, a
tliird by assassination, and a fourth by the sword of the executioner. In
modem times the ^laxwells and the Johnstones have been and are fast
triends, so much so, that a Johnstone has assumed the surname of Maxwell,
a.s the inheritor of a Maxwell property.
One more instance of these amicaltle relations is afforded by the present
work. The Homes and the Douglases had many an encounter in the old
I'xnder times. But now the head of the House of Home combines the two
•surnames of Douglas and Home with the male representation of Home, and
the female representation of Douglas.
Kvxviii ISTUODUCTWX.
The ditticulties which the learned Luml of Godscroft encoimtered with
his Douglas history in his own lifetime,— his anxieties in reference to it even
on his deathbed,— and the fate which befel it after his death, indicate to some
extent the troubles connected with such an undertaking.
These four volumes, now completed after many years' labour, can only
show in part the extensive investigations which have been made, not merely
in the Douglas and Angus muniments, but also in public and private reposi-
tories. Many interesting Douglas charters obtained from these sources are
now printed for the first time. They form a valuable collection, and a partial
compensation for the loss of the ancient numimeuts nf the family in the
tragedies which were su fre^iuently enacted in their eventful history.
To the owners of Douglas charters not in the Douglas Cliarter-ciiest, who
"enerously intrusted them U) him in connection with the present work, the
author's acknowledgments have been often made. The statements throughout
these volumes, of the sources from which these muniments have been
derived, will show liow largely he is indebted. To the many friends who
have also in other forms attbrded valuable aid with these volumes his
acknowledgments liave also been made, and are again gratefully recorded.
Sir Walter Scott, who kuew and loved the histories of families so well,
in " Castle Dangerous,"' makes Sir Aymer de Valence, the English kniglit.
interrupt the sexton of St. Bride's of ])ouglas, in his attempted recitation of
the pedigree of the house of Douglas. A less matter, the knight said, would
hold a well-l>reath'd min.strel in subject fur recitation for a calendar month,
Sundavs and linlidays uicluded. Tlie true history of the Douglases was then
only a century oLl. Since the time of Sir Aymer de Valence, their histoiy
has orowu for six centuries more, and ihesc may iittbrd matter for other well-
breath'd minstrels, if the race is not now extinct.
WILLIAJM FL'ASEK.
Edinbcrgh, 32 Castle Stf-kkt,
:MM DfCfnmhor 1SS.">.
THE OPU(UN OF THE FAMILY OF DOUGLAS.
A T the outset of a history of the great race of Douglas, the first question
^^^ which arises is, What was the origin of the family ? This question
has long formed the subject of discussion among historians. Authors eminent
for learning, ingenuity, and research have formed widely different opinions.
But after all the discoveries which have been made, especially during the
present century, it must be confessed, the point is left in the same state of
doubt as it was upwards of four centuries ago, in the days of the metrical
chronicler, Andrew Wyntown. In these preliminaiy remarks, all that can
be proposed is, to gather together the various statements regarding the
origin of the Douglases, and present them in a form appropriate to a history
of the family. A connected statement and comparison of the results of
recent researches, such as is here attempted, has not hitherto been formally
made. Yet, even when these are brought together, and their details presented
and examined from new points of view, there is but little progress made
towards the elucidation of the mystery, beyond the weakening of some
hypotheses and the strengthening of others.
The historian who first treats of the origin of the Douglas family is
Andrew of Wyntown, Prior of St. Serfs Isle in Lochleven, who wrote in
the early part of the fifteenth century, and whose metrical chronicle is well
known.^ His allusion to the Douglases, to whom he assigns a kindred origin
' Hia "Croaykil" was completed between 1420 and 1424. — Macpherson's edition,
preface, p. xxii.
VOL. 1. \
ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY OF DOUGLAS.
with the powerful family of Moravia or ]\Ioray, is very brief, and is here
given in his own vernacular : —
Of Murrawe uud the Douglas,
How that thare begynnyng was,
Syn syndry men spekis syndryly,
I can put that in na story.
Bet in thare armeys Wth thai bere
The sternys set in lyk manere.
Til mony men it is yhit sene
Apperand lyk, that thai had bene
Of kyn be descens lyneale,
Or be branchys coUatcrale.^
Sir Eichard Maitland of Lethington, whose work has been explained in
the Introduction, does not refer to the question of the origin. Godscroft,
however, as is well known, assigns to the House of Douglas a very remote
origin, dating from a.d. 767, when the first who received tlie surname ol
Douglas is said to have taken part in the wars of King Solvathius. So
satisfied was this historian with his Douglas pedigree, that he uttered a protest
against authors who carried the ancestry of his heroes no further back than
William "Le Hardi," the father of the Good Sir James, among whom is
included Sir Richard [Maitland, whose manuscript was known to Godscroft.
In the light of recent researches it is proposed here to discuss the narra-
tives of Wyntown and Hume of Godscroft, so far as these refer to the origin
of the Douglas family, as well as other suggested theories of that origin.
Andrew of Wyntown, as is evident from the quotation given, distinctly
states that even in his day opinions were divided as to the ancestral origin
of the house of Douglas. To many it seemed that the families of [Moray and
Douglas were akin by direct or collateral descent, because their shields of
arms bore the device of three stars "set in lyk maner." Macpherson, tlu-
^ WjTitown's Cronykil, B. viii. c. 7, U. 149-1. "8.
COMMON D ESC EXT OF MO J Li Y AXD BOUCLAS.
well-known editor of Wyntown, remarks somewhat contemptuously on this
statement, that it was in Wyntown's own time that Archibald Douglas, Lord
of Galloway, afterwards third Earl of Douglas, assumed the three stars of
Moray on Iiis marriage with Joanna of Moray, the heiress of Bothwell.^ But
the learned editor w^as somewhat hasty in his conclusion. Sir Archibald
Douglas, sometime after his maniage, did assume the arms of IVIoray, being
three stars, two and one, in an escutcheon of pretence. But these armorial
licarings were in addition to his own three stars in chief, for Douglas.
Before he assumed the stars of ^loray, his blazon was identical with that of
his cousin William, first Earl of Douglas, whose seal, about the same date,
displays on a chief three stars, with a heart in base.- Archibald, fourth Earl
of Douglas, son of Sir Archibald, who quartered his shield, bore the Douglas
arms in the first ([uarter, and the arms of his mother, the heiiess of Both-
well, in the third quarter. It is true that the blazon of the family of Moray,
us borne by the house of Bothwell,^ differs somewhat from the blazon of
Douglas, the first being three stars, two and one, while the latter is three
stars in chief, or on a chief. But that fact does not invalidate Wyntown's
statement, as the armorial shields of the two families bore the same number
of stars, though not similarly arranged.
COMMON DESCENT OF :\IORAY AND DOUGLAS— THE DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE.
Apart from the question of armorial bearings, which will be afterwards
uiore fully considered, the opinion of Wyntown's day, that the Morays
^ Wyntown's Cronykil, Macpherson's edi- ■* The House of Bothwell, descended from
tion, vol. ii. p. 498. a younger branch of the Moravia family,
bore three stars, two and one, identical in
- Seals attached to deed in 1373, ratifying arrangement with the bearings of the House
succession to Crown of Scotland, Acta of the of Sutherland, which descended from the
Harliaments of Scotland, vol. i. [>. 549. eldest branch of the same family.
ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY OF DOUGLAS.
and the Douglases were of kin, is corroborated by authentic record. To
sliow this, a short sketch may be given of the joint history of the earlier
members of the two families, so far as supported by facts. The more ancient
of these two great houses, according to existing documents, Was the family,
the members of which assumed the surname De Moravia, or of .Aloray.'
The earliest known ancestor of this family was Freskiuus or Freskiu, wlio
lived during the reign of King David the First. From that king Freskin held
the lands of Strabrock (now Uphall) in Linlithgowshire, and also the lands
of Duffus and other territories in Moray. This is all that is known of
Freskin, who must have died before 1171, as about that year his second son
WiUiam received a grant of his father's lands of Duffus.^ Freskin of Strabrock
and Duffus had three sons, Hugh, William, and Andrew. Of the last named
little is known, but the descendants of the two former assumed the surname De
Moravia, and were the ancestors of all the branches of that wide-spread house.
Owing to the obscurity which rests upon early Scottish history in the
time of King David tlie First, and his immediate successors, the reason why
the Laird of Strabrock and his descendants were transported to Morayshire,
and received such extensive territories, is not readily apparent. According
to a tradition preserved by Mr. Hew Rose, minister of Nairn, who wrote
a history of the Roses of Kilravock in the year 1684, the family of Freskin
were natives of the soil of which they became lords, having received Duffus
and other lands as a reward for their loyalty to King Malcolm the Fourth,
who "dispersed the Moravii."^' In the face of evidence that Freskin held
lands in Linlithgowshire as well as Moray, prior to the reign of Kin-
Malcolm the Fourth, this tradition is of comparatively small value, excep^t
as regards the reference to the dispersion of the men of Moray, of which
there is evidence from other sources.
John of Fordun, whose annals were written between the years 1360
' Nisbefs Heraldry, E,l. 1S04. vol. ii. Appendix, p. 183. ^' Rose of EUravock, p. 61.
COLONISATION OF MORAY, 1130-1160.
aiul 1387, asserts that King Malcolm the Fourth, who reigned from 1153
to 1165, in consequence of a rebellion by the people of Moray under
Angus, a descendant of their ancient chiefs, expelled the native popu-
lation of the district. He did this, it is said, by dispossessing them,
scattering them over .Scotland, and planting new colonies in their ruom.i
This statement is undoubtedly too sweeping, but good evidence exists of
great changes among the proprietors of lands in Moray during this and
the preceding reign. That province had been troublesome to the kin^s of
Scotland in their attempts to govern the whole country, and it especially had
resisted the efforts of King David the First to establish his feudal system.
In 1130, while the king was in England, Angus, called Earl of Moray, a
descendant of the native Mormaers, joining with Malcolm, a natural son of
the late King Alexander the First, raised the standard of insurrection.
They marched southward with a force of five thousand men, but were met at
Stracathro, in Forfarshire, by Edward, Constable of Scotland, and defeated
with great slaughter, Angus of :\roray being slain. The royal forces then
entered Moray, and secured possession of that territory.-
From that time King David the First gave attention to the civilisation of
Moray, a policy which was followed up by his grandsons and successors,
Malcolm the Fourth and William the Lion, the latter of whom frequently
resided in the district. King David pursued the plan of planting rojal
castles along the co;ist, round which burghs soon gathered, which were filled
by a commercial, and therefore a comparatively peaceful population. At
Inverness, Elgin, and perhaps Banff and Forres, there were burghs or castles
from this time.3 There was a castle at Duffus so early as 1203, if not in the
' Fordun'8 AnnaUa, edition 1871, p. 257. 3 Registrum de Duafermelyn, p. IS. King
David the First at Bantf grants 20s. from his
- Authorities quoted in Skene's Celtic Scot- burgh of Elgin. Cf. also Registrum Mora-
l^".l, vol. i. p. 461. viense, p. 11, No. 14.
ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY OF DOllrLAS.
reign of King David the First.^ Xot withstand ing this attempt at civilisation,
however, the men of IMoray rose in insurrection more than once ere the
province was settled. One of the most formidable of these uprisings took
place as stated, in the time of King IMalcolm the Fourth, who, according to
Fordim, retaliated 1iy depopulating the province, and colonising it with a
"peculiar and peaceable people. "-
The assertion as to depopulation has been much doubted, and is not to
be understood of the tillers of the soil; but there is authentic evidence in
Malcolm's reign of changes among the iiroprietors, and the native lords mav
have been expelled to make way for the new settlers. One of these settlers
received tlie land;s of Innes, between tlie Spey and the Lossie, and his name
and the date of the grant give a clue as to the identity of the new colonists.
The grant is proved to have been made in the year 11 GO, and tlie grantee was
Berowald or Deroald, a Fleming (Flandrensis), whom King Malcolm thus
established in the north."' There is evidence that a considerable number of
Flemings settled in Scotland during the reign of King David the First, chiefly
as burgesses and traders, in IJerwick, St. Andrews, and otlier places on tlie
coast. But in the year 115G, a special influx of Flemings into Scotlaiul was
caused by King Henry the Second of England, who ex]Kdled from that
country a large number who had settled there. A few went to Wales, but
large numbers came to Scotland, where they were welcomed, the character of
their nation, as good citizens and sturdy soldiers, being well known. Those
who were tliu> driven from England had served there as men-at-arms, and
the natives of Flanders were noted in that age as engineers, builders, fortihers,
and defenders of castles.'* Such were the very men, a " peculiar and peaceable
people," to settle amid a turbulent race, to build castles, and to hold them fnr
1 Registrum Moraviense, p. 273. •^ The Familie of Inues, Spalding C'lul), pp.
.")0, 51.
- Fordun's Annalia, edition 1871, Y>- -o~. ^ fhlil. : of. als() Scalacrnnica, p. 3o.
FKESKIX OF ST UAH HOCK AXD DUFFVS.
the Crown to overawe the natives. The registers of the great southern
abbeys also afford evidence of many grants to Flemings in Clydesdale and
other parts of Scotland about this very time.
Accordiug to George Chalmers, the learned author of " Caledonia," Freskiu
of Strabrock was one of these energetic settlers who was selected by Iving
David the First to colonise tlie conquered province of ]\Ioray.i Some ridicule
has been cast on this author's theory of a Flemish migration to Scotland, as
in some points he draws too hasty conclusions. In this case, however, he has
probability on his side. Theoljald " Flamaticus " at a later date obtained a
portion of Lesmahagow,-' Thancard had Caldcr as well as Thankerton,^ while
Warnebald, Lambiu, and others possessed lands in the counties of Linlithgow-
and Lanark. King David the First had a great regard for the Flemings,
and appointed one of their number, Mayuard, who had been Provost of
Berwick, to be Provost of the new burgh of St. Andrews.* If, therefore,
Freskin was one of this law-abiding yet warlike people, the reason for his
establishment in Morayshire becomes discernible. Motives similar to those
which afterwards actuated his successor would lead King David to place the
strongholds of Morayshire in the hands of men on whom he could rely.
By selecting a Fleming the king would also avoid rousing the active hos-
tility of tribes who would probably not have submitted to tlie sway of a
Norman. The insurrection of 1130, and the disturbances which followed
during the next four years, would give good ground for such a policy.
In any case, as proved by the tenor of a later charter to his second son,
the grant of Duffus and other lands in Moray was made to Freskin in
the reign of King David, and the new settler became the lord of large pos-
» Caledonia, vol. i. p. G()4. vol i.pp. 53, 85. The burgesses of St. Andrews
- Liber de Calchou, p. 84. about this time are described as Scots,
' Registrum Vetus de Aberbrothoc, p. 60. French, Flemings, and English. [Register of
■•Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, St. Andrews, p. 1<)4.]
ORliJlN OF THE FAMILY OF DOUGLA&
sess.ous ,u the north. ,„ the next gene>.t.on the.e territorie:;;:,.^,
TtTTTI; that Fteskin's .,e.ce„..nts adopted the,,, sutnan.e ,Vo,„
the dstnct 0 Mo,.av,a. and not fron, their pa.tieular estates witl,i„ i„
And e«. Of the t .,rd sou very little is known, and his deseendants have
eEarl o . utherh„,d. He appears as a witness to a charte,-, dated between
.7 and 1.62^granted by Eobert, Bishop of St. An.l,.ew3, to Herbert. Bishop
of Glasgow. K,„g David t.,e First and his son P,.ince Hen,, were presen
w, h n,ore than forty elerics and dignitaries of the Court. Baldwin thj
fl m,„g. and Hugh, son of Fresk.n. being the last two nan,ed.. Hn»h died
be ween 1.03 and „„, and his son Willian, beoan,e lo.l of Snthlrland.'
V^,n.am. the second son of Freskin. witnessed the charter by Ki„. Afalcoln,
the Fonrth to Berowald the FIen„ng. dated at Perth in the yla'r "
Between U65 and lin. ho received fronr King AV,llia,u the Lion a .-rant
of he Ian s of Strabrock, Dnffns. Eosile. Inchikel, Kintrai, which land^s h
^ther Fres ,n held in the t„ne of King David the First.^ Willia,n. son f
U8, and 1199, atHg,n, Forres, and Inverness.-^ and he was .sheriff of Inve,-
nam (Nairn) m 1204.6
WiUian., the second son of Fresk,n. is sa,d to have had three sons, na.ned
specfvely Hugh, Willia.n, and Andrew. Hugh, the eldest son, i herUed
the lands o Duffus and Strabrock; he assu.ned the surnanre of Morav
and was styled Lord of Duffus before 1 203. He was buried in the church I'l
Dffus about ,,,C, William, the brother of Hugh, possessed the lands of
KegiatrumEpiscopatusGlasguensis n n Jp *
o"enM3, p.i^. ' ilegistrum Moraviense, p. xxxiv.
- Registrum xMoraviense, preface, p. xxxiii, ' ^*''^- PP- 5- 6- 8-1 1-
aud charters there quoted. ' ' Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland,
3 TT, t- •,• '^*'^- J- P- 118.
ibe J? amdie of Innes, pp. 50. 51 ; p ..
, f'P uu, oi. Registnim Moraviense, p. xxxv
FIRST HISTORICAL NOTICE OF THE DOUGLASES.
Petty, Brachlie, Boharm, and Amdilly. He was ancestor of the jNIorays
of Bothwell, and died before 1226.^ The third son, Andrew, was a
churchman.^
Freskin was dead, and his sons were in possession of their large territories
in Moray, before the first member of the family of Douglas appears on
record, between the years 1174 and 1199. During these years William of
r)ouglas witnessed a charter in favour of the monks of Kelso, granted by
Jocelyn, Bishop of Glasgow.^ He also witnessed a charter by King William
the Lion, at Edinburgh, some time after 1196,* and, with his son Archibald,
was present at a convention between two claimants of the earldom of
Menteith, made on 6th December 1213, before Alexander, Prince of Scotland,
and a number of magnates.^ The precise date of the death of William of
Douglas is not known, but it is evident that he was contemporary with the
immediate successors of Freskin. Xo evidence, however, has been found that
he ever resided in Morayshire.
It was otherwise with William's eldest son Archibald, whose history
affords several points of interest in connection with the question of the
origin. He is first named in a document which must have been dated
between 1179 and 1198, in which Archibald, Abbot of Dunfermline, grants
to Thomas, son of Edward of Lestalric (Ptcstalrig), the lands of Hailes.
The Abbot narrates that the lands had been held from the monastery by
Archibald, son of William of Douglas, and were given by him to the grantee.^
The charters of the lands were also handed over, which seems to imply some
length of possession by himself or his father. The lands of Hailes in
^lidlothian were not far from Strabrock in West Lothian, the first home of
' Registrum Moraviense, [>p. xxxvii, 23. ■• Charters uf Holyrood, p. 44.
= The Red Book of Menteith, by Williaiu
■^ Ibid. -p. 131. ^ , .,.
rraser, vol. u. p. 215.
' Liber de Calchou, vol. ii. p. 346. ^ Registnim de Dunfermelyn, p. 190.
V(»L. F. B
10 ORIGIX OF THE FAMILY OF DOUGLAS.
the Freskins, and as the latter kept up connection with their Lowland estate,
friendly intercourse may have existed between the two families.
The next recorded appearance of Archibald Douglas, son of William, is
in Morayshire, where he and his brothers resided more or less permanently
from about the year 1200. The cause of this migration was the elevation
of Brice, a younger son of William of Douglas, to the Episcopal See of
Moray. He belonged to the fraternity of Kelso Abbey, and had been
prior of their cell of Lesmahagow, not far from his native valley of Douglas.^
Brice of Douglas was Bishop of Moray from 1203 to 1222, and between
these years the following members of the family of Douglas appear
frequently as witnesses to charters granted by him, — Archibald of Douglas,
Alexander of Douglas, Hugh, Henry, and Freskin of Douglas.- They were
therefore not only contemporary with the immediate descendants of Freskin,
who, shortly before 1203, had assumed the surname of Moravia, but
like them were emigrants from a southern neighbourhood. It has been
suggested that Bishop Brice persuaded his brothers to come northward, and
provided for the younger members of the family.^ But the migration of the
Bishop himself from Lesmahagow to Moray remains to be accounted for,
which may be done by assuming a previous connection with the nortli.
That such a connection did exist is proved by a charter dated between
1203 and 1222, granting the tithes of the church of Deveth (now Daviot) to
be devoted to the maintenance of the fabric of the church of Spynie, then the
cathedral church of Moray.-* Bishop Brice, who makes this grant, states that
the church of Daviot was devoted to this purpose at the suggestion and
request of his uncle, Freskin of Kerdal (" ad instantiam et petitionem
Freskyni de Kerdal avnnculi nostri "), Freskin of Kerdal or Cardell was lay
patron of the cnurch of Daviot, and was therefore probably proprietor of
^ Chronicon de Mailroa, p. 105. 3 Registrum Moraviense, pp. xlv, xlvi.
- Registrum Moraviense, pp. 01, 6'2, 81. ■* Ihhl. p. 61.
FRESKIX OF KERDAL. 1 1
tlio territory in which it was situated. To this Morayshire baron therefore
the Douglases were related, and his history, so far as it can be traced,
b^'comes of importance. Unhappily very little information has been obtained
regarding Freskin of Kerdal. It has been conjectured " from the peculiarity
nf his name, that if not a member, he was at least a relative " of the famih'
of Moravia.^ If so, the extensive territories which that family possessed in
the north, and the influence which they could thus exert, might partly at
least account for the elevation of Brice of Douglas to the Bishopric of Moray,
as a kinsman of the chief lords in the diocese.
In an endeavour to discover the ancestry of Freskin of Kerdal, his true
relationship to the Douglases and their possible affinity through him to the
De Moravias, it is impossible to overlook the similarity of Christian names
in the members of the two families. In the pages of the Kegister of Moray,
Hugh, William, Archibald, Freskin, and Alexander De Moravia appear side
by side with, or as contemporaries of, the nephews of Freskin of Kerdal,
Archibald, Alexander, Hugh, Henry, and Freskin of Douglas. Such a
coincidence of Christian names may not be accidental ; it rather suggests
relationship between the families. The register referred to gives evidence of
more than one person bearing the surname of Moravia, who have not been
affiliated to the Morays of Sutherland, Duifus, or Petty. Thus in a charter
by Bishop Brice gxanting to Hugh of Moravia, Lord of Dutfus, the privilege
of a chaplainry in the Castle of Duffus, two of the witnesses are Archibald of
^loravia and William his brother, who are not identified, except in name, with
the Lords of ]\Ioray.- The parentage of Gilbert of jMoravia, afterwards
lUshop of Caithness, with his brothers John and Eichard, is uncertain.^ If,
therefore, doubt rests on the pedigree of prominent members of a family so
di.stinguislied as that of ]\Ioray, the descent of less-known persons such as
' Mr. Cosmo Iiiues ia Registrum Moravi- - Registrum Moraviense, p. 274.
♦•iiBe, jireface. \k xlv. 3 /j,-,/ p xHii.
12 ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY OF DOUGLAS.
Freskiii of Kerdal is still more obscure. In his case, however, certain evidence
exists which, though very slight, tends to throw some light on his ancestry.
The parentage of Freskin of Kerdal is the more difficult to trace, as he
appears to have left no male heirs. James of Kerdal witnessed a charter
granted at Castle Urquhart in 1342,^ and in 1414 Nicholissa of Kerdal was
one of the heirs-portioners of the barony of Kerdal, William of Grame being
the other, but no descent from Freskin of Kerdal can be traced. Nicholissa
of Kerdal w^as also one of the two superiors of the lands of Dunmaglass,
in the barony of Kerdal, which were held by Donald, Thane of Cawdor.- A
few years later, in 1420, William the Grame, styling himself son and heir
of the late Henry the Grame, resigned into the hands of Thomas Dunbar,
Earl of Moray, as overlord, his lands of Kerdal, in favour of himself and
heirs, whom failing, in favour of his "gudfadyr," William Hay, Lord of
Lochloy.3 In 1422, the same Earl released John Hay of Lochloy from his
promise to marry the Earl's daughter, and also gave up his right to forty merks
of half the barony of Kerdal under an entail between the grantee's father and
the grantee's " brother " William Grame.* A small annual rent was paid to
the Bishop of Moray from the barony of Kerdal in 1457, while the earldom
of Moray was in the hands of the Crown after the forfeiture of Archibald
Douglas, Earl of :Moray. In 1 602, in the retour of James Stewart, Earl
of Moray, as heir of his mother, Elizabeth Stewart, Countess of Moray,
and in subsequent retours of the Earls of Moray, the " lands of Cardell "
are enumerated among their other possessions in Inverness-shire.^ In the
retour of William M'Intosh of Torcastle, as heir of his father. Sir Lachlan,
in 1634, the half-lands of Tulloch and Ellerig are described as in the barony
of Cardell and Strathnairn.^ From these statements may be gathered some
1 Inveraessiana, p. 56. ^ The Thanes of Cawdor, p. 10.
2 TheThanes of Cawdor, Spalding Club, p. 5. ° Retours, Inquisitiones Speciales, Invcr-
3 Registrum Moraviense, pp. 475, 470. ness, Nos. 12, 62. c jn^i y^^ 3^3
DESCEND A XTS OF FRESKIX OF KERDAL. 13
j.IiM of the locality of Kerdal, though its extent cannot be defined. It was
wholly or partly in the present county of Inverness, in the valley called Strath-
nairn, and if the more modern Cardell applies to land of the same extent as
the ancient Kerdal, it could not have l>een a very large barony; But it is
possible that, as Freskin of Kerdal was patron of the church of Daviot, he
was proprietor of a considerable portion of Strathnairn,^ of which the Castle
of Daviot was, certainly at a later date, the principal messuage, xifter the
forfeiture of Archibald Douglas, Earl of Moray, in 1455, Stratlmairn was for
some time in the hands of the Crown, then in the hands of the Ogilvies of
r>anff, and was disponed about 1535 to Sir John Campbell of Cawdor.'
No evidence has been discovered of any immediate descendant of Freskin
of Kerdal, save one daughter (or granddaughter), who married, previous to
1231, Sir Alexander of Striuelyn or Stirling, the founder of the family of
that name in Moray. Bishop Brice's grant to the church of Spynie of the
church of Daviot, of which Freskin of Kerdal was patron, has been referred
to. After the Bishop's death in 1222, his successor confirmed the grant,
and Freskin, the patron, was then dead also.^ In 1234, a half davocli of
land near, and belonging to the church of Daviot, was the subject of an
agreement between the chapter of Moray and Sir Alexander Stirling. It
was arranged that Sir Alexander and his heirs by his wife, the daughter of
the deceased Sir Freskin of Kerdal, should hold the land in question from
the Chapter, in feu- farm, for certain payments and conditions.* This deed was
executed in duplicate, and sealed by both parties with their respective seals.
The name of Sir Alexander Stirling's wife is not given in the deed of
a,gi"eeraent, but evidence preserved in the charter-chest of another northern
' Freskin's possessions probably represented '^ Registrura Moraviense, p. G5.
a large part, the southern part, of the modern * Ih'id. p. 99. As the wife of Sir Alexander of
parish of Daviot and Dunlichty. Stirling is said to be a daughter of >Sir Freskin
of Kerdal, she may have been a granddaughter
- The Thanes of Cawdor, p. 162. of the uncle of Bishop Brice.
U ORIGIX OF THE FAMILY OF DOUGLAS.
family appears to supply iuforniatiou which throws iniich light on the
family of Kerdai. Sir Alexander Stirling is believed to liave been fatlier
of Sir John Stirling, who in 129G paid homage to King Edward the First
of England for lands in ]\Ioray and elsewhere.^ Sir John Stirling's son,
Alexander of Stirling, and Elizabeth his wife, daughter of Sir John de Bosco,
joined in a renunciation of their riglit to the lands of Kilravock, which had
belonged to Elizabeth Byset, wife of Sir Andrew de Bosco, mother of Sir John.
She had bestowed the lands on Hugh Eose, first of Kilravock, on his marriage
with her daughter Marie. Sir John de Bosco left no heirs-male, and his three
daughters, as co-heiresses and portioners of his estate, resigned to "William
Eose, son of Hugh Eose, all their rights over Kilravock. The resignation by
Elizabeth de Bosco and her husband was made on 14th June 1327.-
A connection between the families of Stirling and that of Eose of
Kilravock being thus proved, an entry in an old inventory of the latter family
becomes more important. The entry refers to a charter of donation by
]\Iarjory de Moravia, widow of Sir Alexander Stirling, granting to her
daughter Isobel, and the heirs of her body, the lands of Cantra Freskyn, to
be held for payment yearly of a pair of gloves. This charter is not dated,
and the only one of the witnesses whose name has been preserved is Archibald,
Bishop of Moray, who held that see from 1253 to 1298.^ The earlier of these
dates may be the nearest to the date of the charter, as Sir John Stu'liug was
the head of the family in 1296. The grant to Isobella Stirling was probably
intended as a marriage portion, and does not imply that slie was an heiress.
It is also worthy of note that the lands of Cantray or Kintray were not far
from Daviot and the so-called barony of Kerdai or Cardell, and were included
in the grant of his father's lands to William, son of Freskin, in 1171. If,
1 The Stirlings of Keir, by William Fraser, - Rose of Kilravock, Spalding Club. pp. ,V2.
p. 14 ; Ragman Rolls, Bannatyne Club. 1S:34, 114 ; History of Beauly Priory, )>p. Go, 07.
pp. 9:{, 94, 11 D. ' Rose of Kilravock, p. 120.
ARMORIAL BEARINGS OF THE DOUGLASES AND MORAYS. 15
therefore, Marjory de Moravia, here designed as the widow of Sir Alexander
Stirling, was the daughter of Sir Freskin of Kerdal, who was Sir Alexander's
wife in 1234, the proof that Freskin of Kerdal was a descendant of Freskin
of Strabrock and Duffus would be complete. But the evidence warrants no
more than the possibility that he may have been a younger son of William,
son of Freskin, and a grandson of the older Freskin.
The precise relationship of Freskin of Kerdal to the early ancestors of
the family of Douglas is not determined by the statement that the former
was the uncle of Bishop Brice. Had the term used been the definite word
patrnus, father's brother, and had the relationship of Freskin of Kerdal to
the family of Moray been conclusively ascertained, the problem as to the
origin of the Douglases would be so far solved, by William of Douglas,
father of Bishop Brice and his brothers, being a brother of Freskin of
Kerdal, and so a descendant in common with the founders of the family
of Moray from the first known Freskin. But as the term of relationship
between Freskin of Kerdal and Bishop P.rice is not pafnms, but the
indefinite word avimaihcs, this does not follow ; they may have been only
brothers-in-law, Freskin having married a sister of William of Douglas, or
William's wife being a sister of Freskin, in which case the question of
origin is where it was at first. Further light on this point may be obtained
from a consideration uf the armorial bearings of the family of Douglas, in
relation to the Moravias and Freskin of Kerdal.
ARMORIAL BEARINGS OF THE DOUGLASES AND THE MORAYS.
The historian Wyntown has been quoted for the opinion of his day, that
the Morays and Douglases were of kin because they bore " the sternys
(stars) set in lyk manere." It has already been stated that the blazon of
Douglas differed somewhat from the blazon of ]\Ioray, as borne by the houses
of Sutherland and Bothwell. The familv of Sutherland was descended
IG ORIGIX OF THE FAMILY OF DOUGLAS.
from Hugh, the eldest son of Ireskin of Duff us, while the family of Bothwell
derived their origin from Freskin's second son William. The blazons of
Sutherland and Bothwell, an arrangement of three stars, two and one, may
therefore be taken as representing the true blazon of ^Nforay. The family
of Douglas also blazoned three stars, but arranged in a line on a chief
In reference to the seals of William, tirst Earl of Douglas, wh*) held the
Douglas estates from 1348 to 1384, and whose armorial bearings are well
known, a recent writer remarks — " He had three if not four seals, all givin-^
arms such as a herald of that day would have blazoned out of a conjunction
of a coat of three stars only, with an augmentation of a heart." ^ This
remark is borne out by the evidence of the seals themselves, as portrayed in
this work. It may be added that the augmentation of tlie heart in base was
not used until after the death of tlie Good Sir James, being lirst borne by
his son William, who succeeded him, and became Lord of Douglas. It was
no part of tlie earlier described armorial bearings of the family.
No seals of the Good Sir James of Douglas have, so far as is known,
been preserved, nor, as regards his predecessors, have any charters lieen
found to which William of Douglas, the first on record, or Archibald, liis
son, w-ere principals, and it cannot be known whether they used armorial
seals or not. But the son of Archibald, Sir William of Douglas, third lord
of Douglas, was a party between 1253 and 1266 to several important
documents, and to these he appended his seal.- One of these documents,
a marriage-contract, dated 6th AprH 1259, between Sir William Douglas and
Sir Hugli xVbernethy for the marriage of Hugh of Douglas, son of Sir
William, with Sir Hugh's sister, is still preserved in the Douglas Chartcr-
1 Registrum Moraviense, preface, pp. xlvi, Episcopatus Glasguensis, vol. i, p. 103. In
• 12fiG, a resignation to the monks of Kelso, in
- In 1253, a convention between the Bishop presence of King Alexander iii. and his mas-
of Glasgow and Walter of Moray.— Registrum nates.— Liber de Cakhon. vol. i. pp. 1 j.")- I5S.
A RMOn L [ L SEA L OF SIR WILL L 1 M OF DO UGLA ^; 1 2 9 G . 1
cliest.^ The seal is no longer attached, but was still appended (in a woni
condition) in the time of Godscroft, wlio describes the contents uf the
document so minutely as to leave no doubt that he had seen the originnl.
He also describes the seal as being " longer then broad, fashioned like a heart,
I he letters thereon are worn away, and not discernable save onely (W),
and the armes seeme to be three starres or mullets at the upper end
tlicreof ; but I cannot be bold to say absolutely they were so."-
This cautious description is probably accurate, as it is corroborated by
Sir Eichard Maitland.^ It is the same device which is figured on the seal of
Sir William le Hardi, appended to his deed of homage to Edward the First of
England in 1296, with tliis addition, that the three stars are borne on a chief,
a refinement which was then coming into use. In this seal, a representation
of which is here given, the shield is surrounded by w^hat are apparently
three lizards, and the legend s : dxi : wiL . . . mi : de : dvglas.
It is somewhat remarkable to find a similar conjunction of stars on the
seal, in 1296, of Sir John Stirling of Moray, a son or descendant of that
Sir Alexander Stirling who married the daughter of Freskin of Kerdal. This
seal is the more noteworthy, as it blazons six stars, three at the upper end
^ VoL iii of this work, p. 1. ane contract of mariage. . . . The quilk evi-
- Houses of Douglas and Angus, edition dent and indentoure (of 1259) the said Justice
1644, p. 13. Clark did schaw to vTnquhile Henrye Bischope
' Sir Richard writes, " Schir Johnne Bel- of Ross with the Erie (sic) of Douglass seill
lenden of Auchinknowill, knycht, prinoipale hingand thairat, being bot three starnis alaner-
Justice Clarke of Scotland, schew to me that lie without the bludie harte." — [MS. History
he saw and red ane indentoure in maner of at Hamilton Palace.]
VOL. I. . f.
18 ORIGIX OF THE FAMILY OF DOUGLAS.
of the shield, similar to Douglas, although not on a chief, and under tliem
other three aminged two and one, as in the arms of IMoray.^ It was no
uncommon tiling for vassals of great lords to assume the arms of their feudal
superiors, with some difterence of arrangement or tincture. These were called
arms of dependence, and the practice was adopted in IVforaj as elsewhere.
Thus the family of Brodie, who held lands in Moray, blazon a chevron gules
between three stars, two and one, azure.- The family of Innes also blazoned
three stars, two and o)ie. This, however, was not the blazon first assumed
by them. The three stars appear on the seal of Walter Innes of Innes in
1431, but a seal used by an earlier member of the family in 1296 shows
only a central ornament representing a star of six points.=^ Other vassals or
aUied families adopted other arrangements of the stars. Thus Mary de
Moravia, daughter and coheiress of Freskin de Moravia, Lord of Dufius,
married before 1269 Sir Eeginald le Chene the younger, and between
1292 and 1 296 her husband or son, Sir Eeginald le Chene, used a seal showing
a shield charged with three stars on a bend, between ten cross crosslets.*
About 1350, Muriella of Doune, widow of William Eose of Kilravock,
granted to her second son, Andrew Eose, certain lands, of which Sir John
Moray of Bothwell was superior. She affixed to the document her seal.
which bears on a shield her husband's cognisance of the water-budget, below
three stars in chief, the last being similar to the stars of Douofas.^
The seal of Sir John of Stirling in 1296 differs, however, from all those
referred to in uniting the cognisances usually assigned to each of the t^ o
famHies of Douglas and Moray. His estates lay in Moray; he might
therefore have naturally assumed the three stars of Moray as arms of
1 Seal of Sir John Stirling of Moray, at- ^ The Familie of Innes, engravings of seals
tached to the llagman Roll of I20G, figured on pp. 56 and 69.
in "The StirHngs of Keir, by William ^ Registrum Moraviense, preface, p. .xxxvi,;
Fraser," p. 14. j-ogg of Kilravock, p. 20, and engraved seal on
- Shaw's Moray, edition J SS2, vol. ii. p. 2.52. p. H;". a ma. -o 119
HUME OF GODSCROFr^ TRADITIONS. 19
\ tlepenclence. But why should he add to these the stars of 1 )ouglas, unless they
were arms of alliance, and that through the female line he claimed a common
ancestry ? That common ancestry, so far as known, could only be througli
Freskin of Kerdal, who was, on the one hand, the uncle of Bishop Brice
of Douglas, and on the other, the father-in-law of Sir Alexander Stirling, the
progenitor of Sir John Stirling. The testimony of Sir John Stirling's seal
may therefore be added in support of what was formerl}^ stated in reference
to Marjory de Moravia, the widow of Sir Alexander Stirling, being also
the daughter of Freskiu of Kerdal, and strengthening the probability that
he was a member of the Moravia family, perhaps a grandson of the first
Freskin who migrated from Strabrock to Duftus. It cannot, however, be
overlooked that the seal in question also suggests that the family of Douglas
may have adopted the three stars in chief in memory of their alliance with
Freskin of Kerdal, though as to this there is no proof.
While the facts stated in the preceding pages are interesting, presenting
for the first time tlie arguments for this theory in a new and connected form,
the chain of evidence is not complete, and no definite conclusion can be
drawn. The proved kinship of the family of Douglas with a Morayshire
baron, the similarity of Christian names, and also of armorial bearings, while
these tend to connect the Douglases closely, not only with the province of
Moray, but also with the family of Moray, do not prove that the two families
of Douglas and Moray had a common origin. That connection may have
been only by intermarriage, as the alternative that William of Douglas was a
brother of Freskin of Kerdal, and therefore possibly deriving from a Flemish
ancestor, though not inadmissible, is not supported by decisive evidence.
HUME OF GODSCROFT-S TRADITIONS.
Nor on the origin of the family of Douglas, can anything certain be
learned from the narrative of the family historian, Hume of Godscroft. He
20 ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY OF DOUGLAS.
is so impressed with the antiquity of that House, that he declares its origin
incapable, on account of that antiquity, of " an exact and infallible demon-
stration." Yet he asserts regarding his heroes, that " according to the constant
and generall tradition of men, thus was their originall," and proceeds to relate
how, during the reign of Solvatliius, ICing of Scotland, his throne was assailed
by a pretender, Donald Bane, who, having possessed himself of the Hebrides,
aspired to set the crown of Scotland also on his head. He gathered a
considerable army, and encountered the royal forces sent against him with
such effect, tliat he nearly gained the victory. But " a certain noble man,
disdaining to see so bad a cause have so good successe," made an attack with
his followers on the usurper's army, and turned the battle in favour of the
king. The latter afterwards inquiring who this loyal nobleman was, received
the reply, " ' Sholto Du glasse,' that is to say. Behold yonder black, grey
man." Under this title, Solvathius promoted his loyal subject in his service,
and bestowed upon him extensive domains, which from him took the name
of Douglasdale. These events occuiTcd, it is said, in the year 767.
For proof of this narrative, Godscroft refers not only to tradition, " truth
delivered from hand to hand," but also to a " certain manuscript of great
antiquity," which had been seen and perused by AVilliam, tenth Earl of Angus,
while residing in the north of Scotland in 1595. Whatever this manu-
script may have been, it seems to have told the same tale as Hector Boece,
to whom, as well as to Buchanan and Holinshed, Godscroft refers as the
historians whom he consulted. It need scarcely be added, that Solvathius
is a king of Scotland unknown to accurate history, and though Donald Bane
is a historical personage, his insurrection did not take place until several
centuries after the date assigned to Sholto Douglas.
To Sholto, according to Godscroft, succeeded his son Hugh, who had two
sous : Hugh, who inherited the family estates, and William, who is claimed as
the progenitor of the family of the Scoti in Italy. Achaius, the successor of
DESCENT OF THE SCOT I IX ITALY. 21
Solvathius, having made a league with tlie Emperor Charlemagne, sent an
iiriny of four thousand men to assist the Emperor in his Italian wars.
William Douglas accompanied this auxiliary force, but falling sick on his
way homeward, remained at Piacenza, and tinally settled there. While
Ciodscroft was writing his history, William, the eleventh Earl of Angus,
travelling in France, met with some noblemen who claimed descent from this
William Douglas. A correspondence ensued, which, however, proves nothing
more than that the representatives of the Scoti in Italy believed themselves
descended from a Douglas who came from Scotland in the time of Charle-
magne.^ The story of Achaius and of the treaty with tlie Emperor about the
year 800, is, so far as history is concerned, a myth, and the tradition of the
founding of the Scoti of Italy by William Douglas, grandson of Sholto, is so
far a fable.- On the other hand, the alleged connection between the Scoti of
Piacenza and the family of Douglas, may have a basis of fact. During the
reigns of the fifth, sixth, and seventh Charleses, or between 1364 and 1460,
many Scots went to France, and the Douglases not only were frequent visitors
to the Continent, but also possessed large estates in France.
After this digression on the subject of the Scoti of Piacenza, Godscroft
comes to a sudden pause in his narrative, and he is compelled to confess that
for the space of nearly three centuries he can find no trace of his heroes.
The next whom he introduces to the reader is a William, first Lord of
Douglas, who, he alleges, was created Lord Douglas at a Parliament held
at Forfar by Iving Malcolm Canmore, in the year 1057 or 1061. The
two sons of this William were, it is said, Sir John Douglas of Douglas-
burn, and William of Glendinning. Between these two, Godscroft is puzzled
to find a successor to the Douglas estates. Sir John's son, William, is,
' Correspondence printed pp. 291-302, vol. Scot, and his partners of the " Scotti " of
iv. of this work. Placentia, and their merchandise throughout
- On loth November 1279, King Edward I. his realm. [Calendar of documents relating to
granted a protection for three years to Albert Scotland, vol. li. No. 1G7.]
ORIGIS OF THE FAMILY OF DOUGLAS.
however, the next in possession, about 1152, to whom succeeds his son
Arch ibakl, whose son, William, was the granter of the Indenture of 125:»,
already referred to, when the historian first founds upon authentic record.
Of the earlier generations commemorated by Godscroft, only the last
three names, William, Archibald, and William Douglas, are found on
record, as will be shown in their respective memoirs. The alleged
Parliament of Malcolm Canmore in 1057 or lOGl, in which the kinu
created numerous earls and other nobles, is a myth invented by Hectoi-
Boece, who probably confused it with some real event of a later period.
Godscroft's history, therefore, so far as the origin of the family of Douglas
is concerned, is utterly unreliable, and where he does touch upon genuine
history, the events are so misdated as to seem mythical. He had some
perception of his failure to throw Hght upon the ancestry of his heroes, for
he cries out more than once against the darkness of the ages which had
obscured their brilliant deeds, and handed down no trace to posterity. Not
content with tracing their pedigree back to the year 767, he exclaims,
" We do not yet know them fully ; we do not know them in the fountain,
but in the stream; not in the root, but in the stock and stemme; for we
know not who was the first mean man, that did by his vertue raise himselfe
above the vulgar to such eminent place and state, as our Sholto behoved to
have been of, before he wan the battell, and got the name of Douglas, which
hath drowned his former name," etc.^
There is, however, something to be said in favour of Hume of Godscroft's
claim for the ancient lineage of the Douglases, when looked at from thf
traditional and even the purely historical point of view. In consequence of
the fabulous framework in which he has set his historical facts, the story
of "Sholto Duglasse" has been condemned without mercy, while hitherto
no one seems to have inquired how far it had a foundation in genuine
* Houses of Douglas and Angus, edition 1644, preface.
STORY OF SfWLTO DOUGLAS.
23
history. Godscroft indeed claims that his tale of Sholto Douyias iu the
time of King Solvathius was according to the " constant and generall
tradition of men." This statement is doubtless exaggerated, hut may reason-
ably be taken to refer to some legend preserved in the family of Douglas,
" delivered from hand to hand," regarding their first prominent ancestor.
Stripped of the mythical, Godscroft's story is simple eno\igh, and quite
within the bounds of possibility. It is that the earliest known ancestor of
the Douglases distinguished himself on the side of the King of Scotland in
an engagement between the royal troops and those of an insurgent chief
called Donald Bane, who claimed the crown ; that the royal troops were
victorious, and the rebel leader slain. Had Godscroft not been misled by
the authorities he consulted, or had he stated that Donald Bane claimed the
crown of William the Lion, and that the king's forces marched against the
rebel, who was slain, he would have been perfectly accurate. If, further, in
accordance with his tradition, he had declared that the first Douglas fought
against Donald Bane and thus became famous, the statement might have
been quite true, as there is evidence that Donald Bant; and the first recorded
Douglas were contemporaneous.
Godscroft, however, was not to blame ; he did not invent his story : his
information, except when drawn from family charters, depended on inaccurate
historians, and he had no opportunity of basing the history of his heroes
on actual facts. He probably found that family tradition connected the
ancestor of the Douglases with the insurrection of Donald Bane. He
consulted previous writers to learn when this event took place, and Boece
and Buchanan, the authorities quoted by him,^ l^oth refer the last rising of
* Boece (or Boetius), Holinshed, and Buch- during the reigu of King James the Sixth.
anan, are the historians whom Godscroft Godscroft had access also to a MS. of Fordun
quotes at this stage of his histori'. Bellenden's which he calls the Black Book of Scone, but
translation of Boece was made about 1530, and he does not qnote it in the early portions
printed so early as 1541. Buchanan WTote of his narrative.
ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY OF DOUGLAS.
Donald Bane to the year 767, in the time of an imaginary King Solvathius.
Godscroft therefore was obliged to place the ancestor of the Douglases at
that date, which he doubtless did all the more readily, that the mythical
account of a Parliament at Forfar, in 1057, supplied him with evidence for
a generation or two, between his first Sholto and the authentic William of
Douglas of charter record. Had the prominence of the first known Douglas
not been associated in Godscroft's mind with the insurrection of Donald
Bane, there was no reason why he should have fixed upon that event
as the point from which to deduce the ancestry of his heroes. Many
other incidents were equally available on which to found an imaginary
descent. But as Godscroft's traditional authority linked the two events
together, he dated the Douglas pedigree from the period which the authors
he consulted assigned to the insurrection in question.
The true narrative of Donald Bane may now be briefly given. He was,
as he styled himself, the son of "William Fitz Duncan, a natural grandson
of King Malcolm Canmore. Donald therefore claimed to be of royal
lineage, and the true heir of the throne of Scotland, then occupied by King
William the Lion. King William having given offence to the Celtic portion
of his subjects, some of the leading men made overtures to Donald Bane, and
invited him to assert his claim. The King was absent in Xormandy when
the insurrection broke out, but returned immediately and took the field
against the insurgent leader. Donald Bane had by this time gathered a
considerable force, and infested the district of Eoss, where the people, and
probably also those of jMoray, flocked to his standard. But he did not on
this occasion face the royal troops, and King William returned to the south,
after strengthening his garrisons in the northern districts, and erecting the
castles of Dunscath and Redcastle.^
This was in 1179, or between that year and 1181. Some years later,
^ Chronicon de Mailros, p. 90 ; Fordnn, edition 1871, vol. i. p. 268.
INSURRECTION OF DONALD BANE, 1187.
King Williaiu, whose attention had meanwhile been occupied by a serious
robelh'on in Galloway, and other disturbances in the south, was again
coinpelled to march against Donald Bane. The latter had during the
interval maintained himself in the district north of the Spey, ravaging the
territory which belonged or adhered to the Crown. Fordun says, that for
no little time the usurper held the whole of Moray, and it had become
necessary for the king, if he was not to lose his kingdom, to kill or capture
this claimant to the throne.^ King William was unable to attempt this
until the year 1187, when, with the whole available military force of
Scotland, he advanced to Inverness. Among those who accompanied the
king was Eoland, a grandson of Fergus, Lord of Galloway. It is stated that
in a difficulty which arose among the nobles as to the leadership of the army,
which was to march without the king against Donald Bane, Eoland remained
faithful to the royal authority, and putting himself at the head of three
thousand of his own followers, went in search of the rebel chief, while
the king remained with the main portion of the army at Inveruess.-
Other accounts, however, state that the king sent his earls and barons
with the Scots and Galloway men to subdue the enemy; that a dispute
arose, and then it was agreed to send out a foraging or plundering party.
Accordingly nearly three thousand warlike young men were chosen to
go out on such an errand, among whom were the household (familia) of
Pioland Fitz Uchtred.-' It does not appear from this that he himself led
this guerrilla force, but be that as it may, while these young men were
scouring the country, they, or a detachment of them — Fordun says two
thousand — came unexpectedly upon Donald Bane and his troops, on a
nioor called Mamgarvy, near Moray. The insurgent leader seeing that
Celtic Scotland, vol. L p. 47S, and ' Benedictus Abbas, a contemporary chro-
aathorities there quoted. nicler, quoted in Celtic Scotland, vol. i.
- Robertson's Scotland under her Early p. 470, note ; Chronicon de Mailros,
Kings, vol. i. p. 392. p. 90.
. vor,. I. r, .
•26
ORIGIX OF THE FAMILY OF DOUGLAS.
the kiug's troops were few in comparison of his own men, rushed to
battle. But the royal forces manfully withstood his onset, and in the
end were completely victorious, Donald Bane, witli live hundred of his
followers beincj left dead on the field. The date of this decisive engac^e-
ment v.-as the 31st July 1187.'
It is at a period contemporaneons with this victory at Mamgarvy, or
between 1174 and 1199, that the earliest recorded ancestor of the Douglases,
William of Douglas, appears for the first time as a witness to royal charters
and others writs. It has been asserted that, as the Douglases " were
not among the Magnates Scotiae, they appear not as witnesses to the
charters of David i., or his grandsons Malcolm iv. and William, or of
Alexander ii." - This, however, is disproved by evidence already given,
that William of Douglas and his son Archibald both attended the Court
of King William the Lion. Their appearance on record at the period in
question may of course be a mere coincidence, but when to this fact is added
the connection they undoubtedly had with the province of ]\Ioray, where the
final struggle and defeat of Donald Bane actually took place, Godscroft's
tradition, stripped of embellishments, would suggest that the historical
William of Douglas, either as a loyal resident in Moray, or as one of the
king's military vassals from the south or from Douglasdale, took part against
the historical Donald Bane, and so brought himself into special notice.
Although the fact that William, the first Douglas on record, was contem-
poraneous with Donald Bane, throws no additional light on the origin of
the family of Douglas, it is legitimate to conclude that William Douglas
was the person to whom Godscroft's tradition properly refers. He is
historically the first of his race, the foremost to bring it on the stage of
history, and history and tradition alike point to him as the first known
Lord of Douglas.
^ Fordun, edition 1S7I, vol. i. p. *2(kS. ' - Chalmers's "Caledonia," vol. i. p. ."SO.
THE FLE}[[NGS IX DOUGLA^DALE.
FLEMISH ORIGIN FROM THEOBALD.
In answer to Godscroft's declaration that the Douglases were not known
" in the fountain, but in the stream ; not in the root, but in the stock
nnJ stemme, for we know not who was the first mean man," etc., a more
recent historian, George Chalmers, the author of " Caledonia," remarks that
if the writer "had opened his eyes he might have seen the first mean
man of this family." Chalmers then asserts that he will produce the object
I of inquiry, which he accordingly does, as he believes, in the person of
"Theobald Flamaticus," Theobald the Fleming, who between 1147 and
1160 received a grant of lands on the Douglas water.^ Chalmers is so
satisfied with this statement that he pronounces this grant to be "the
first link of the chain of title-deeds to Douglasdale," and declares that the
family of Douglas " must relinquish their original domain, or acknowledge
their Flemish descent." But this assertion has, in the light of later research,
been shown to be erroneous, as the lands given to Theobald were not in
Douglasdale, but in the parish of Lesmahagow, which belonged to the Abbey
of Kelso.
Local research defines the lands given to Theobald to be identical with
Folkaristoun or Folkarton.- If so, they could not have remained long in
Tlieobald's hands, as between 1208 and 1218, Henry, Abbot of Kelso, granted
to Richard, son of Solph, the lands of Folcaristun, which his father and
ancestors held, though it would appear that they were only sub-tenants."
Chalmers, in supporting his argument as to Theobald, states that at a later
date his descendants received other gi-ants of land on Douglas water from
another Abbot of Kelso. Eeference is here made to the lands of Poueil, or
* Chalmers's Caledonia, vol. i. p. 579. Folkerton, which is partly in Lesmahagow,
' Mr. G. "V. Irving in " Upper W'ard of and partly in Douglas parish. — \lhvi.
L»aarksbire," vol. ii. p. 224. This hold- p. 238.]
in^' was probablj' larger than the modern '^ Liber de Calchou, vol. i. p. 7S.
ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY OF DOUGLAS.
that portion of them in the territory of Lesmahagow, which in 1270 was granted
to Sir William of Douglas. But that grant was made only for life, and the
lands of Poneil had been the subject of a claim by the Folkarton family.^
In corroboration of the possibility that Theobald did not remain long
settled on Douglas water, and as suggestive of his real descendants, it may be
noted that his name occurs elsewhere in an entirely different connection.
Between 1204 and 1211, Umfrid de Berkelay granted to the Abbey of
Arbroath the lands of Balfeith and certain rights over his fee of Conveth.-
This Humphrey is claimed by Chalmers as a brother of "Walter de Berkelay
of Inverkeillor and Eedcastle, Chamberlain of Scotland from 1165 to 1189,
who is fiurther assumed to be a scion of the southern family of Berkelay.^
The relationship between Walter and Humphrey is not proved, but if they
were brothers, theii- father has hitherto been overlooked. In a lease by the
Abbot of Arbroath in 1242 to John Wishart, of lands in the parish of Con-
veth, they are described as granted by King William the Lion to " Umfrid de
Berkelay, son of Theobald,"* who may or may not be the Fleming of
Folkarton, but it is not improbable, as many Flemings held lands on the
east coast. In any case the descent of the Berkelays from Theobald is more
clearly proved than that of the Douglases. It d(jes not, however, appear that
the modern family of Barclay or Berkelay are descended from this Theobald.
Humphrey Berkelay, whether a brother of the Chamberlain or not, left only
an heiress, Pdchenda, who married Eobert, son of Warnebald, apparently a
Fleming, and thus became the ancestress of the family of Cunningham, Earls
of Glencairu. Eobert, son of Warnebald, died, and Eichenda was left a
widow before 1189.^
It is evident from the foregoing, that the assertion that the family of
' Liberde Calchou,p. 168 ; cf. p. 154,No. 189. ' Registrum Vetus de Aberbrothoc, p. 206.
* Regiatrum Vetus de Aberbrothoc, p. 60. * Ibid. pp. 198, 200 ; " Caledonia," vol. i.
3 " Caledonia," vol. i. p. 529. p. 536 ; Liber de Calchou, vol. i. p. 2.32.
NATIVE OR CELTIC ORIGIN. 29
Douglas descended from Theobald the Fleming, who for a short time settled
at Folkaiton near their territory, is no more to be relied upon than the
statements made by Hume of Godscroft.
NATIVE OR CELTIC ORIGIN.
Had Godscroft's narrative been founded on authentic evidence, there
might have been good reason for adhering to his view of the origin of the
Douglas family, in so far as it points to the probability that they were
natives of the soil, and were brought suddenly into the ken of history by
some special event or act of royal favour. A recent historian writing
upon what he terms the Theory of Displacement, a theory which assigns
every Scottish name of note to a foreign settler, combats this view witli
considerable force.^ The evidence he adduces in favour of a contrary
opinion cannot be ignored, and tends to show that notwithstanding the
undoubted migration into Scotland, at various dates, of Saxon, Xorman,
and Flemish settlers, the native population remained to a large extent
undisturbed. In regard to the Lords of Douglas and their territory, no
document of the nature of grant or charter has been found which affects the
integrity of their domain, though years before a Douglas is found on record,
the lands all round their territory were in possession either of Crown vassals
or great abbeys. Another writer also, more recent than the last cited author,
and looking on the subject from a difierent point of view, gives testimony
which corroborates this statement.
David, Prince of Cumbria, afterwards King of Scotland, under the title of
David the First, between 1116 and 1120, made inquisition into the possessions
of the Church of Glasgow in all the provinces of Cumbria under his power.
These were situated in that portion of Cumbria called Strathclyde, and, as
appears from the document, included Lanark, Ayr, Ptcnfrew, Dumfries, and
1 Robertson's Scotland iindex- her Early Kings, vol. ii. Appendix R.
20
OniGIX OF THE FAMILY OF DOUGLAS.
Peebles.! David was also overlord of Galloway, and ruler over Lothian and
Teviotdale. The ancient territory of Douglas was therefore within Cumbria.
Speaking of the inquest referred to, and other charters of Prince David, Mr.
Skene says, "The native Cumbrians nowhere appear as witnessing his (Prince
David's) grants, and it seems plain enough that he had largely introduced the
Norman element into his territories, and ruled over them as a feudal superior,
basing his power and influence upon his Xonnan and Anglic vassals, of whom
the former were now the most prominent, both in weight and number." 2
The same ^^Tite^ elsewhere refers to a movement of the Anglic population
of Northumbria, etc., into the upper valley of the Tweed and Teviot, and
along the banks of the great watercourse of the Clyde, and to the plains of
Kenfrew and Ayr. He then adds, " Extensive territories too were granted by
Earl David (afterwards King David the First) to his Norman followers. The
great district of Anuandale was given to De Bruce. The adjacent districts
of Eskdale and Ewisdale were filled with Normans. The De Morevilles
obtained Cunniughame or the northern district of Ayrshire, and the Norman
Fitzallan, who became the Steward of Scotland, acquired Renfrew and part of
Kyle. These Norman barons settled their Northumbrian followers on their
lands, and thus almost the whole of the ancient kingdom of the Cumbrian
Britons became soon entirely Saxonised." ^
In this enumeration of grants to foreigners, however, the districts of
Douglasdale and a large sweep of Clydesdale are omitted, and while the
Cartularies of the great abbeys contirm Mr. Skene's statement, the fact that
they reveal nothing as to Douglasdale indicates a probability that it may
have remained in possession of its native lords. Whether these descended
from Celtic ancestors, it is of course impossible to say. In the inquest
referred to as made by Prince David, the elders and wise men of Cumbria
^ Registrum Episcopatus Glasguensis, vol. i.
pp. 3, 4.
- Celtic Scotland, vol. i. p. 457.
•^ /6/V. vol. iii. pp. 25, 2G.
^^AJf£ OF •■ DOUGLAS'' DERIVED Fh'OM THE LAXDS. 'M
informed him that the Church of Glasgow and its possessions had been
destroyed by " diverse seditions and insurrections," which had also laid
waste the country, and driven its inhabitants into exile, M-ho had been
replaced by tribes of diflering nationality and religion.^ From this it has
been argued that the British inhabitants had to a great extent deserted the
countrv, but though the chronicles record numerous invasions of Cumbria
or Strathclyde,- yet it does not follow that no descendants of the Celts
remained. Whether the family of Douglas M-ere of Celtic parentage or not,
they raav have possessed Douglasdale in the time of King David the First,
undisturbed by the influx of Saxon and Norman strangers whom that King
delighted to honour.
Sir -Tames Dalryniple, in his Collections concerning the Scottish histor}',
takes this view. He refers to the fact that places were more ancient than
the surnames derived from them, and instances the water and territory of
Douglas as named in charters before any of the family are found on record.
He concludes " that the family inhabiting the lands of Douglas was very
ancient, albeit that sirname be not found so early as others ; and that this
being an ancient Scottish family, took the designation from their lands when
sirnames were commonly used."^ Sir James I)alryraple's assertion that tin-
Douglases were an ancient Scottish family may be based partly on tradition,
but on this subject of surnames a later writer gives similar testimony. ]\Ir.
Robertson in his " Early Kings " writes thus : " It was the charter and feudal
^ Registrum Episcopatus Glasgnensis, vol. i. and the people of Teviotdale. Fordun, edition
p. 4. 1871, vol. i. p. 444 ; vol. ii. p. 425.
* Celtic Scotland, vol. iii. p. "24. On the
other hand, at the battle of the Standard in " Dalrymple's Collections, preface, pp. Ixiii,
1138, the second line of King David's battle Ixiv. His references are to charters dated
array was composed of " Cumbreuses "' and about IIGO or earlier, and before 1174. —
" Te^^dalenses," whom Mr. .Skene describes Liber de Melros, vol. i. pp. 55, 58 ; Liber dt-
as " the Welsh population of Strathclyde " Calchou, vol. i. p. 78.
ORTGIX OF THE FAMILY OF DOUGLAS.
tenure which gradually converted the native proprietoiy of Scotia into ' lairds
of tliat ilk,' henceforth undistinguishable among the general feudal baronage."
After a reference to various derivations of surnames, the writer proceeds —
" From the frequent occurrence of an addition, such as Flandrensis, to the
name of the first recipient of a charter, it may be assumed that in its absence,
and where no distinct territorial surname is attached, the recipient was
usually of native extraction, especially if in a well-a fleeted district, the
fii-st liolder by charter, but not necessarily the first of the race in Scotland."
This is guarded by the statement that every territorial surname is not hastily
to be assumed as denoting the presence of a foreign settler, " when in reality
it is only the mark of tenure by charter."^
It may be objected in regard to the sudden appearance in history of
the first recorded member of the family of Douglas, that if the Douglases
were of ancient or of native lineage, they would have been mentioned at
an earlier date in public records. But from the point of view here taken,
the fact that William of Douglas, tlie first on record, is not named earlier
than between 1174 and 1199, may imply not that he was a new settler,
or a member of an emigrant family, but that he was simply the first of
his family to receive a charter of the lands which his ancestors had held.
This, of course, is open to the opposite objection that he was the first of
his family to possess the lands at all, and the question of origin is left
entirely untouched ; but the theory that the family of Douglas were new
settlers in Scotland, as Chalmers and others assert, must be modified
by the possibility Iiere suggested, that "William of Douglas took his sur-
name from his ancestral territory. The fact also that Brice Douglas, son
of William, was Prior of Lesmahagow before he became Bishop of Moray in
1203, argues an ancestry of some importance in that neighbourhood, such
as could scarcely be gained by a new family. Even if, as alleged, Brice was
' Robertson's Scotland undor her Early Kings, vol. ii. pp. 4S9, 490.
SUGGESTED NORT HUMERI AX ORIGTN. 3.]
" iu juveuilibus aunis" when Prior, this would seem to imply very consider-
able influence with the ecclesiastical dignitaries of the locality.
A similar instance of a sudden appearance in history of the head of a
powerful family, which for a time was more notable even than the Douglases,
is furnished by the case of the ancient Lords of Galloway. On this point the
words of jMr. Skene are worthy of attention. He states, on the authority of
Fordun and other historians, that after the death of King David the First iu
1153, the succession of his grandson Malcolm to the throne was viewed with
dislike by the entire Gaelic population of the country, and was soon followed
by the open revolt of the great Gaelic districts of Moray, Argyll, and
Galloway. The two latter districts are found starting into life under the
mle of two native princes — Somerled of Argyll, and Fergus, Prince of
Galloway — while no hint is given of the parentage of either. The writer's
explanation of this fact is that the Norwegians had long held both districts,
their expulsion by the native population had only recently taken place, and
that "owing to the long possession of the country by the Norwegians, all
trace of the parentage of the native leaders under whom they (the men of
Argjdl and Galloway) had risen, had disappeared from the annals of the
country, and they were viewed as the founders of a new race of native lords." ^
If, therefore, the ancestry of the princes of Argyll and (4 alio way could be
forgotten, and Somerled and Fergus be accepted by liistorians as new men,
much more easily might the oi'igin of the family of Douglas be lost sight of,
and the first of the name who appears on record be hailed as the first of his
race in Scotland, whether he was so or not.
SUGGESTED NORTHUMBRIAN ORIGIN.
The late well-known antiquarian and peerage lawyer, Mr. Kiddell, while
combating the view taken by Chalmers of the Douglas origin by descent
I Celtic Scotland, vol. i. pp. 4r>8. 460 ; cf. Fordun, edition 1872, vol. ii. pp. 430, 431.
V()[.. I. K
:n
ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY OF DOUGLAS.
from Theobald the Fleming, and expressing his belief that from its antiquity
and other circumstances, no further light would be thrown upon the subject,
especially in Scotland, remarks that the Douglases were also a Northumbrian
family, and that this foct has been somewhat overlooked.^ But beyond the
fact that for several generations the family of Douglas possessed the manor of
Fawdon and other lands in Northumberland, the circumstances connected
with which will be considered in the :\remoirs, and that other persons
denominated "de Duglas," servants of the head of the house, are found in
that district, the suggestion affords no assistance whatever to the elucidation
of the question of origin.
The whole evidence, so far as has been discovered, on one side or other,
bearing on the origin of the Douglases and the various theories regarding
that origin, has now been collected and compared. It must be admitted
that the matter stands now very much as it did in the days of Wyntowu, and
"syndry men" will still speak "syndryly." William of Douglas may have
been of native lineage; his ancestors may have possessed Douglasdale, and
he may have been the first to take his name from that territory, Is holding it
by a new charter. He may have been a native Moravian, and for his loyc^lty
have received as a reward the Valley of Douglas, when the country became
more settled after the defeat of Donald Bane and other insurgents.^
It is not proved that William of Douglas was a Fleming, though the only
authentic evidence regarding his personal history tends to connect him, by
1 Remarks upon Scotch Peerage Law, 18.33,
1.. 175.
- In coiinectioa with this, it is impossible
not to echo Mr. Robertson's regret as to the
loss of " the RolL in twelve parts, of recogni-
tions and old charters in the time of William
and his son Alexander, and of those to whom
the said kings formerly gave their peace, and
of those who stood with MacWilliam."
[Scotland under her Early Kings, vol. i. p.
.30.3, note ; Acts of the Parliaments of Scot-
land, vol. i. p. 114]
Si'MMARY OF EVIDEXCE OX ORIGIX. :5a
tlie ties either of marriage or of blood, with a family of reputed llemish
origin, unless Freskin of Kerdal be held to be a native of Moray. That
Freskin of Kerdal and William of Douglas were brothers cannot be decided on
the evidence now extant. If, on the other alternative, they were brothers-in-
law, their alliance may have arisen from the fact that they were l.ioth natives of
Moray. Or, assuming that Freskin was of the Moravia family and William
a southern, tlieir connection may be accounted for by the fact that, until 1198,
the Douglases held the lands of Hailes in Midlothian, and were thus neigh-
bours of the Freskins in Strabrock in West Lothian. It is not known
whether the Freskins all resided in Morayshire, though they held lands
there. William, the second son of Freskin, is the only one of his family
who is named as living in Moray before 1194.
William of Douglas was evidently in possession of the territory from
which he derived his surname previous to the year 1109, or some time
between that and 1 1 74. If he was a native of Moray, he probably transferred
his residence to the south, as he is never recorded as being in Moray, and
none of his family are named as being there before the time of Bishop Brice.
The possession of Hailes by Archibald Douglas, the eldest son of William,
before 1198, and the ecclesiastical rank held by his brother Brice of Prior of
Lesmahagow, so near to Douglasdale, certainly suggest a continued residence
in the south, if not an ancestral establishment there. On the other hand,
tradition associates the first Douglas with the rising of Donald Bane, a
historical event proved to have taken place in jSIorayshire. William of
Douglas lived contemporaneously with that event, was related to a Moray-
shire baron, and may have resided in the south only after a possible grant
of the lands of Douglas. His domicile of origin, therefore, cannot be
definitely fixed.
It only remains to sum up what appears to be actually proved as to the
first member of the Douglas family, though the question of origin, it is U^ be
36
ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY OF DOUGLAS.
feared, must remain in obscurity. The evidence adduced is to the effect tliat
William of Douglas, father of Archibald and Brice of Douglas and their
brothers, was a near relation of Freskin of Kerdal, a laird in ]\Ioray ; that the
cognisance of the Douglases, three stars in chief, was similar to that borne
by a descendant of Freskin of Kerdal ; that the Douglases and the Freskins
(afterwards the family of Moray) were at an early period neighbouring
proprietors in the south of Scotland, and that the two families were also in
Morayshire together ; and, further, that the traditional ancestor of the family
of Douglas is asserted to have fought against Donald Bane, while the first
historical Douglas was actually contemporary with the rebel of that name,
who was slain in Morayshire.
With these preliminary remarks on the much discussed subject of the
origin of the Douglas family, we now proceed with the detailed Memoirs of
the successive Barons of Douglas.
37
L_WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS.
THE FIRST KNOWN OF THE DOUGLAS FAMILY.
CircM \\1\ — circa 1214.
"IT^'ILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, who flourished in the reign of King William
'* tlie Lion (1165-1214), is the first owner of Douglas or Douglasclale,
in the parish of Douglas and county of Lanark, known to authentic history.
Ife is likewise the earliest known ancestor of the illustrious race of Douglas.
His parentage remains hidden in obscurity, the single clue which promises
any unfolding of the mystery being contained in a charter by one of his
younger sons, Brice of Douglas, Bishop of Moray, in which he refers to Freskin
of Kerdal as his uncle.^ The term used by Bishop Brice is " avunculus,"
which favours the view that the relationship vv^as only created by inter-
marriage of the two families, but affords no conclusive evidence, as
" avunculus " is frequently used in charters of ancient date to denote a
father's brother, as well as the more definite term " patruus."
Nor does the designation " of Douglas " afford any assistance in eluci-
dating this question, for William himself is the earliest known possessor of
the lands of Douglas, and he may either have inherited the lands from his
father, or acquired them in his own person by grant from King William the
Lion. The latter, indeed, is quite probable, for, as has already been shown,
the early tradition of the sudden rise of the Douglas family into political
* Registnun Moraviense, p. 61. It is note- a similar single allusion to him in a charter
worthy that Freskin, the ancestor of the granted to his son "William. — [Nisbet's Her-
i-'reat family of De Moravia, is onlyknowTi by aldry, ed. 1804, vol. ii. App. p. IS.S.]
.36
WILLIAM OF DUUGLAS, FIl:ST OF DOFOLAS.
importance tinds its only consistent fultilmeut in the subject of this nienioii-.
William of Douglas may have taken a prominent part in quelling the
insurrection of Macwilliam or Donald Bane, which took place in his time,
and been rewarded for liis services with a grant of the lands of Douglasdalc.
These lands, it is true, are not, prior to this date, mentioned as in the
occupancy either of the Crown or of any of the great monasteries who owned
large portions of adjoining baronies, but the want of evidence does not
exclude the possibility of tlieir l)eing at the disposal of the Crown, and of
their bestowal at this time upon William of Douglas. Indeed, this view is
in no small degree favoured by the fact that it is only after the date of the
insurrection of Donald Bane that Douglas appears at Court, and in posses-
sion of the Douglas lands. Of the early charters of the Douglas family
which were in existence in 1288,^ no trace can now be found, the probability
being that they were destroyed during the wars of succession. No monastic
record contains any grant of the Douglas lands.
It is certain that the lands of Douglas were in the possession of William
of Douglas before the year 1198, as he is mentioned under the designation
" Will de Dufglas," as one of the witnesses to a charter by Joceline, Bishop
of Glasgow, granted between 1174 and 1199.- Godscroft puts forward the
theory that it was the earliest known ancestor of the Douglas family — his
fabulous Sholto — who gave name to the lands of Douglas, but this theory can
no longer be entertained. Considerably before the appearance of the first
ancestor of the Douglas family on authentic record, there is mention in
charters granted prior to the year 1160 of a water " de Duglax," as well as
of a " territorium de Duglas," adjacent thereto, in the county of Lanark,^ and
to such a district reference is made by Walter Fitz Alan, High Steward to
King William the Lion, before 1177, as one of the boundaries of his forest
of Mauchline, the pasture of which he granted to the monastery of Melrose/
1 Liber de Calchon, p. 16S. - n.hl p. ;}46. ^ IhUI. pp. 7S,S-2.S4. •• Liber de Melros. vol. i.jL.l^.
Al' COURT OF KING WILLIAM THE LION. 39
There is thus no reason to doubt that the designation " of Douglas," in
accordance with general custom and as the particle " de " itself denotes, was
derived from the lands in Lanarkshire which bear that name, and wliich, as
shown in another part of this work, were the first known possessions of
the family.
From an agreement respecting the lauds of Hailes made by Archibald,
the eldest son of William of Douglas, before the year 1 198,^ when the former,
it may be presumed, was of mature age, the inference may be drawn that
William of Douglas was born towards the close of the reign of King David
the First, who died in 1153. Godscroft relates, and it is the only thing he
has to place on record concerning the subject of this memoir, that under the
designation " Gulielmus de Douglas," he witnessed a charter granted by King
David the F'irst to the town of Ayr in the year 1151. But this alleged grant
by King David the First is unknown to any other historian, and King
William the Lion was the first Scottish sovereign who conferred grants upon
Ayr, and raised it to the rank of a royal burgh. Godscroft does not say
he saw the charter, and he may possibly have confused the reign of King
David the First with that of King David the Second. The latter sovereign
certainly gi-anted charters to the burgh of Ayr, and to at least one of these
William of Douglas, the first Earl of Douglas, was a witness.'^
Between 1187, when Donald Bane's rebellion was suppressed, and the
year 1214, William of Douglas appears frequently on the page of authentic
record as a witness to charters, etc. On more than one occasion he is found
attending at the Court of King William the Lion. About the year 1200 he
attested the confirmation by that monarch of a gift of land and pasturage in
Dalgarnoc to the Canons of the Church of Holyrood, at Edinburgh,^ and
1 Registrum de Dunfermelyn, p. 190.
- Wigton and Ayr Collections, Charters of the Royal Burgh of Ayr, p. 9.
"^ Liber Cartannii Sancte Crucis, p. 44.
40 WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, FIRST OF DOUGLAS
again in 1213 at the same place, he attested an agreement which terminated
a dispute between two brothers for the possession of the earldom of
Menteith.i On tliis occasion the controversy came before the king himself
for decision, and among the witnesses witli William of Douglas was Prince
Alexander, afterwards King Alexander the Second, as well as many of the
principal nobles and barons of the kingdom.
On two occasions William of Douglas witnessed charters by his neighbour
Thomas, son of Tancard. The first of these, to the granter's sister, Beatrice,
gave to her, on her marriage to John Logan, a carucate or ploughgate of land.''
By the other writ the granter conveyed to the monastery of Arbroath all the
land between Etlikar and Kaledouer, which King lAIalcolm had given to his
father Tancard.^ The other witnesses to these charters were distinguished
courtiers, such as William de Bosco, who afterwards became Chancdlor of
Scotland, Hugh de Prebenda, John de Oraham, ^lichael de Wemyss, and
others. This points to the fact that even in the time of their first known
ancestor the family of Douglas attained a prominent position as the owners
of an extensive territory, and probably also as eminent in arms.
William of Douglas had six sons, and also, it is said, one daughter.
1. Archibald of Douglas, who succeeded his father in the Douglas
estates, and of whom a memoir follows.
2. Brice of Douglas, who became Bishop of Moray. Of him also a short
memoir is given, after tlie memoir of his elder brother Archibald.
3. Alexander of Douglas, who appears first as a Canon of Spynie.
often in company with his brother Henry, as a witness to
charters by his brother, Brice, Bishop of Moray." In a grant by
' The Red Book of Menteith, by William 3 Reg^strum Vetus de Aberhrothoc, p bU
Fraaer, vol. .. p. 7 ; vol. ii. pp. 214, 215. . Registrun. Moraviense, pp. Gl, 62, 25l'
- xNisbets Heraldn-, vol. ii. Appendix, p. Registrum Vetus de Aberbrotboc pp I42'
HIS CHILDREX: ALEXANDER OF DOUGLAS.
41
Bishop Brice to Hugh of Moray, Lord of Duffus, three of the
brothers are among- the witnesses, " Archibaldo de DousLis,
Alexandro et Henrico, Canonicis de Spyny, fratribus nostris." ^
Alexander is also mentioned as a Canon of Spynie in the charter
of William, son of Wilham Freskin, to the Cliurcli of tlie Holy
Trinity of Spynie and College of Canons there, granting them the
Church of Artendol or ArndiUy, in whicli all the six brothers
appear as witnesses." He witnessed the charter granted to the
Monks of Kelso by the Princess Margaret, after her marriage
with Sir Eustace de Vescy, and is there designated brother of
Brice, Bishop of Moray. ^
Between the years 1225 and 1232, the name of Alexander
Douglas frequently appears in charters with the designation
"Sheriff of Elgin."* The editor of the Cartulary of Mor^y, in a
footnote to his preface to that work, refers to the fact as an instance
of several ambiguities which presented themselves in the original
Eegister. The word rendered Sheriff in one case is given almost
in full (vicecomit), in two others, somewhat more abbreviated
(vicec), but still plainly indicating " Vicecomes," while in no less
than ten it is represented merely by " vie." This last, the editor
points out, may either mean vicccomes or vicarius, and in one
instance he has rendered it " Alexandro, vicario de Elgyfi." ^
But that Alexander of Douglas was connected with the
church appears evident from an agreement made in 1237
between Andrew, Bishop of Moray, and the Hospital, called the
House of God (Domus Dei, and more recently Maison Dieu) at
* Registrum Moraviense, p. 274.
' ri^d. p. 17.
^ Liber de Calchou, p. 174.
VOL. I.
* Registrum Moravitnse, pp. 21, 23, 2"),
2G, 30, G9, 111, 112, 132.
■' Ihhl. p. 7S.
F
42 WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS^ FIRST OF DOUGLAS.
Elgin, of which Alexander seems to have been superior.^ The
document, narrates that a dispute had arisen between the Bishop
and the brethren and sisters in the hospital, respecting certain
lands to which both parties laid claim, and that the controversy
was settled by an exchange of lands, the Hospital receiving the
disputed lands of Munben (Mull)en), and the Bishop of Moray
getting the land of Kelleys, which had been given by King
Alexander the Second to Alexander of Douglas and the Hospital
i. Henry of Douglas, who, like his brother Alexander, was a Canon of
Sppiie, and as such witnessed charters by his brother the Bishop.-
Both Henry and Hugh were clerks to their brother Brice during
his episcopate,^ and Henry of Douglas was clerk to Brice's suc^
cessor, Andrew, Bishop of Moray, so late as 123!).^ Henry seems
to have been frequently in company with his brother Alexander
who, when merely designed " Alexandro, vicecomite de Elgin," is
certified to be a Douglas by the name of the following witness,
" Henrico de Douglas, fratre ejus."^
5. Hugh of Douglas, who, like his two brothers, Alexander and Henry,
wa^ also a Canon of the College of Spynie. After the death of
Brice he seems to have been appointed Archdeacon of Moray,
and as such subscribed and witnessed several deeds by Bishop
Andrew.6 He died, or was promoted, before 1238, as the Arch-
deaconate was then in the person of another/
6. Freskin of Douglas, who may have received his peculiar Christian
name in honour of his uncle Freskin of Kerdal. He first
' Registrum Moraviense, p. 33. * Registrum Moraviense, p. 36
2 Ib^d. pp. 17, 274. 5 ff^i^i pp 23, 25, 69, 132.
3 Registnim Vetus de Aberbrothoc, pp. 52, « Ibid. pp. 69, 71 75 77 78
130, 133. 7 AV/ ,n- '
' Ibid. p. lOo.
HIS CHILDREX : FRESKIX, PARSON OF DOUGLAS. 43
appears, under the designation of "Fretheskin persona de Dufgles,"
as one of the witnesses to a charter by Bishop Brice, granting the
church and parsonage of Birnie to the monks of Kelso, two
otlier witnesses being Alexander and Henry, his brothers.^ From
being parson of Douglas, he appears to have been promoted by
his brother, tlie Bishop of ^Nloray, to be Dean of that See ; and
he also held that office under his brother's successor, Bishop
Andrew.- He co-operated with his brother in the changes the
latter instituted in his See, and, along with the Chancellor, paid
a visit to Lincoln to ascertain in person from the Dean and
Chapter there the customs of that place for guidance in their own
diocese.^ Dean Freskin of Douglas appears to have died before
the month of September 1232.^
Margaret, who is said to have married Hervey Keith, ancestor of the
Keiths Marischals of Scotland.^
1 Liber de Calchou, voL ii. p. 297. * Registrum Moraviense, p. 89.
2 Registram Moraviense, pp. 17, GG, G7, 70, ^ Nisbet's Heraldry, edition 1S04, vol. ii.
71, 73, 76, 77. ^ /?'"^- P- 4*- Appendix, p. X
44
II.— SIR ARCHIBALD OF DOUGLAS, Knight.
Circa 1213— em-a 12-40.
rpHE affiliation of Archibald of Douglas, the second known owner of
-*- Douglas, to William of Douglas, is well authenticated by charter
evidence. On several occasions he attested charters in company with his
father, such as the gift by Thomas, son of Tancard, to his sister, and the
agreement made at the Court of King William the Lion in 1213 between
the two rival Earls of Menteith.
During his father's lifetime Archibald of Douglas appears for some time
to have possessed the lands of Hailes in the county of Midlothian. They
were held from the Abbot and jMonastery of Dunfermline, but prior to 1198,
with consent of his friends, Archibald of Douglas resigned the lands, along
with their writs, into the hands of the Abbot in return for a sum of money
received from Thomas, son of Edward of Lestalric (Eestalrig), to whom the
lands were afterwards assigned. In this charter Archibald of Dousjlas is
designated son of W. de Duglas.^
Between the years 1214 and 122G, and under the same designation,
Archibald of Douglas received a grant from Malcolm, Earl of Fife, of his
whole land of Livingston, and his whole land of Herdmanston. These
lands, situated respectively in East and West Lothian, and formerly possessed
by William of Kilmaron, were to be held by Archibald of Douglas, and his
heirs, of the Earls of Fife, in fee and heritage, as freely as any knight in the
whole realm of Scotland held his fee of Earl or Baron, for half a knight's
^ Registnim de Dunfermelyn, p. 190.
CREATED A KXIGIIT.
45
verviee. Freskin of Douglas, Dean of Moray, brother of Archibald of
Douglas, was a wituess to this charter, which was subsequently confirmed by
King Alexander the Second at Stirling.^
Shortly after the above gi-ant Archibald of Douglas had received the
dignity of knighthood. Under the designation " Domino Archebaldo de
Dufglas," he was witness to a charter by William Purves of ]Mospenuoc,
granting to the monks of ]\Ielrose, for the sum of twenty shillings sterling,
the right to pass through his lands of jMospennoc. Another witness to
this charter was Andrew, knight, or man-at-arms of Archibald of Douglas,-
and the fact of his being attended by his own knight shows the infiuential
position which he had acquired.
Other charters attested by Sir Archibald of Douglas were a confirmation
by Joceline, Bishop of Glasgow, of a grant by Pianulf de Hadintun to the
monastery of Melrose f and several charters by his brother Brice, Bishop of
^loray.* From his presence in Morayshire at different periods it is not
improbable that he may have frequently resided there with his brother.
Even after the death of the latter, he is found in that district attesting an
agreement hy the succeeding Bishop of Moray, in which a note of his
relationship to Bishop Brice is preserved in the designation, " frater quondam
Bricii Episcopi."^ In July 1238, at Selkirk, he was present when King
Alexander the Second granted the earldom of Lennox to INIaldouen, son of
Alwyn, Earl of Lennox.*^ Later, he witnessed a charter by Amelec, the
brother of Earl Maldouen \~' while probably in the year following, under the
designation " Henkelbaldo de Duglas," he attested the grant of lands in
Crawford, made by David de Lindsay to the monks of Newbattle Abbey.^
' Registrum Honoris de Morton, vol. i. ^ Registrum Moraviense, p]>. 17, 274.
l>p. xxxiii, xxxiv. ^ Ihid. p. 81.
., • ;:• • ® Cartiilarium Comitatus de Leuenax, p. 1.
- Liber de Melros, vol. i. p. 214. , ^ • ,r •■ ,
' Registrum Monasteni de Passelet, p. 2U1).
^ Ibid. p. 37. '* Registrum de Neubotle, p. 105.
46 SIR ARC HI BALI) OF DOUGLAS.
Sir Archibald of Douglas is said to have married Margaret, elder daugliter
of Sir John Crawford of Crawford-John.^ He had tw^o sons.
1, Sir "William, who succeeded his father in the Douglas estates.
2, Sir Andrew of Douglas, from whom the family of Douglas of
Dalkeith, afterwards Earls of IMorton, claim to be descended.
He appears to have obtained the lauds of Herdmanston from his
father, and afterwards to have bestowed them on his own son
"William." Sir Andrew of Douglas witnessed several charters in
company w^ith his brother Sir William,^ and in 1259 he was
present at Edinburgh Castle at the completion of the marriage
contract between his nephew, Hugh of Douglas, and INIarjory of
Abemethy.*
^ Upper Wanl of Lanarkshire, vol. ii. IX 60. Eraser, vol. ii. pp. 209,211; Eegistriun de
2 Registrum Honoris de Morton, vol. ii. p. S. Dunfermelyu, p. 97.
3 The Red BoLik of Menteith, by William ^ Vol. iii. of this work, p. 2.
47
BEIGE OF DOUGLAS, BISHOP OF MORAY,
YOUNGER SON OF WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, FIRST OF DOUGLAS.
1-203—1222.
rnO the house of Douglas the distinction may be said to be peculiar, that no
T
sooner does it appear in history than it is found boldly stretching forth
towards the attainment of high eminence alike in Church and State. Brice
of Douglas, a younger son of William of Douglas, the tirst known possessor
of the Vale of Douglas, was exalted to the dignity of Bishop of Moray, and
afterwards to the honour of canonisation.
Bricius or Brice of Douglas has his parentage authenticated by a charter
attested by Archibald, the eldest son of William of Douglas, as Archibald
is therein called the brother of Bishop Brice.^ At first he appears as
Prior of the Convent of Lesmahagow, a cell of the great Monastery of Kelso.
The barony of Lesmahagow was one of the gifts bestowed by King David
the First upon his own foundation of Kelso, and he signalised this grant by
bestowing upon the cell the privilege of sanctuary for any who in peril of
life or limb sought its shelter, or came within the four crosses which enclosed
it. To such the king granted his firm peace." So important a dependency
of Kelso was Lesmahagow in the earlier days of its history, that its
Priors sometimes became Abbots of Kelso.^ The exact date at which Brice
of Douglas became Prior of Lesmahagow has not been ascertained, but it
maybe assumed he retained the dignity until the year 1203, when he was
elevated to the See of Moray. That bishopric had just become vacant by the
' Registnim Moravieuse, p. 81. - Liber tie Calchou, vol. i. p. 0. ^ Ihkl. p. ix.
48
BRICE OF DOUGLAS. BISHOP OF MORA Y.
death of IJichard, clerk or chaplain to King William the Lion. During tlie
episcopate of Bishop Tachard several charters are attested by one called
Brice, Dean of :\Ioray, suggesting that Brice of Douglas held that office
between the date of his being Prior of Lesmahagow and Bishop of :\Iora\-.
or that he held both at one and the same time. But this is scarcelv
probable. The historians who record the death of Bishop Bichard and the
succession of Brice of Douglas, do so in such a manner as to convey the
impression that he M-as only Prior of Lesmahagow at the time of his election
to the See of Moray.^
The diocese of Moray extended at this time as far eastward as Ehynie, and
to the west as far as Abertarf, embracing not only the counties of Elgin and
Forres, or Moray proper, but also Nairn, and a considerable portion of the
counties of Inverness, Banff, and Aberdeen.- To what cause Brice of Douglas
owed his elevation to the ecclesiastical oversight of this great district it is not
easy to say. His father's military services, or his kinship to the leading
family of ^Nloray, or his own talents, may have assisted in obtaining for him
this distinction. He is said to have embraced the monastic life from tender
years, and so remarkably acquired a knowledge of divine literature that he
was deemed fit, while still a youth, to occupy the position of Prior in the
famed Convent (Coenobii) of Lesmahagow. He was also author of a work
upon " The Sentences." •*
The charter of King William the Lion presenting Brice of Douglas to the
See of Moray, is dated at Arbroath, 2-tth August, probably in the year 1203.
In that document the king granted to Bishop Brice and his successors in the
episcopate, the churches of Elgin and Eren (Auldearn, in Moray), with all their
1 "Anno m.cc.iij . . . obiit Eicardus, '-^ Shaw's History of Moray, Gordons edi-
episcopus de Moravia, ciii successit dompniis tion, vol. iii. p. 275.
Bricius, prior de Lesmahagu." — [Chronica de
Mailros, p. 105; Fordun, u Goodall, vol. i. ^ Dempster's Historia Ecclesiastica (I'.an-
P- 518.] natyne Club), vol. i. p. 102.
CHOICE OF HIS CATHEDRAL SEAT.
49
dependent chapels and lands, reserving only in the former the tenure of one
of his own chaplains.^
Soon after his promotion to the See, Bishop Brice took steps to obtain a
permanent site for the episcopal seat. Previous to his time each Bishop had,
according to his own pleasure, chosen one of the three churches of Birnie,
Spynie, or Kenedor (Kingedward) ; but wishing to localise his residence, and
probably with the intention of erecting a cathedral church, Bishop Brice
fixed upon Spynie, as it appeared to him the most convenient site, and
petitioned the Papal See to erect that church into a cathedral. Before granting
this prayer, Pope Innocent Third remitted the matter to the bishops of St.
Andrews and Brechin, who, with the Abbot of Lindores, were commissioned,
if they saw fit, to grant the necessary permission.^ Bishop Brice's desire
was ultimately accorded : Spynie became the Cathedral Church, and in con-
nection with its erection, a college of eight Canons was founded, on the plan
of the cathedral and collerje attached to the diocese of Lincoln in England.
At the making of his charter of foundation, the Bishop assembled many
churchmen from various parts of the country, not a few of whom subscribed
their names to the deed. Among the latter were Ealph, Abbot of Kinloss,
Richard, Prior of Urquhart, Gilbert, Abbot of Arbroath, and Piichard, Abbot
of Kelso, the two last named being attended by the common councils of
their Convents.^ This foundation was ratified by Pope Innocent Third
about the year 1214.^
Spynie, however, did not respontl to the Bishop's expectations, and he
cast about for another site. This was found at Elgin, where, in the time of
his successor, the cathedral was built, which continued to be the Episcopal seat
until the Reformation, and where its ruins still form a prominent object of
' Regiatnim Moraviense, p. 13.
- Tliis reference by Pope Innocent Third
VOL. I.
is dated from St. Peter's at Eome, 7th April
1207. — [Registmm Moraviense, p. 39.]
^ Ihkl p. 40. * Ibid. \\ 44.
50
BR ICE OF DOUGLAS, BISHOP OF MORAY.
interest. But although Dishop Andrew was the bulkier of the church, its
establishment on its present site was due to Bishop Brice, who, while at
Eome attending the Lateran Council in the year 1215, personally importuned
the Pope for his consent to this arrangement. In a letter to Bishop Andrew,
dated from Rome, 10th April 1224, after the death of Bishop Brice, Pope
Honorius in. thus refers to the matter : —
" Coming to our presence our venerable brother, the Bishop of Moray, often
explained to us, and frequently in our hearing, insisted that his seat stood in a situation
not only somewhat unsafe in the event of war, but also so solitary that nothing could
be found for sale, in consequence of which the clergy had to make long journies to
purchase the necessaries of life, to the no small hindrance of their ecclesiastical duties :
Wherefore the said Bishop, with many pressing petitions, entreated us to sanction the
transference of the seat to a more convenient place, to wit, the Church of the Holy
Trinity, near Elgin, which the Bishop asserts is also desired by the King of Scotland,^
and the Chapter of Moray."-
During the episcopate of Brice of Douglas, a controversy arose between
him, King William the Lion, and Gilchrist Earl of Mar, respecting the
patronage of the church of Aberkirdor, each of the three parties laying claim
to it. The difficulty was solved by each making over his claim to the
Monastery of Arbroath.^ The Bishop in addition granted a davoch of land
belonging to the church in question,* and to the same Monaster}' he confirmed
the grant of the church of Inverness, made at the request of King William,
by his predecessor, Bishop Eichard.^
In another controversy, which took place a few years after his elevation
to the See of Moray, the Bishop was assigned by the Pope the part of peace-
maker. Patrick Earl of Dunbar had violently occupied some pasturage
^ King Alexander the Second sanctioned ^ Registrum Mora\-iense, p. 63.
the transference as a most desirable change, -^ Registnim Yetus de Aberbrothoc, pp.
His mandate is dated at Musselburgh on 5th 25, 142.
July 1224. — [Registrum Moraviense, p. 19.] * IblJ. p. 144. * Ihkl. p. 141.
ARBITER AT THE COURT OF KIXG WILLIAM.
Al
liolonging to the Cistercian :\fonks of ]\relrose, for which offeuce he was
summoned to appear before an ecclesiastical court. Disregarding the sum-
mons, the Earl was adjudged guilty of contumacy, and the court fulminated
an interdict against his lands. This had the effect of causing the Earl to
enter appearance, only, however, to decline the court's jurisdiction in the
matter, and tliis plea failing, to reclaim against his judges, who were the Earl's
own Bishop, and some others. On his submission the interdict had been
removed. He afterwards appealed the whole matter to the Pope, requesting
an examination into his grounds of complaint. This was made, and the Pope
finding them too weU founded, referred the settlement of the dispute to Brice,
Bishop of .Aloray. The Bishop took effectual means to bring the matter to a
satisfactory issue, and set up his tribunal in the Boyal Court at Selkirk, where
King William himself, and Prince Alexander, with the more powerful
courtiers and clergy, acted as assessors. The result was that Earl Patrick
was obliged to cede the disputed pasturage to the monks in free and
perpetual alms, and free from aU service or custom. The subject of dispute
was a field called Sonilesfield, on the west side of the river Leader, towards
the grange of the :\ronks of .Alelrose, and formerly held by William Sorules.
An attestation by Bishop Brice of Douglas, narrating the mandate by
Pope Innocent in., to him, to moderate in the case, with other relative
documents, is preserved in the Melrose collection of charters, belono-incr to
His Grace the Duke of Buccleuch. To that attestation is stiU appended the
episcopal seal of Bishop Brice, in a remarkable state of preservation, consider-
ing that it must date from the commencement of the thirteenth century.
SmaU portions at the top and bottom are broken off, but these fortunately can
be supplied from an engraving, executed for the Cartulary of Moray, and
drawn from this and seals appended to other documents by the Bishop, in
the Melrose and Coldingham collections.^ The seal is of tlie usual oval shape,
» Registrum Mora\-iense, printed in 1S.37 for the Bannatyne Club, Plate I. Fig. 1.
52
BRICE OF DOUGLAS, BISHOP OF MORAY.
and shows a profile figure of the Bishop in his canonical robes, his right
hand raised in the act of benediction, and his left holding the crozier.
Around the figure is the inscription —
BRICIVS : DEI : GRACIA : MORAVIENSIS : EPISCOPVS.
On the back is an oval counterseal with the representation, in an antique gem,
apparently of ^linerva, holding a sword in her right hand, while her left rests
upon a shield. The gem is surrounded by the legend —
AVE : MARIA : GRACIA : PLENA.
m rt ■if- W
'^'j
i^f
i-^^.
The attestation of Bishop Brice possesses the additional peculiarity of
being one of a few docmnents on record in which the sovereign himself
appears as a witness. Along with King AVilliam, his son Prince Alexander,
HIS SEAL. 53
liis brotlier David Earl of Huntingdon, the king's son Eobert of London (or
Lundin), and most of the chief courtiers, sanctioned the insertion of their
names. So did they likewise to a separate agreement between Earl Patrick
and the monks of ]\Ielrose, which is witnessed by Bishop Brice, and con-
firmed by tlie appending of his seal (now in a fragmentary condition), along
with the seals of the Earl, and Henry, Abbot of Kelso. King William con-
firmed this agreement, and Bishop Brice is the first named witness, while
he also attests the charter of tlie land granted by Earl Patrick to tlie
monks of Melrose, which was likewise confirmed by the king.^
Bishop Brice, with his brothers Henry and Alexander, witnessed a charter
by the Princess Margaret, wife of Sir Eustace de Vescy, granting to the
monks of Kelso twenty shillings annually from her mill of Sprouston.-
These two brothers, along with another, Hugh, he appointed canons of
Spynie, while a fourth, Freskin, obtained the high office of Dean.
At the request of his uncle, Freskin of Kerdal, Bishop Brice devoted the
tithes of the church of Deveth (Daviot), of which his uncle was patron, to
maintain the fabric of the Cathedral Church of Spynie.^
Several of the additions made to the See of Moray during the episcopate
of Bishop Brice may be enumerated. From Gilbert of Kathern (Strathern ?)
he received the church of Kingussie, along with the chapel of Banchory ; *
from various laymen he had the churches of Dulbatelach, Keith, and
Edindivach;^ from King Alexander the Second he obtained the rent and
service due to the Crown from the land of Kethmalrus in exchange for
the land at Invernairn (Nairn), which King William had taken from the
bishop in order to build upon it the castle and town of Nairn ;^ while from
1 Liber de Melros, vol. i. pp. 87-95 ; Acts ' Registrum Moraviense, p. 61.
of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. i. pp. * Ibid. p. 14.
.390-392. ' Ibid. p. 16.
■^ Liber de Calchoii, p. 174. « Ibid. p. 18.
5i BRICE OF DOVdLAS, BTSIIOP OF MORAY
Malcolm Earl of Fife came a grant of the church of luveraven, with a davoch
of land attached thereto.^ The only charter granted by him of the church
lands of Moray, to which reference need be made, is one in which the Bishop,
with the consent of the whole Synod of the church of Moray, bestowed upon
the Monastery of Kelso the important church of Birnie.-
In the early and troubled years of the reign of King Alexander the
Second, when the English barons and nation, with Scotland also for assisting
them in their opposition to King John and the Pope, were laid under
Papal interdict by Gualo, the Eoman legate. Bishop Brice appears to have
subjected himself to ecclesiastical discipline, and to have been excommuni-
cated. Wliat the precise reasons for this procedure were do not clearly
appear. In his letter of remission Pope Honorius Tliird says the Bishop
had offended him and the Eoman Church in many things, one of which
was that, after the interdict had been proclaimed, he personally troubled
the Pope. Another charge was that, also after the promulgation of the
interdict, he had performed divine service. This the Bishop wholly denied,
but did not thereby remove the suspicions of the sovereign Pontiff, who,
however, on his humbly expressing contrition, absolved him from censure,
and commanded the inhabitants of Moray to receive and obey him again as
the bishop and pastor of their souls in things pertaining to the Lord. This
absolution was granted on 5th November 1218.^
Only a few weeks later, on the 30th of January, the same Pope issued a
mandate to the abbots of Cupar, Scone, and Dunfermline, appointing them
judges to inquire into the truth of certain grave charges against the life and
morals of the Bishop, preferred by his own archdeacon and chancellor. These
charges w^ere, that seeking only milk and wool from the flock committed to
him, he extorted sometimes the eighth and sometimes the third part of their
1 Registnim Moraviense, p. 58. - Liber de Calchou, p. 29G.
' Theiner's Vetera Monumenta, p. 6, No. xiv.
DEATH AND CAXOXISATIOS.
(the coinplainers') rents at his pleasure, besides demanding money in name
of procuratoiy, althougli he did not discharge the office of visiting their
churches, wliile he not only received, but exacted money from those to be
ordained ; that he dissipated in meat and drink the money collected, con-
suming it with wenches, by keeping company with whom he was evil spoken
of; that he dissolved lawful marriages for money, and tolerated those that are
illegal, overlooking the sins of his subjects, not because they were penitent, but
for money ; all which he did, notwithstanding frequent brotherly admonitions
from the complainers to reform his way of living.^
Nothing further is recorded as to this fama against the bishop. He con-
tinued in his office until his death in the year 1222.- He is said to have
been buried at Spynie. After liis death he was canonised, and received a
place in the Scottish Calendar of Saints, his day being the 1 3th of November,
although in Dempster's Menologium Scoticmn it is erroneously placed under
12th August, and the following note inserted : —
" Chanriae seu Canonicae beati Brixii, qui prior in Lesmahago Moraviae
episcopus renuntiatus sanctissime vixit."^
He is referred to in a charter dated in 1313, by one of the friars of the
monastery of Arbroath, as St. Brice, bishop and confessor.*
^ Theiner's Vetera Monuinenta, p. 9.
- Registrum Moraviense, p. .359.
■^ Forbes's Kalendars of Scottish Saints, p. 20S.
* Registrum Vetus de Aberbrothoc, p. 292.
I).m <j3
^o^ouwcns cpc.
r
56
III.— SIR WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, «urxamed LONGLEG.
CONSTANCE, his Wife.
Circa 1240—1276.
ALTHOUGH no charter evidence appears to have survived to furnish
-^^ strict legal proof that Sir William of Douglas was the son of Sir
Archibald, the fact that soon after the latter disappears from record, Sir
William is found in possession of the Douglas lands, and occupying tlie
prominent position due to the head of such a house, leads to the conclusion
that the presumed relationship had really existed. Sir William was prol)ably
born about the year 1200, as in a plea before an English court in the year
1267, afterwards to be referred to, he stated that he was above age for a duel,
i.e. above sixty. He is said to have been " of tall and goodly stature," which
procured for him the soubriquet of " Longleg."^ The earliest record of him is
as a witness to a charter by Maldouen Earl of Lennox, at Eintry, on 2d March
1238-9, in company with Sir David of Lindsay, Justiciar of Lothian, Sir Wil-
liam of Lindsay, Sir Alexander Comyn, Sir David Comyn,Sir David de Graliam,
and others.- Two years later King Alexander the Second was at Lanark, and
there confirmed a charter of the land of Little Kype to the Priory of Lesma-
hagow, and to this charter Sir William M-as also a witness.^ He is named in
public records during the latter part of the reign of King Alexander the Second,
and through the most stirring period of that of King Alexander the Third.
The death of Iving Alexander the Second in 1249, while his sou and
1 Hume of Godscroft's ms. History, at - Cartularium de Leveuax, p. .'}!.
Hamilton Palace. •* Liber de Calchou, p. 151.
CIVIL CONTEXTIOXS IN HCOTLASD.
successor was a boy of only eight years of age, threw Scotland into a state
of commotion. Previous to the death of the king, the relations of Scotland
with England had been temporarily placed on a satisfactory footing, without
any concessions to the unrighteous pretensions of King Henry the Third to
the vassalage of the Scottish Crown. But the sad event revived the hopes
of the English king, and he forthwith laboured to accomplish by artifice and
intrigue wdiat he could not effect by force.
Five days after the death of King Alexander the Second the coronation of
the young king took place. The proposal to crown the king was received
with motions for delay from a part of the nobility, but by the skilfid manage-
ment of Walter Comyn, Earl of Menteith, all impediments were set aside, and
the coronation proceeded. Walter Comyn was the leader of the patriotic or
national party, who made it their business to counteract the machinations of
Henry and his supporters. The objections are thought to have been put
forward by Alan Durward, the Justiciar of Scotland, who was the recog-
nised leader of a party in Scotland favourable to the pretensions of the
English king. Although associated with the English party, Durward may
really liave been actuated by motives of personal ambition. He was married
to Marjory, a natural daughter of King Alexander the Second, and appears to
have been labouring at Eome for his wife's legitimation, whereby, in the event
of the death of King Alexander the Third without issue, his wife might come
to the throne. In exchange for Henry's aid, therefore, he may have been
willing to sacrifice the independence of his country. It was on this very
ground that Henry procured his banishment from the councils of the young
king on the occasion of his marriage to the Princess Margaret of England,
King Henry's daughter, at York, in 1251. Durward, however, only passed
from the service of Alexander to that of Henry, and a few years later saw
him reinstated with the principal men of his party on the council of tht-
young king Alexander, while the national partv was removed.
VOL. I.
58 SIR WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, TIIIIII) OF DOUGLAS.
Sir William of Douglas appears to have thrown in his lot with the English
party. He is mentioned as one of the magnates of Scotland present at the
meeting between Kings Alexander and Henry at rioxburgh, on 20th September
1255, by whose advice the old guardians of the king were removed, and from
among whom the new Council was selected.^ Douglas, however, was not one
of the new Councillors.
Most of the barons holding lands in the south of Scotland, including the
Earls of Dunbar and Carrick, and Eobert de Brus, identified themselves with
the English party. This may account for Sir AVilliam Douglas being found
in a similar position. A more probable reason, however, presents itself in
the fact that he held lands in Northumberland ; and as, by the arbitral decision
of Cardinal Otho, papal legate, that county had, in 1242, been assigned to
England, Douglas was placed in the delicate position of either losing his
English lands by opposition to Henry, or joining the English party.
The chief possession held by Douglas on the English side of the Tweed was
the manor of Fawdon, now situated in the parish of Ingram in Northumberland.
He held it for half a knight's fee, of Gilbert of Umfraville, a young Border
Baron, who also possessed the earldom of Angus in Scotland, wliich he inherited
from his mother, Matilda, Countess of Angus. The lordship of Eedesdale, in
which the manor of Fawdon lay, had been a possession of the Umfravilles since
the Conquest, and was held on the tenure that its owners should defend the
lordship, valley, and forest of Eedesdale from enemies and wolves, with the
sword worn by King William the Conqueror when he entered Northumberland.'-
In reference to the possession by William of Douglas of the manor of
Fawdon, it has been suggested by Mr. Eiddell that the Douglases were a
Northumbrian family.^ Foundation for this assertion was produced in the
1 Acta, of the Parliamenta of Scotland, vol. i. p. 419.
2 Hodgson's Northumberland, vol. iii. jiart ii. pp. 3, 4, note.
^ Remarks upon Scotch Peerage Law, 1S33, p. 175, Appendix No. vi.
HIS JfANOR OF FA WDOX IX XORTIIUMBERLAXD.
o9
shape of an English record, which instructs that Douglas held Pawdon some
time before the year 1267. But the statements in that record, to which
reference will presently be made, warrant no conclusion as to the descent or
origin of the Douglases, but simply that at a certain date they were in
possession of lands in Northumberland. Whatever relations William of
Douglas had to that county appear to have been personal to himself, and
nothing whatever has been found in the very complete records of Xorthum-
berland to throw any light on the Douglas origin.
The record referred to by Islv. Riddell, which is also corroborated by
other authorities, states that William of Douglas, on 13th October 1267,
accused his overlord, Gilbert of Umfraville, Lord of Eedesdale, of a series of
offences against the person and property of the complainer. One charge was,
that Umfraville, with his follower, John of Herlaw, falsely represented to
Prince Edward at the siege of Alnwick, that Douglas was an enemy of the
king. Umfraville had at the same time begged from the Prince a gift of
Douglas's manor of Fawdon, which the Prince granted on the condition of
its being proved that what Umfraville stated was true, and gave instructions
for the seizure of the lands of Douglas pending inquiry. The investigation
was made by a jury, who averred on oath that the accusation against Douglas
was false; that he had never appeared in arms against the Iving or Prince of
England, nor committed any offence for which he ought to be dispossessed.
Upon this decision the king and his son commanded Douglas to be reinstated
in Fawdon.
The mandate had been obeyed and Douglas replaced in possession, but
according to his own account, he had not been many days in the manor,
when Umfraville, by Herlaw's advice, made a violent assault upon him.
One hundred men of Eedesdale, some of them outlaws, on the eve of St.
Margaret (19th July), attacked the house of Fawdon, while Douglas and his
family were within. These marauders applied fire in three places upon
60
SIR WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, THIRD OF DOUGLAS.
William liiiiiself, his wife, William his sou, and their servants Henr}' of
Mulefen, William of Wardrope, Patric of Duglas, and Gillerothe of Duglas,
and in the end forcibly ejected Douglas from his manor. He was carried a
prisoner to Umfraville's castle of Harbottle, and detained there for eleven
days. William of Douglas, the younger, was wounded by the assailants in the
neck with a sword, " so that they all but cut off his head." They also carried
off his goods, consisting of money, silver spoons, cups, mazers, clothes, arms,
and jewels, such as gold rings and gold fermails, to the value of £100. The
four servants named were also wounded, and were robbed of a sword, value
two shillings, a " supertunice," a belt, a purse with three silver shillings, and
other small things valued at a mark.
Such were the charges made against Umfraville by William of Douglas in
1267, but owing to certain informalities in the method of charge, the
defendants successfully resisted the plea, which was dismissed as not
sufficiently proven,^ Two years later, in June 1269, the case again came up
before the Royal Justices and an assize at Newcastle-on-Tyne. The chief
points of the dispute were re-stated, and the judgment of the Court was
that WOliam of Douglas and his wife Custaucia should recover seizin, and
Gilbert of Umfraville was lined.^
At the same assize, Douglas himself was summoned to appear in answer
to a complaint, the circumstances of which seem to throw some light on the
way in which Fawdon was acquired, Gylemin of Wollouere accused Douglas
of having deforced him of 30 shillings of rent in Faundon (Fawdon), which
Wniiam Batayle had leased to the plaintiff for a term not yet expired.
Gylemin's statement was that his lease was dated at Candlemas 1264 for the
term of six years, and that William Batayle, on the 3d IMay follo\nng, sold
the rent to William of Douglas, whereupon the latter ejected the plaintiff
^ Placitonim Abbreviatio, p. 166; Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland, ISSl,
vol. i. pp. 485-487. ^ Ihid. p. 510.
FAlVDOy POSSIBLY ACQUIRED BY MARRIAGE. 61
within the term, to his damage as he asserted, estimated at £20. Douolas
defended the action, which was finally compromised.^
This narrative seems to imply that Douglas acquired Fawdou or part of
it by purchase, about the year 1264, and not, as Mr. Eiddell implies, by gift
from Prince Edward.- The latter view is founded on a misreading of the
document already referred to as narrating the attack on Fawdon. William of
Douglas, however, is mentioned in connection with iSTorthumberland so early
as 1241, when he is stated in the Pipe EoU, as a surety for payment of a
fine due by Michael Fitz Michael of Eyhulle.^ At a later date, in 1256, he
granted to his son William a carucate and 40 acres of land in Warentham.*
If this be Warndon or Warnden, as would appear from a comparison of names,
it lay in the parish of Bamborough, some distance from Fawdon. Nothing
definite, however, can be found as to William of Douglas's possession of the
land in question.
In regard to the suggestion that Fawdon was acquired by purchase, the
history of that manor, so far as it can be traced, may be briefly sketched, as
bearing upon the possibility that William of Douglas intermarried with the
family of Batayle, who held Fawdon in 1264, and from whom it was apparently
purchased. Immediately after the Conquest, Eobert " with the beard "
(cum-barba), the first of the Umfravilles in England, granted his manor of
Fawdon to his retainer, Gilbert Bataill. In 1207 the heir in possession was
Heniy Bataill, as appears from a suit between Eichard of Umfraville and
Eustace de Yesci to determine their respective rights to the custody of the
heir of Fawdon.^ Henry Bataill had an uncle WiUiam, son of his grand-
* Calendar of Documents relating to Scot- ^ Hodgson's Northumberland, vol. iii. part
land, 1881, vol. i. pp. 510, 511. iii. p. 197.
* Calendar of Documents relating to Scot-
- Remarks upon Scotch Peerage Law, 183.S, laud, 1881, vol. i. p. .'594.
}i. 175, Appendix No. vi. '^ Placitorum Abbreviatio, p. 100.
62 SIR WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, THIIllJ OF DOUGLAS.
fiither Walter/ aud between 1100 and 1216 Constancia, wife of William
Bataill, had a plea with John Fitz Simon.- Henry Bataill's mother also
was named Constancia, and received her dowry about 1207, about the date
of the death of her husband, also named Henry.^
In 1264 the manor of Fawdon Avas apparently in possession of William
Bataill, a son of Henry Bataill, aud this William, as already stated, sold the
manor or a portion of it to William of Douglas. It is on record that about
the year 1219 a William Bataill, though whether the same person is not
clear, married one of four sisters of William Flamwill and daughters of
Eoger Flamwill.* They were heiresses of the " vill " or town of Whit-
tingham, which they held of the king in chief, and in 1257, Robert Bataill,
eldest son of Constance or Custancia Flamvill, was declared heir to his
mother, and did homage for her lands,^ that is for her share of Whittingham
and others. From the frequent recurrence of the Christian name Constance
or Custancia in the family of Bataill, it is not assuming too much to suppose
that Custancia, the wife of William of Douglas, who with him was re-infeft
in the manor of Fawdon, w^as herself a Bataill. If so, then whether AViUiam
of Douglas purchased the whole of the manor in 1264, or only a part of it, he
would have a close tie to the property by marriage with a member of the
family in possession.^ This, however, cannot be stated with certainty, as
from the frequent occurrence of the name in the records, it would appear
that Constancia was at that date rather a common name in Northumberland.
* Pipe Roll, 11S2; Hodgson's Xorthumber- dar of Documents relating to Scotland, ISSl,
land, vol, iii. part ni. p. 35. voL L p. 448.
2 Calendar of Documents relating to Scot- ^ A Richard Batail, in 1256, paid 203. for
land, 18S1, vol. i. p. 115. a licence to agree with Archibaud de Douglas
" Hodgson's Northumberland, vol. iii. part and Alina, his wife, as to a jilea of land. —
III. p. 98. [Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland,
* Ihhl. vol. i. part in, p. 228 ; vol. iii. part ISSl, vol. i. p. 395.] Some connection.
ITT. pp. 119 et S€q. therefore, existed between the Batails aud
^ Calendarium Genealogicum, p. 91 ; Calen- Douglases.
TAKES PAirr ly Scottish affairs.
It is not improbable tliat Custaucia may have beeu a second wife to
William of Douglas. His second son William was a minor in 1256, and
two guardians, one of them a female, were appointed to look after him and tlie
land. The elder William himself, in the year 1267, was by his own account
above sixty years of age.^ Fawdon remained in the hands of the Douglases
until 1296, when it was confiscated by King Edward the First. Tn a list made
up by the English Sheriffs of lands in their separate jurisdictions, which hud
belonged to and been taken from Scotsmen, William Douglas (son of the sub-
ject of this memoir) is described as owner of Fawdon in Northumberland.
The manor of Warentham or Warndon is not named as in his possession.
Fawdon was restored for a short time by King Edward the Thii'd to Sir James
of Douglas in the year 1329, but was again forfeited at a later period.
The narrative of Sir William of Douglas's relations to his English manor
has, for the sake of convenience, been given in a consecutive form, but he pro-
bably resided there only in his later years. Between 1241, when he is named
first in English record, and 1267, Sir William of Douglas appears in Scottish
matters, not only, as narrated, in public life, but in more private transactions,
especially those affecting properties near his family estates. In 1248 he
witnessed, in company with his brother Andrew, at Musselburgh, in close
proximity to his lands of Herdmanston, a quitclaim by John Gallard or
Gailard to the Monastery of Dunfermline." William and Andrew of Douglas
also appear, about the year 1245, as witnesses to charters granted in Linlith-
gowshire, where lay the lands of Livingston, one of the Douglas domains,
and at a later period, in 1255, Sir WiUiam and Sir Andi'ew of Douglas both
appended their seals, in company with the rcsigner's father, to a deed of
resignation by Pialph Xoble of lands in Tllieston.^
^ This disposes of a statement by Hume of sixty was considered too old for war or duel-
Godscroft that this William went to Palestine ling. - Registnim de Diinfermelj^n, p. 97.
as a Crusader about 1270, as a man above ' IledBookofMenteith, vol, ii. pp. 209-211.
64 S/I! WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, THIRD OF DOUGLAS.
In the year 1249 Sir William of Douglas was apparently at Kiuloss in
Morayshire, probably on a visit to his relatives, the house of De Moravia.
While there, on the 17th of June, he attested the charter of an annual dona-
tion by Hugh, son of Augustine de Moravia, to the Hospital of Soutra on the
confines of Midlothian, of two shillings from his mill of Wiston in Lanark-
shire. Among the other witnesses to the charter is one Duncan of Douglas,
of w^hom no further information has been obtained.^
Sir AVilliam of Douglas a few years later took part in another transaction,
m which another member of the family of Moravia was concerned, also
affecting lands in the immediate neighbourhood of Douglasdale. This was a
document in the form of an agreement, dated at Ancrum in 1253, between
the Bishop of Glasgow and the chaplains of the chapel of Osbernistoun, and
Sir Walter de Moravia, respecting the land of Osbernistoun, in the barony of
Bothwell and county of Lanark. Sir Walter of Moray held the land, as if it
was his own, while the Bishop of Glasgow and the chaplains claimed it on the
ground that it had been gifted by Sir Walter's ancestors for the support of
the two chaplains to celebrate masses for the salvation of the souls of the
donors. Moray alleged that the gift was invalid. But the agreement
disposed matters so that Sir Walter of Moray should hold the land in farm
of the bishop and the chaplains, and pay annually to one of the two
chaplains nine marks, and to the other one hundred shillings. For this
payment, along with iVTark de Baylol, William de Cliveland, Stephen Magnus,
Eichard Peticru, and Walter Scott, Sir William de Dufgias became surety,
and bound his heirs and successors to the same. He, with the others,
affixed his seal to the document."
1 Charters of the Collegiate Churcbcs of Wiston into making certain grants of land.—
Midlothian, p. 30. At a later date, in 1-2G2. [Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland,
the same Hugh de Moravia was adjudged by a ISSl, vol. i. p. 555.]
Lanarkshire jury, of whom a Philip de Dun, - - Registnim Episcopatus Glasguensis, vol. i.
glas was one, to have coerced Henry of pp. 162-1G4.
EARLIEST SCOTTISH CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE, 1259.
On Palm Sunday (6tli April) of the year 12.59, three years after he had
bestowed Wamdon, in Northumberland, on his second sou William, Sir William
of Douglas met in Edinburgh Castle with Sir Hugh of Abernethy, Sherifi* of
Roxburgh and Forester of Selkirk, and arranged the terms of a marriage-
contract between Hugh, the eldest son and heir of Sir William of Douglas,
and Marjory, the sister of Sir Hugh of Abernethy.^ While Sir William of
Douglas had in the civil contests sided with the English party, Sir Hugh of
Abernethy, on the other hand, was a powerful member of the national party.
A coalition, however, between the rival factions had been effected in the pre-
vious year, and among those present at this contract between the families of
Douglas and Abernethy were representatives of both factions. The indenture
then prepared, the terms of which will be considered in the memoir of Hugh
of Douglas, has been printed, as of peculiar interest, not only to the Douglas
family as one of their earliest muniments, but also to Scottish liistory as the
earliest know^l contract of marriage in Scotland.
Within a year before the attack on Fawdon, and apparently about the
time of the siege of Alnwick, when the false accusation of disloyalty was
made against him to Prince Edward, Sir William of Douglas was in Scotland.
There he was a witness to, and also lent his seal for, the greater authentication
of a deed of renunciation made by a neighbouring proprietor in Lanarkshire,
at the Court of King Alexander the Third, in Eoxburgh Castle. Eobert the
Frank of Lambinistoun, in the king's presence, on 20th May 1266, gave up to
the monks of Kelso all right to the lands of Ardach, in the fee of Lesmahagow,
which his father and gTandfather had held, and from which they had derived
their designation. Except the sheriffs of the neighbouring counties of Lanark,
Roxburgh, and Peebles, Sir William of Douglas is the only landowner of the
district present at the transaction.^
^ Vol. iiL of this work, p. 1.
2 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. xii. p. 3 ; Liber de Calchou, vol. i. p. 1.5.".
VOL. I. I
G6 SIB WILL/AM OF DOUGLAS, THIRD OF DOUGLAS.
At other times, also. Sir William Douglas witnessed charters referriir^ to
the Abbey of Kelso.^ On the occasion of a dispute between the monks of
Kelso and Sir SyuKjn Lockhart, with respect to the teinds of the church of
Symondstoun (Symington), he was one of the " nobles " in whose presence, at
Casteltarris (Carstairs), Sir Symon Lockhart renounced his claim, recognised
the right of the Abbey to the church in question, and pledged himself, upon
oath, under pain of excommunication, not again to molest the monks in their
possession of the church.-
From the abbot and monks of Kelso Sir William of Douglas received, in
the year 1270, a grant, but only for his own lifetime, of the land of Polnele,
in their holding of Lesmahagow. It is said to be given for the faithful counsel,
help, and protection afforded to the Abbey by the grantee, who, in return, was
to pay yearly to the Priory or House of Lesmahagow two pounds of wax. The
charter was granted at Glasgow^ on (3d February) the day following the Feast
of the Purification of the Virgin Mary, in a full court of Justiciars.^
The only other event recorded of Sir William of Douglas was a mission
in which he was engaged, along with two of his neighbours, Sir John of Lam-
bertoun and Pdchard of Biggartoun, to ascertain for the king the extent of
the lands of John of Pencaitland, lying west of the river Tyne. This was
done, and the lands delivered to Aymer de Maxwell, by a document dated at
Pencaitland on 24th March 1261.*
Whether Sir William of Douglas was more than once married has not
been ascertained. Godscroft, in his printed liistory, states that William's
^vife was Martha, a sister of Alexander Earl of Carrick, and that \w her he
had two sons, Hugh and William.^ But in the manuscript copy of his work,
1 Liber de Calchou, voL i. p. 153. * Calendar of Documents relating to Scot-
, „ , .. land, 1881, vol. i. p. 554.
2 Thid. vol. il p. 267. . „. ^
" History of the Houses of Douglas and
3 Ibhl. voL i. p. 168. Angus, 1644, p. 14.
HIS DEATH : HIS CHILDREN. 67
he caUs the name of William's wife Isobel, sister of Alexander, Earl of
Carrick, and, in addition to the two sons, gives him a daughter, called Isobel,
after her mother, and who was married to Sir William Oliphant of Aberdalgy.'
Godscroft's storj^, however, is improbable, from the fact that there was no
Alexander, Earl of Carrick, at that date, and in the pedigree of the Earls,
which is well known, no daughter is said to have married William of Douglas.
The only known wife of the latter was Custancia or Constance, already
referred to, whose surname has not been recorded. William of Douglas died
before 16th October 1274, and was survived by his wife Constance.^
No trace of the seal of Sir WHUam of Douglas is known to exist, but
Godscroft describes the seal then appended to the charter following upon the
marriage indenture of 1 259 as " longer then broad, fashioned Hke a heart ; the
letters thereon are worn away and not discernable, save only W", and the
armes seem to be three starres or mullets at the upper end thereof.''^
Sir William of Douglas had at least two sons, Hugh of Douglas, and
WiUiam of Douglas who was known as " Le Hardi." xMemoirs of them foUow.
He had also a daughter Willelma, who married WilHam of Galbrathe, son
of Sir WilUam of Galbrathe by a daughter of Sir Jolin Comyn, grandfather
of Sir John Comyn, one of the Guardians of Scotland. Sir John Comyn,
who died about 1274, gave Dalserf to his daughter and son-in-law in free
marriage. William Galbrathe and Willelma Douglas had four daughters,
the eldest of whom married de Cathe [Keith], and had issue a son
Bernard de Cathe. Joanna was the heiress of Dalserf, but died at Candle-
mas 1301, before her mother, who was in possession at her death about
Christmas 1302.^
1 Calendar of documents relating to Scot- 3 Calendar, ut supra, vol ii Xo 14-->o
land, vol. ii. Nos. 29, 30. Inquest as to WiUelma's succession held'at
Lanark, 30th December 1303. A Sir Bernard
- History of the Houses of Douglas and de Kethe appears in 1307 attached to the
Angus, 1644, p. 13. English interest.
68
IV.— 1. HUGH OF DOUGLAS.
MARJOEY OF ABERXETHY, nis Wife.
Married a.d. 1259.
/^F Hugh, the elder of the two ascertained sons of Sir William of Douglas,
^^^ surnamed the " Longleg," little is known beyond the an-angements
for his marriage with Marjory of Abernethy, the sister of Sir Hugh of
Abernethy. He may have succeeded his fathei-, Sir W^illiam, in the Douglas
possessions in 1274, and died without issue a few years thereafter. But
for anything that has been discovered to the contrary, he may have
predeceased his father.
At the time his marriage was arranged, Hugh of Douglas was under age,
and apparently his intended spouse was also young. The terms of the
indenture obliged Hugh, son and heir of Sir William of Douglas, to marry
Marjory', sister of Sir Hugh of Abernethy, immediately after the following
Easter, so that all things might be finished before Ascension Day of that
year. The contract made between the father of Hugh of Douglas and the
brother of Marjory of Abernethy, at Edinburgh Castle, was only concluded
on Palm Sunday, the 6th of April, and by this agreement, ere six weeks had
come and gone, the marriage was to be celebrated. Sir Hugh of Abernethy
bound himself to give with his sister twenty merks worth of land in the
town of Glencorse, or in the fee of Chamberlain Newton, and Sir William of
Douglas promised to the young couple an equal value of land in the fee of
Douglas, which should belong to Hugh of Douglas and his heirs, together
with the rest of the familv inheritance after the death of his father. Mean-
MARRIAGE WITH 2IARJ0RY OF ABERXETHY, 1259.
GO
while, the forty merks worth of land were, with the counsel and consent of
the bride's brother, to remain with the Lord of Douglas for behoof of the
young couple (pueris) for the space of four years, by which time, it may be
presumed, Hugh of Douglas would attain his majority. Sir William of
Douglas, however, was to find safe and sufftcient persons as securities for
delivering the lands and their produce to the spouses at the expiry of the
four years. During that period Hugh of Douglas and his wife were to be
furnished with the necessaries of life by Sir William of Douglas and Sir Hugli
of Abernethy, and the estate was to account for these. It was also provided
that if, on the one hand, Hugh of Douglas, after the solemnisation of the
marriage, predeceased his father, or if under any pretext he withdrew at any
time from the fulfilment of the contract, the land given by Sir William of
Douglas should remain with Marjory of Abernethy in name of dowry. If, on
the other hand, Marjory of Abernethy was unwilling to fulfil the contract,
the land given by Sir Hugh of Abernethy to Hugh of Douglas was to'
remain in possession of the latter during life. Both parties solemnly swore
to observe this agreement, which was made in presence of a number of
witnesses, among others, Alexander Comyn, Earl of Buchan, Sir Eeginald
Cavers, Sir John of Dundemor, Sii- Andrew of Douglas, Sir Lawrence of
Montefixo, and Sir Adam of Folkariston.i
Hume of Godscroft in his history refers to a charter bestowed at this
time by Sir William of Douglas upon his son Hugh, of the lands of Glespin,
Hartwood, Kennox, Carmackhope, and Leholme, all lying in the parish of
Douglas, and also the lands then in dispute between him and the heirs of
John Crawford, whose estates adjoined those of the Douglas family in
Lanarkshire; these lands to be for a dowry to his son's wife. The charter is
evidently granted in terms of the indenture of marriage a.s a Hferent portion
to Marjory of Abernethy in the event of her husband's death. According to
' Vol. iii. of this work, pp. 1, 2.
HUGH OF DOUGLAS.
Godscroft, Sir William designates his son Sir Hugh, or Lord Hugh of
Douglas. That historian also observes, that the charter contains the remark-
able condition, that if Hugh of Douglas did not fulfil the part of a husband
to his wife, and if he lived apart from her, she should still brook and enjoy
these lands. The same would hold if she survived her husband. And if
Hugh of Douglas predeceased his father, and Marjory of Abernethy survived
Sir William of Doudas, she should receive the terce of his lauds in Douf^las-
dale, with the exception of what Sir William would leave to his own wife.
There was another provision, as it were, says Godscroft, " in case of divorce-
ment, or not consummating the marriage," that if Hugh of Douglas were,
after his father's death, living lord and heir, or if he had an heir by any
other wife, Marjory of Abernethy should, notwithstanding thereof, possess
these lands all the days of the life of Hugh of Douglas. "Now," adds
Godscroft, "he could not have an heir by another, unless he were first
divorced from her" (Marjory). He also adds that in this charter, of which,
indeed, there is no trace elsewhere, Sir William of Douglas, for the greater
security of his son's wife, promised, that if Sir Hugli of Abernethy wished
any other reasonable guarantee, by charter or other writ, they should them-
selves prepare it, and he would sign and seal it.^
The only other information recorded by Godscroft concerning Huo'h of
Douglas is traditional, and refers to his character as prudent, vigilant, and
active, his foes never finding him sleeping. In illustration of this, the anecdote
is related that one of the smaller lairds in Douglasdale, Patton'Purdie, who
owned a piece of land called the Umdrawod, once, with his sons, lay in
ambush by the wayside to kill Hugh of Douglas. The latter drew near the
snare unsuspectingly, but obtaining warning by some means, and beiiiLr
unsupported by any of his people, he tied, pursued by his would-be murderers.
In a short time a number of his followers collected, and they turning upon
1 History of the Houses of Douglas and Angus, 1644, p. l.S.
TOMB OF MARJORY OF ABERNETHY.
the pursuers, chased them some distance, and put them to death upon the
highway. Two of the sons of Purdie were slain at one phice, and to mark
the event a cross was erected, which was named after one of the slain men,
Duns Cross. Patton Purdie himself was slain at a place called Hardrig, and
another cross was erected at that spot, which was afterwards transferred to
the town of Douglas, and obtained the distinction of becoming the market-
cross. The foUowing rhyme is said to belong to that time, and to have been
intended to immortalise the event : —
" Pattane Purdie brack a chaise
Wpon the Lord Douglas,
Hugh Lord Douglas turned againe,
And there was Patton Purdie slaine."i
Nothing is known as to when or how Hugh of Douglas died, but he and
his %vife, Marjory of Abernethy, are said to have been buried in the church of
St. Bride's in Douglas, where, says Godscroft, their tombs are still to be seen.-'
On the south side of the chancel of the church, between the altar and the
priest's door,'there is an eftigy of a female in a recumbent posture, which is
generally said to be that of Marjory of Abernethy. The costume is of this
period. From the figure being solitary it has been suggested that this lady
predeceased her husband.^
Although at this time the union with the powerful family of Abernethy
added Httle to the power or possessions of the Douglases, they, at a later
period, became possessed, through Lady Margaret Stewart, Countess of
Angus, of the entire barony of Abernethy, and of the famous Eound Tower,
which is similar to the weU-known Eound Tower of Brechin. The second
title of the Earls of Angms for some time was Lord Abernethy.
' MS. of Hume-s History, at Hamilton ^ MS. History at Hamilton Palace.
Upper Ward of Lanarkshire, vol. ii. p. 6 1 .
72
IV.— 2. SIR WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, LOED OF DOUGLAS,
SURNAMED " LE HAEDI."
ELIZABETH STEWAKT, his fiest Wife.
ELEANOE OF LOVAIN or FEEREES, his second Wife.
1288—1302.
r\F the early history of this bold and enterprising Chief of the Douglas
^^ family, comparatively little is known, and that little is to be gleaned not
from the annals of his own country, but from Northumbrian records. The
first mention of him is in an acknowledgment by his father before the king's
justices and an assize at Newcastle-on-Tyne in 1256. The elder William
stated that he had granted to his son William, for his homage and service, a
carucate ^ of land in Warentham (or Warndon), and forty acres of laud in
the same " vill " by two charters. The younger William was then under age,
and John de Haulton and Joanna of Faudon were to remain as guardians over
him and liis land.- This guardianship was probably required in consequence
of his father's absences in Scotland. The later history of this possession
cannot be clearly traced, but apparently it did not continue in the hands of
Douglas. It is not referred to as held by him, when a list was made up in
1296 of lands in England forfeited by Scotsmen.
The next appearance in history of William " Le Hardi " or The Bold is
eleven years later, at the attack on his father's house of Fawdon, made by
* A canicate of land was identical with a more than 100 acres.
" hide " or " plough gate " of land— an iu- - Calendar of Documents relating to Scot-
determinate quantity, but equal to a little land, ISSl, vol. i. p. .'?04.
MARRIAGE WITH ELIZABETH STEWART.
the men of Tledesdale in 12G7. In this affair the young Douglas seems to
have done much to earn his sobriquet, if the condition in which he was left
by the assailants be taken as a proof of his activity in defence of his father
and mother. As stated in the memoir of his father, the latter informed the
king in his accusation of Umfraville, that his son William was womided in a
deadly manner in the neck with a sword, so that the assailants all but cut
off his head.^ Allowing for exaggeration in this assertion, natui'al enough
in the circumstances, it is evident that the young man was severely though
not fatally wounded, and his injuries were probably incurred in a brave
resistance to the marauders.
Between this event in the year 1267 and the year 1288, when Sir
William of Douglas is recorded as in possession of the Douglas estates, little
is known of his history. In the interval he had married Elizabeth, daughter
of Alexander, High Steward of Scotland, and sister of James, the High
Steward who took such an active part in defence of Scotland's independence;
but by this time that lady was dead. Sir WilKam had also received the
honour of knighthood. As it is clear from his succession to the Douglas estates
before 1288, that Sir William recovered from the wound received at Fawdon,
it is possible he may have been one of the many knights and nobles who,
about 1270, departed for the Holy Land.- Godscroft states that William,
the father of this Sir William of Douglas, was a crusader. The improba-
bility of this has been already referred to, and that writer may have trans-
ferred some tradition to this effect from the history of the son to that of the
father, but authentic record is silent on this point.
Whether Sir William " Le Hardi " succeeded in the Douglas posses-
sions to his brother Hugh, or inherited them directly from his father, is
^ The words of the recorded plea are :" Et ita quod fere amputavenint caput ejus.'' —
Willelnium tilium ipsius Willelmi de Duglas [Placitorum Abbreviatio, p. 16G.J
letaliter vulueraverunt in coUo quodam gladio, - Fordun, edition 1871, vol. i. p. 304.
VOL. 1. K
71 Snt WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, ^' LE HARDir
uncertain. The first act recorded of his ownership was his recovery of
the charters of his family from the custody of tlie Abbot of Kelso, who
appears to have been intrusted with them for safe keeping.^ Sir William of
Douglas, however, desired to have his title-deeds in his own care, and on
the Uth January 1289, he despatched from Glasgow a messenger to the
Abbot with a receipt for the documents, and a request that they might be
given to the bearer. In the letter of acknowledgment Douglas designs
himself " William of Duglas, Lord of Duglas," being thus the first of his
family who assumed that baronial style. Tliis recall of the Douglas charters
to their owner's custody was, in one \iew, happily timed, as in the wars of
independence which followed a few years later, the Abbey of Kelso suffered
severely. Standing as it did in an exposed situation on the borders, the
fire and devastation which overtook this monastery drove its monks to seek
refuge elsewhere, and deprived them even of the necessaries of life.-
Douglas Castle itself suffered once and again in the same wars, and the
family muniments were only removed from one place of jeopardy to another.
To the frequent occupation of Douglas Castle by the English, and at least
one destruction by fire, must be traced the loss of these early charters,
with all the information they could have given as to the first generations
of the House of Douglas.
Some time previous to the recall of his family charters, Douglas had
1 The practice of intrusting family muni- was among the parchments found in the
ments to the care of the more important castle of Edinburgh in 1292, and ordered by
monastic houses was not uncommon at this King Edward the First of England to be
time. The Abbey of Jedburgh was made the delivered up to King John Baliol. The let-
repository of certain documents deposited by ter must have been dated before 1268.—
John Byset, son of Sir John Byset. A letter [Acts of the ParUaments of Scotland, vol i.
by William de Fenton, Andrew de Bosco, and p. 116.]
David de Graham, acknowledging receipt of 2 go the Bishop of St. Andrews states m
these from Mr. William Wyscard, Archdeacon a charter to the monks after the war was
of St. Andrews, and Chancellor to the King, over.— Liber de Calchou, vol. i. p. 249.
ABDUCTIOX OF ELEANOR BE FERRERS.
signalised himself by a deed highly characteristic of his race, the romantic
abduction and marriage of an English heiress, showing that if he were bold
in war, he could be equally bold in love. It was during the confusion into
which Scotland was thrown shortly after the death of King Alexander the
Third that an English lady wended her way from England into Scotland and
took up her abode with a kinswoman. She was Eleanor, daughter of
Matthew, Lord Lovain, and had become the wife of William de Ferrers,
Lord of Groby, in Leicestershire, brother of the last Ferrers, Earl of Derby,
but was now a widow\^ After her husband's death, Eleanor de Ferrers had
sought and obtained from King Edward a proportionable dowry out of her
late husband's lands in England, the manors of Stebbing and Wodeham
Ferrers, in the county of Essex. She then, according to the usual custom,
gave her oath that she would not marry again without the king's consent.
Her late husband having also possessed lands in Scotland, in the counties
of Berwick, Dumfries, Ayr, and Fife, with part of the barony of Tranent, in
the county of Haddington,^ she came to Scotland to secure her dowry out of
these lands also. While waiting the settlement of her claim she took up
her residence at the manor of Tranent, with Elena de Zouch," the widow of
Alan de Zouch, who had possessed the other part of the barony of Tranent.^
This manor was one day suddenly invested by an armed force, led by the
^ Dugdale's Baronage, vol. i. p. 2G7. This
lady, Eleanor de Lovain, was the second wife
of Ferrers. He left a son by his former wife,
who succeeded to his estates.
2 Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, voL i. pp.
36, 45; Registrum Magni Sigilli, p. 12;
Robertson's Index, pp. 6, 7, 10, 13, 19,
20, 22, 27.
3 This lady was one of the three daughters
of Roger de Quincy, Constable of Scotland,
by Elena, eldest daughter of Alan, Lord of
Galloway. Her father died in 1204, leaving
all his possessions in England and Scotland to
his daughters. Her husband, Alan de Zouch,
died in 1270. Her elder sister, Margaret,
married William de Ferrers, Earl of Derby,
and the other sister married Alexander
Comyn, Earl of Buchau, who, by virtue of
his marriage with a daughter of the late
Constable of Scotland, became himself Con-
stable.
^ Eegistrum Magni Sigilli, p. 11.
76 SIR WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, " LE IIAEDir
Baron of Douglas and John Wishart, a prominent borderer.^ They, however,
did no damage to the manor, but contented themselves with seizing the
English lady and carrying her off to a place of security in another part of the
country, probably one of Douglas's own strongholds, where she was detained.
The Baron of Douglas, it would appear, had resolved to take to himself a
second wife, and his choice fell on Eleanor de Ferrers. His motives for her
abduction are nowhere disclosed and need not here be discussed, though they
may be imagined, but he evidently did not consult the lady's own wishes
in the matter. The wooer, however, had to reckon with the liege lord of
the heiress. On information of the raid reaching the ears of King Edward
of England, he regarded it as done to his prejudice and contempt, and on
28th January 1289, he wrote to the Sheriff of Northumberland to seize all
the possessions of Douglas in his jurisdiction, and to retain them in safe
custody until he received further commands. He was also directed to make
"diligent, wary, and circumspect enquiry" throughout his district for the
offender, and if he found him, he was to arrest and imprison him.- As
this mandate did not result in the capture of Douglas, Edward, on the 27th
of March following, addressed a letter to William, Bishop of St Andrews,
and his associates in the regency of Scotland, relating his complaint against
Douglas, and ordering them to produce that baron and the lady before
himself and his council, within a month from Easter.^ The Eegents,
however, do not appear to have taken any notice of this demand, as
another order by Edward, dated the 14th of April, to Richard Knut, the
Sheriff of Northumberland, directs anew the seizure of the posses-
i John Wishart was a border baron, and in 1255. — [Robertson's Early Kings, vol. ii.
one of considerable influence in Scotland. p. 66.]
He was one of the Regents during the '-' Fine Roll of Edward i., quoted in Steven -
minority of King Alexander the Third, son's Illustrations of Scottish History, p. 35.
but was removed from that office with ^ Stevenson's Historical Documents, Scot-
the Comyn and others of the National party land, vol. i. y\\ S3-S5.
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST II I M BY THE ENGLISH KING. 77
sions of Bouglns in that county, and also of the possessions of all
who had taken part with him in the forcible abduction of Eleanor do
Ferrers.^ The Sheriff of Northumberland replied that he had seized the
lands both of Douglas and Wishart so far as they lay in his bailiary, but as
he had learned that the latter also possessed lands in Tynedale, which was
under the jurisdiction of a brother sheriff, Thomas de Normanville, he asked
a special warrant for himself to seize them also. His information was
accepted, but the duty of seizing the lands was imposed upon Xormanville as
the proper officer. The writ to this Sheriff is important, as it is the only one
which, in narrating the charge against Douglas and Wishart, states that, in
addition to the abduction, they inflicted other enormities upon the lady,
(et alia enormia ei intulit).'-
As remarked, the Eegents of Scotland do not seem to have paid any
regard to Edward's demand for the surrender of Douglas and his captive
bride. One of the Eegents was James, the High Steward of Scotland, whose
sister had been Douglas's first wife. Another was Alexander Coniyn, Earl
of Buchan, a brother-in-law of Elena de Zoucli, from whose manor Douglas
had carried off his intended bride, and he may be supposed to have had no
disfavour to the deed. At the same time, the terms of Edward's demand
were derogatory to the dignity of Scotland as an independent kingdom,
and the Scots were now on tlieir guard against his pretensions. Accordingly,
it is not a matter of surprise that Douglas is found taking part with his
brother barons in the stining events then going forward ; but to these
reference will presently be made.
About a year after his adventure, however, in the early part of the year 1290,
Douglas fell into the hands of King Edward, and was for a time imprisoned
in the castle of Leeds. The indictment against him is indefinite, the alleged
cause of his imprisonment being simply "certain transgressions imputed
^ Stevenson's Historical Documents, vol. i. pp. S3, 84. - Ihid. pp. 85, 8(5.
■s
SIE WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, ^^ LE IIAUDir
to him." But on four English bavons, John de Hastiugs, Nicholas de Segrave,
William de Eye, and Eobert Bardulf, becoming security for his compearance
before the king within fifteen days from 27th January 1291/ he was released
from prison,- and the Sheriff of Northumberland was ordered to cause the
lands, etc., of "William Douglas and his men, with their revenues from the
time of seizure, to be replcdged to their owners, to be held by them at least
till the date above mentioned, when the king and his council intended to
dispose of the case.^ The lands of John Wishart were restored at the same
time on similar terms.*
At St. Hilary's term 1291, Eleanor de Ferrers, by two procurators, put in
an appearance before the King of England and his Court, and agreed to pay
a fine of one hundred pounds for her offence against her feudal superior in
marrying Douglas. The latter was personally present, and pledged all his
lands and holdings for the payment of the fine in four instalments: £25 on
6th May 1291, the same amount on the 13th October, and the remainder at
the same terms in the following year.-^ But the fine was never paid. At
the first mentioned term the Sheriff of Northumberland was instructed to
levy the promised sum of £25 upon the goods and chattels of William
Douglas;^ and when in the year 1296 Edward confiscated lands in England
possessed by Scotsmen, he seized from AVilliam Douglas and his wife
Eleanor de Ferrers their two manors in Essex and Hereford ; Stebbinge, the
value of which was £53, 8s. 7-kl., and Wodeham Ferrers, valued at £16, 2s. 6d.
In reference to the manor of Stebbinge, the jurors who valued it state that
^ Steveuson's Historical Documents, vol. i.
pp. 154, 155. He makes the Quimlena of
St. Hilary, which is the date given in the
original writ, fall upon the 6th of February,
but as the feast is on the 13th of January,
the fifteenth day after is the 12 7th of the
same month.
- Mandate by King Edward the First,
dated 14th May 1290, >h\il.
^ :SIandate, dated 24tb May 1290, Ihkl.
* lh\d.
•' Stevenson's Historical Documents, vol. i.
p. 214.
6 Ibul. p. 214, note.
CONFISCATIOX OF HIS EXGLISII LASDS. 79
on the Sabbath (Saturday) after the feast of St. Luke the Evangelist 1295/
on whicli day the Sheriff had taken the manor into the hands of the king,
there were found twenty quarters of wheat which the Sheriff had formerly
seized in terms of another precept, " for a certain debt of £100, in which
William Douglas and Eleanor his wife were bound to the king on account of
trespass in her marriage."-
This exploit of gallantry on the part of the baron of Douglas was
paralleled at a later period by the similar seizure of a daughter of the House
of Douglas by Alexander Stewart, son of the Wolf of Badenoch, who captured
Isabella Douglas, Lady of ^Mar, in her Castle of Kildrummy, and obliged her
to consent to share the honours of her earldom with him.
Sir William of Douglas may be said to have brought himself suddenly on
the stage of history by this bold stroke for a wife. It took place evidently
.shortly prior to his application for the Douglas charters, and the attack on
Fawdon was a mere private foray. The times were favourable to such
episodes ; but the country liad reached a crisis in her history, in which Sir
William Douglas was to take a part more prominent than he had hitherto
done. King Alexander the Third had perished at the fatal crag of King-
horn, leaving as his successor a weakly grandchild, a maiden only a few
years old, and born in a foreign clime. Under a regency of six of their own
number, the Scottish nobility, though united in acknowledging the " Maid of
Norway" as their queen, were exhausting themselves and the country in
ambitious strife for the succession,^ should death prevent the young queen
from ever occupying the throne, a fear too soon to be realised. The two
principal claimants were Bruce and Baliol, and to one or the other of the
rivals each of the nobles gave his support in accordance with his own
inclination or sense of duty. In this unhappy confusion tlie country besought
1 22d October 1 295. - Stevenson's Historical Documents, vol. ii. pp. 43, 44.
^ Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. i. p. 72.
80 Sm WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, '' LE HARDir
the interposition of Edward the First of England, who accepted the office of
arbiter between the rival parties in Scotland. He had also been requested by
Haco, King of Norway, to interpose ; but on his own account he was
negotiating with that king and the Pope for the marriage of his son, Prince
Edward, with the Maid of Norway.^ For the time, however, Edward kept tliis
matter secret from the Scots, and requested the Scottish regents, who, by the
death of the Earls of Fife and Buchan, were now reduced to four in number,
to send ambassadors to Salisbury, there to arrange with his o%vn commissioners
for bringing the young queen of Scotland to England. The treaty of Salisbury
was agreed to on the 6th of November 1289,- and a meeting of the Scotch
Parliament was held on the 14th of ]\Iarch following for its ratification.^
Before this meeting took place, the proposed marriage between the Maid of
Norway and the son of Edward the First was made known, and met with the
warm approbation of the Scottish people. The Scottish Parliament met at
Brighani (Birgham), and despatched to Edward a letter signed by all present,
cordially assenting to the proposed union, provided certain conditions
respecting their national independence were guaranteed.'*
Sir William of Douglas was at this time lying under the displeasure of
King Edward on account of his seizure of Eleanor de Ferrers, and orders had
been issued both to Edward's own officers and the regents of Scotland to place
him under arrest, yet he was present at Brigham among the other barons of
Scotland. His name also occurs among tliose who confirmed the treaty of
Salisbury, as well as among the senders of the letter to the English king. It
is an amusing illustration of the vicissitudes of Border life in feudal times,
that while Douglas was sitting in the Council at Brigham, carelessly defiant
of all Edward's attempts to bring him to bay, Sir Pilchard Knut, the Sheriff
of Northumberland, to whom the English king had intrusted the seizure of
1 Rymer'a b'oedera, vol. i. pp. 706, 721. ^ Stevenson's Historical Documents, vol. i.
- Ihkh p. 719. p. 129. * Rymer's Fcedera, vol. i. p. 7:>0.
LV FBISO^' AT LEEDS.
Douglas, was himself a prisoner in the castle of Eoxburgh. Havino- been
intrusted by the Queen of England with a mission respecting the dowry of
Isabella, widow of John de Vescy, he had applied to the regents of Scotland
for a safe-conduct to come to Roxburgh. But, instead of granting the safe-
conduct, the regents ordered the Sheriff of Eoxburgh, "William de Soulis, to
apprehend Knut, and bring him to Edinburgh to answer to numerous
complaints about his high-handed treatment of Scotsmen in violation of the
customs of the Marches. On coming to Eoxburgh, the English Sheriff was
arrested by Alexander de Maxtone, constable of the castle, on the 13th of
January 1290, and lay in prison until the 20th or 24th of IMarch followinn-
by which time the Council at Brighara had completed its work. The Sheriff
of Northumberland, after his release, appealed to Edward for justice, estimating
the damage to the king's reputation at £10,000, and his own "loss and
disgrace " at £2000.i
A few weeks later, Douglas himself was a captive in Leeds, but as
previously narrated, he did not remain there long. In January 1291, when,
after the lapse of a few months, he and his wife appeared before King
Edward, another suit M'as instituted against Sir William of Douglas. One
of his neighbours in Northumberland, Geoffrey de Lucy, complained tliat
Douglas had unjustly, and without having recourse to the law, dispossessed
him of his common pasture of Fawdon, described as two hundred acres of
arable land and ten acres of meadow pertaining to Lucy's freehold in
Aungerham. A writ was accordingly issued against Douglas, dated 8th June
1291, in which the Sheriff of Northumberland was directed, on Geoffrey de
Lucy finding security for the prosecution of the claim, to take the opinion of
a jury and sujumon parties to his presence at Newcastle for the 2d of July
for judgment. The Sheriff was also to take security that Douglas, or if
he could not be found, his bailie would then attend.^ But at the assize
1 Stevenson's Historical Docnments, vol. i. pp. 125-12S, 19S 2 jn^i p <>_'^«
VOL.1. L
82 SIR WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, '' LE HAUDI."
the jury found that Lucy had never been seised in the pasture land which
he daimed.^
In June of the same year a royal mandate, in which Douglas was
interested, was issued under peculiar circumstances. A few years previous,
Duncan, Earl of Fife, one of the six regents appointed by the Communitas
of Scotland after the death of King Alexander the Tlurd, had for some
reason been foully assassinated by the Abernethies. Fordun and Wyntowu -
agree in placing the date of the mui'der in 1288, and the former relates that
on the 7th April 1288 the Earl was slain at Petpolloch (Pitteloch) by Sir
Patrick de Abernethy and Sir "Walter de Percy, with the counsel and consent
of Sir William of Abernethy. The last named, by prearrangement, lay
secretly in wait with a large party on a different road, so that the Earl might
not escape alive. The assassins accomplished their purpose and fled, but
Andrew of Moray immediately started in pursuit, and succeeded in capturing
in Colbanistown (Covington), in Clydesdale, two of the principal actors, Percy
and Sir "William de Abernethy. The former, with two esquires, Moray at
once put to death, the latter he handed over to Sir William Douglas to be
imprisoned for life in the castle of Douglas. Sir Patrick de Abernethy
escaped to France and died there.^
Both Fordun and Wyntown have erred respecting the name of the Aber-
nethy placed in the custody of Douglas at Douglas Castle, for, as Lord Saltoun
remarks, documents wdiich these writers had no opportunities of consulting
show, " that though Sir William may have been a party to the Earl's assassina-
tion, and may have been punished for it, his elder brother, Sir Hugh de Aber-
nethy, was the person imprisoned in Douglas Castle on that account, and as
the head of tlie family he was doubtless the chief instigator of the outrage." ^
^ Placitorum Abbreviatio, pp. 227, 285. ^ Fordun's Annalia, edition 187 1, vol. i.
- Wyntown's Cronykil (Macpherson's edi- p. 320.
tion), vol. ii. pp. 71, 72. * The Frasers of Pliilorth, vol. ii. p. 20.
IMPRISOXMENT OF SIR IIVGU OF ABERXETHY.
xZ
This Sir Hugh de Abernethy was noue other than Douglas's own rehitixe,
the brother of ^rarjorv, his sister-in-law. But this did not hinder the baron
of Douglas from sharing in the strong feeling of condemnation at the cruel
act of the Abernethies, or from being the instrument to inflict punishment.
Abernethy lay imprisoned in Douglas Castle for several years. On 28th
June 1291, the King of England, who was then at Berwick-on-Tweed, ad-
dressed a letter to Alan, Bishop of Caithness, Chancellor of Scotland (an
Englishman), directing him to charge Douglas to transfer Sir Hugh de
Abernethy from his place of confinement to one of the king's own prisons.^
No action appears to have followed on this order, as Fordun and Wyntriwn
both relate that Abernethy died during his captivity in Douglas Castle.
This must have been before 1293, as in the beginning of that year, his son
Alexander, then in his nonage, with the Abernethy estates, were placed under
the charge of Alexander de Menteith, elder son of Walter Stewart, fifth Earl
of Menteith. Sir Hugh's widow also, Mary, daughter of John Comyn of
Badenoch, one of the regents, was at that time married to Malise Earl of
Strathern.'-
The somewhat peremptory tone of Edward's mandate, and the right of
sovereignty which it assumes, are accounted for by the peculiar circumstances
of Scotland at this juncture. King Edward the First had at last attained, for
a time at least, his long-cherished desire of annexing Scotland as a province
of England. The unhappy demise of the young Queen of Scotland on her
way from Xorway to England, where, by the Treaty of Salisbury, she was to
remain until her own country had become sufticiently quiet to receive her,
revived with increased force the rivalries among the Scottish nobles with
regard to the succession to the throne. The necessity for a prudent arbiter
had become greater than before, and as the distracted country could only, in
the circumstances, apply to Edward, their plight was indeed evil. Aware of
* Vol. iv. of this work, pp. 1, 2. - Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. i. pp. 44r). \A~.
84
Slli WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, '^ LB HARDIN
his advantage he boldly made his own terms with the competitors, and
threatened war if opposition was intended. Though tliey at first refused, the
Scots well knew that in their weak and divided state resistance was hopeless
and impossible, and they consented to acknowledge Edward as Lord Para-
mount of Scotland. This acknowledgment took place at Norham on the 2d
of June 1291, and was followed by delivery of the kingdom of Scotland by
the regents into the hands of Edward. Oaths of homage and protestations of
fealty by the nobles and barons were tendered, and Sir William of Douglas
is mentioned as paying homage, on the 5th of July, to Edward, in presence of
Anthony, Bishop of Durham, Alan, Bishop of Caithness, and many others.
The ceremony took place in the chapel of the manor of Sir Walter de
Lindsay, at Thurston in East Lothian, where the Kmg of England was being
entertained, evidently on his way from Berwick-on-Tweed to Edinburgh.^
It seems probable that Douglas was on his way to attend the Court at
Newcastle to which he had been summoned for the 2d of July in the affair of
Lucy's complaint against him. The verdict of the jury in that case has
been stated, and nothing more occurs respecting it. Douglas, however, appears
at this time to have rendered himself a special mark for Edward's writs, as
another, and a most peremptory mandate was issued against him by the King
from Berwick on tlie 3d of July, ordering his compearance at that place on
the 2d of August next, to answer for contempt of a former writ, and for
alleged injuries to the Abbot and Convent of Melrose. Meanwhile he was
strictly inhibited from molesting them or their men, or injuring their goods
and chattels.-
The documents in this case show that from time immemorial the monks
of Melrose had been accustomed to use a road (via communis) stretchin'f
' Eflward was at Berwick oa the 4th of July, and at Edinburgh on the 8th of the
same month. — [Rotuli Scotise, vol. i. p. 2 ; Rymer's Fadera, vol. i. p. 772.]
- Vol. iv. of thia work, pp. 2, 3.
INTIMIDATION OF MELROSE MONKS IN EIGHT OF WAY.
85
through the lieart of the Douglas valley from the inarches of the land of
Tordones, belonging to the Abbey, to the church of Douglas. This road
passed in front of the park of Douglas Castle, then down the valley to
Uddington (Huddigystoun), thence to " le Rayerd" (Redshaw ?), and so on
to the march of the barony of Wiston. Tlie monks complained that when
they used this road and passed along in front of his castle, the baron of
Douglas hindered and frightened them, and these complaints were, it
would seem, carried by the Abbot to King Edward. He, in the previous
year, at the request of his own son, had granted to the monks of Melrose
exemption from distraint for debts not incurred by themselves ;^ and only
a few days prior to issuing the writ summoning Douglas on account of
their complaint, had signed ample letters of protection in their favour to
endure for the space of one year.'^ Douglas, however, does not seem to have
been overawed by the legal documents directed against him. He evidently
continued his molestations of the monks at his pleasure, even in spite of a
judicial decision by the regents and Brian Fitz Alan, who, during the pending
of the Succession Controversy, was conjoined with tliem in the government
of Scotland. These high-handed acts of Douglas went on at least till 1294,
when, in a meeting of Council at Roxburgh on the 13th of Aprii, the matter
came before John BaHol, who was now on the Scottisli throne. He issued
to Geoffrey de Moubray, Justiciar of Lothian, a letter narrating all the
cii-cumstances, and ordered him to give sasine of this disputed road of new to
the Abbot and Convent of Melrose. He was also to seize and summon
before the king and Council any whom he found disturbing the holy men in
their right, to answer for tlieir contempt, and to bind themselves to act in
accordance with justice. 3
Sir William of Douglas fell under the displeasure of Edward in the end
» Stevenson'3 Historical Documents, vol. i. ^ Rotuli Scotia?, vol. i. p. 1.
' Vol. iii. of this work, pp. 8, 9.
8G
SIR WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, '' LE IIARDir
of the year 1291, or beginning of the following year, and was deprived of his
estates in Lanarkshire. On 20th Januaiy 1292 the English king presented
Master Eustace de Bikerton to the church of Douglas, the patronage of which
had fallen in his hands through the forfeiture of the lands of Sir William
of Douglas, "for certain transgressions committed by him;" and the Bishop
of Glasgow, in whose diocese the church of Douglas lay, was instructed to
see the letters of presentation given effect to.^
Douglas apparently did not favour the claims of Baliol to the throne of
Scotland. He seems to have held aloof from all the proceedings connected
with the coronation, and, indeed, during the dependence of the claims, he
is not known to have sided with any of the competitors. He did not attend
Baliol's first Parliament held at Scone on 10th February 1293, and for
his neglect of the summons to do so he was declared a defaulter, along with
other three magnates, Eobert Bruce, Earl of Carrick, Angus, son of Donald
of the Isles,- and John, Earl of Caithness. "What should be done to compel
their submission was discussed in the Council, and it was decided again
to summon the delinquents to appear before King John on the second
Monday after Easter (6th April 1293), wherever the king might be at that
time within Scotland, to perform homage, and also to receive sentence for
their absence from Parliament and disregard of the first summons. The
Sheriffs of the respective districts were accordingly commanded to take with
them six free men of the three nearest baronies, and summon the defaulting
barons in terms of the Council's decision.^
Whether Douglas obeyed this last summons and performed homage to
Baliol does not appear, but he was present at King John's second Parliament,
held at Stirling on the 3d of Augu.st 1293. It remains a question, liowever,
1 RotiiU Scotiae, vol. i. p. 7.
^ Misprinted " Donald, son of Angus," in the Record of the Acts of Parliament.
^ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. i. p. 447 ; Pvymer's Fn-dera, vol. i. p. 787.
CONTEMPT FOR KING JOHN BALIOL. 87
as to the position in which he was present, whether as a baron of the realm,
or only as summoned to answer to two grave charges against him.
One of these charges was alleged deforcement of the king's officers. The
complaint narrates that when the king's bailies for Lanarkshire, on a precept
of the Justiciars at Douglas, came to give sasine to the mother of Sir
William in certain tenements which she had recovered in an action against
her son before the Justiciars, and also to levy the costs, Douglas had seized
the bailies, and detained them against their will a night and a day in his
castle, but afterwards suffered them to depart ; whereupon the bailies imme-
diately made suit at the castle of Lanark for redress, and the king himself
regarded the deed as done in despite to him, and tending to his detriment.
• Sir William denied having done despite to the king's dignity, and
declared the truth of the matter to be that the bailies came to his castle to
give the sasine foresaid, and uplift the 140 merks of damages imposed by
the Justiciars. He then informed them that they were doing him wrong,
because they could not levy such a sum so hastily, and they ought, there-
fore, to make some delay ; and so they did, he added, against their will.
This explanation, as may be expected, did not satisfy the Court, and
Douglas was sentenced to imprisonment during the pleasure of the king.
A second complaint was then made by Baliol himself, who charged
Douglas with taking three of his men, before he became king, and imprisoning
them in the castle of Douglas. This was done, the king asserted, against
surety and pledge, and in contravention of the laws of the kingdom, and in
the end one of the men died in prison, another was beheaded, while the
tliird escaped. The king assessed his loss at one thousand pounds. To this
charge Douglas did not attempt a denial, but placed himself at the mercy of
the king.^ He was accordingly placed in ward. How long he remained in
prison is not known, but it was probably for no great length of time. His
^ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. i. p. 448 ; Rymer's F(^dera, vol. i. p. 791.
88 SIFc WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, '' LE HAUDir
stay there obviated his attendance on feudal business connected with his
possessions in the county of Essex in England, and formed his excuse with
Edward for the remission of a fine of twenty pounds, in which he was
mulcted for non-attendance. Edward's mandate cancellincr the fine is dated
3d October 1293, and the terms of it suggest that by that time Douglas was
again frce.^
Two years later, goaded to fury by the tyranny and insolence of their
oppressor, the Scottish nobles had induced Baliol to renounce his vows of
submission to King Edward, and to assert "the independence of his throne.
Baliol did so, and then began that long struggle which only terminated,
about twenty years later, at Bannockburn. Sir William Douglas took
a decided part against the English king, although from the force of circum-
stances he was not always consistent any more than the majority of his
fellow-patriots. That virtue can be accorded only to a veiy few of the
Scottish barons during the war of independence.
The Scots had, in October 1295, entered into a treaty with France and
Norway against England,- and evidently relying upon this they resolved to
risk a contest with Edward. The town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, the great
outpost of Scotland on the east, was garrisoned by the nobles and freeholders,
with other valiant men of Fife, while Sir "William of Douglas was made
commander of the castle.^ Here the Scots fortified themselves and awaited
the English attack. Meanwhile Edward, exasperated against the Scots, had
recourse to his usual tactics of dividiug them against themselves. He treated
Baliol as no longer king of Scotland, and gained over Bruce to act with him
against his own countrymen, promising to place him on the Scottish throne
instead of Baliol. He then ordered the sale of the goods and chattels on all
the estates of Scotsmen in England, and the proceeds to be paid into his
* Stevenson's Historical Documents, vol. i. -^ Fordun, Annalia. edition 1871, vol. i.
p. 403. - Ibnl. vol. ii. p. S. p. .323.
SIEGE AND CAPTURE OF BERWICK, 1296. 89
treasury ; ^ gave directions for the collection of a large fleet to co-operate
with the army which he was levying/ and before the end of IMarch he was
ready for the war.
The Scottish historians relate that some time previous to Edward's
appearing in the field, a large English fleet had entered the Tweed, and
had been repulsed by the garrison with heavy loss, no fewer than eighteen
ships, full of armed men, being burnt, and their crews slain." The tidings
of this, adds Wyntown, roused Edward to great fury.
" All breme he belyd into berth,
And wrythyd all in wedand werth,
Alsii kobbyd in his crope,
As he had ettyn ane Attyrcope;"
and he then proceeds to tell of his raising an army to subdue Scotland.^ The
English historians, however, say nothing about this defeat, and as the encounter
bears a striking similarity to what took place while Edward himself lay before
Berwick, with the exception of the number of vessels destroyed, it is possible
that the Scottish historians have in tliis case made a mistake.
Edward crossed the Tweed, below Coldstream, with his army on the 2Sth
of March 1296, and was joined by Anthony Beck, the Bishop of Durham, with
a large contingent who had crossed at Norham, lower down the river. His army
consisted of five thousand horse and thirty thousand footmen,^ at the head of
whom he approached Berwick, and demanded its surrender. He awaited for
a full day the reply of the townsmen, and, on receiving a refusal, withdrew
towards Coldstream and encamped there. His naval squadron lay out at sea
opposite Berwick, and the commanders, on the morning of the 30th, seeing in
the distance the land forces drawn up ready for battle, imagined that Edward
1 Stevenson's Historical Documents, vol. ii. ^ Wyntown's Cronykil, B. viii. c. xi.
I>. 22. 2 j},y p 23. 5 Stevenson's Historical Documents, voL ii.
^ Fordun's Annalia, edit. 1871, vol. i. \k .S24. p. 2i).
VOL. I. M
90 S/E WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, '' LE IIARDL''
was about to commence the assault. In order to render aid, they, with their
ships, entered the river. The foremost vessel ran aground, and was speedily-
surrounded by the Scots, who, after a stubborn contest, killed the crew and
set the ship on fire. Two or three other ships shared a similar fate, but their
crews escaped in their boats, while the rest of the fleet succeeded in retiring
out of the river in safety.^
Such a scene enacted in full view of the English king had the effect of
hastening his attack upon the city, to make himself master of which he had
recourse to stratagem. Knowing that the Scots were in daily expectation of
reinforcements, he substituted Scottish banners for his own standards, and
made a rapid descent upon the city. The Scots within the walls were quite
deceived, and threw open the gates with joy and blitheness to welcome tlieir
supposed comrades. But no sooner had the gates been gained and secured
than the mistake was discovered, all too late to avert the terrible and
indiscriminate slaughter wdiich nuw commenced. At their entrance, says
Hemingburgh, the astonished Scots stood stupefied, as men beside themselves,
not one lifting a sword or aiming a shaft.- Tliey were then overborne by a
sudden rush. For two days, say the Scotch historians, rivers of gore flowed
from the bodies of the slain, no fewer than seven thousand five hundred men,
women, and children having perished ^ (Hemingburgh places the number at
over eight thousand), and the magnanimous, valiant, and warlike nobles of
Fife were utterly destroyed.*
" Leryd and Lawde, Xwne and Frere,
All wes slayne wyth that powere :
Of alkyn state, of alkyn age,
Thai sparyd nowthir carl nd page :
Bdth awld and yhuwng, men and wywys,
And sowkand bamys tynt thare lyvys."
^ Chronicon Walter! de Hemingburgh, vol. ' Forduns Annalia, edit. 1871, vol. i. p. 324.
iL pp. 9G-98. 2 JJyl^l p 93. ^ Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 100.
TAKEX CAPTIVE AXD IMPIUSOXED IX BERWICK. 01
Thus Wyntown ; and he adds other horrors of the massacre which canuot
be repeated here. Tlie wickedness of the deed is intensified, in the historian's
eyes, by its being done on Good-Friday, but he comforts himself with the
following reflection concerning Edward and liis victims: —
" The sawlys, that he gert slay down thare
He send, quhare his sawle nevyrmare
Wes lyk to come, that is the Blys
Quhare alkyn joy ay lestand is."^
The English historians boast that the city was taken with the loss to them
of only a single knight, a brother of the Earl of Cornwall, whose death is
connected with a deed of unparalleled fidelity and devotion.
In Berwick, the Elemings, who at this time had an extensive commercial
interest in Scotland, possessed a strong builiiing, called the Aula Eubea or Eed
Hall, which, by their charter, they were bound to defend against the King of
England to the last extremity. Thirty Flemings were in the lied Hall when
the city of Berwick was taken, and they courageously held out against all
attempts to take it until the evening, when the English soldiers set the
building on fire, and its brave defenders perished with it. It was a dart shot
from this building which pierced the eye of the English knight while charging
through the town at the head of his soldiers.-
After the EngHsh had acquired complete hold of Berwick, the garrison
of the castle, numbering about two hundred, warned by the fate of the
townsmen, capitulated on condition of being granted safety of Life and limb,
and the security of their lands and other possessions. This was conceded,
and they were allowed to depart after first swearing with uplifted hands that
they would never bear arms against Edward or the kingdom of England.
From these conditions, however, an exemption was made in the case ot
Douglas, who was not liberated on parole, but was kept in close ward.
^ Wyntowu 3 Cronykil, B. vni. c. xi.
- Chronicou Walteri de Hemiugbargh, vol. ii. i>. 98.
92 SIR WILLIAM OF DOUCLAS, '^ LE IIARDI."
Kiug Edward took up his quarters in the castle of Berwick on the
night of its surrender, and remained in the town for nearly a month, until the
concentration of the Scots at Dunbar called him to action. A decisive defeat
was there inflicted upon the Scots, many being slain, and a large number of
prisoners taken. Tiie King of England then set out on a tour of conquest,
and proceeding by Roxburgh and Jedburgh he came to Edinburgh, and laid
siege to the castle, which surrendered after eight days.^ He successfully
accomplished a victorious progress as far as Elgin, and returned to Berwick
towards the end of August.-
The imprisonment of Douglas did not last all this time, as we find him
at Edinburgh on the 10th of June swearing allegiance to King Edward, in
presence of the Bishop of Durham and various noblemen. The record of the
proceedings describes him in the usual form as having come voluntarily to
the faith of the English king, uncompelled by force or fear. In the royal
presence he renounced whatever connection he had with any treaties made
with Philip, Kiug of France, against the King of England so far as they could
affect him or his, and touching and kissing the gospels, he gave oath of
fealty to King Edward as his sovereign, and appended his seal to the usual
form of letters-patent required from the Scots, that they would faithfully
serve Edward against all his enemies, upon pain of body and goods.^ He
again performed the same homage at Berwick with the rest of his countrj--
men in a Parliament held there by Edward, on 28th August 1296, before
quitting Scotland, and Douglas is simply mentioned among a host of others
as "William of Douglas, of the county of Lanark* The seal appended by
^ Chronicon Walter! cle Hemingburgh, vol. homage to Edward on that day, and took the
ii. p. 105. oath of fealty, was William, son of Andrew
2 Ragman Rolls, pp. 177-180. de Douglas, of the county of Linlithgow
3 Ibid. pp. 6-4, 65. [Ihld. p. 154], evidently the cousin of Sir
* Ih'ul. p. 125. Amongst others who paid William.
RESTORATION OF HIS CONFISCATED ESTATES. 9;j
Douglas to his deed of homage has been ah-eady referred to, and a repre-
sentation of it given.^
At the time of his capture and imprisonment in Berwick the possessions
of Doughis in Scotland shared the fate of his English lands, and were
confiscated by Edward. It has been already noticed that all the possessions
of Scotsmen in England had been seized by orders of Edward before the
commencement of the war, and among these were Douglas's two manors in
Essex, Stebbing and Wodeham Ferrers, and his manor of Fawdon in
Northumberland.- These English possessions do not appear ever to have
been regained by Sir William of Douglas, but on the 30th of August an order
was issued by King Edward for restoring his territories in Scotland. These
must have been extensive, as the Sheriffs of no fewer than six counties, Fife,
Dumfries, Wigton, Berwick, Ayr, and Edinburgh, were directed to restore to
Sir William Douglas the lands and others belonging to him seized within
their bounds, with all their revenues, deducting expenses and the taxes
due to the king.^
Scarcely had the English king got back to Westminster when tlie old
spirit of independence broke out among the Scottish peasantry, and small
parties in many parts of the country made it their business to harass and
spoil the English ganisons which were scattered over the land. In these
maraudings the Scottish nobles and gentry had at least no direct hand, as
they were bound to Edward's yoke in several ways. Not to speak of their
oaths of fealty, though in a crisis these were but little accounted of, a con-
siderable number were yet in English prisons, whither they had been sent
after the disastrous battle of Dunbar. If liberated, they had either left
^ Page 17, ant'-a. Softlawe was at this time parson of Douglas,
^ Stevenson's Historical Documents, vol. ii. and on Lis rendering homage, his lauds were
pp. 43, 44, 46, 49. also ordered to be restored. — [Rotuli Scotiii-,
^ Vol. iv. of this work, p. 3. Aymer de vol. i. p. 25 ; Eagnian Rolls, p. 150.]
94 SIR WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, '^ LE IIARDir
impoi-tant hostages in their place, whose safety must be imperilled by auy
hostile action on their part, and for which Edward was sure to exact fierce
retribution ; or else they were engaged to serve the English king in Flanders.
The peasantry and smaller landed gentry had less to fear, and consequently
were not deterred by the same considerations. Hence, accordini^ to Kin^^
Edward's complaint, homicides, depredations, and other enormities, were of
daily occurrence ; and, to secure the suppression of these rebellions, he gave
his English Treasurer of Scotland, Hugh de Cressingham, full power to
exhaust the contents of the Scottish Exchequer.^
Edward now sought to use the Scottish nobility and barons in his military
service, in the same way as he did those of his own realm. He summoned
them to attend him in an expedition into Elanders. On the 24th of ^lay
1297, letters were directed from Portsmouth to Sir William of Douglas, and
upwards of fifty Scottish magnates, principally those south of the Firth of
Forth. The letters do not state definitely the object of the summons, but
Cressingham and Osbert de Spaldingtone were verbally to intimate the king's
pleasure to those summoned.- The expedition was to meet on the 7th of
July, and the muster was to take place at London.^ But Douglas had other
work in hand, and the day on which, had he obeyed the summons, he should
have been at London, found him quite otherwise employed.
"VVIiile King Edward was thus moulding Scotch affairs to his will, as he
believed, William Wallace had begun his brilliant career as the deliverer of
his countr}'. Driven by English oppression into outlawry, he collected around
him the kindred spirits throughout the west country, and commenced an open
warfare with the English garrisons. Wherever he attacked he was almost
always successful, and his countrymen began to be inspired with new hopes.
Douglas was amongst the first of the barons to proceed to the assistance of
' Rotiili Scotire, vol. I p. 42. ^ Stevenson's Historical Documents, vol. ii. p. 1G7.
^ Pal grave's Parliamentary Writs, vol. i. p. 284.
CAPTURES THE CASTLE OF SAXQUHAR. 95
the patriot leader, and, according to Blind Harry the minstrel, he did so by a
little exploit of his own, which, however, but for Wallace's timely interven-
tion, would probably have ended in disaster.
The castle of Sanquhar was at this time in the possession of an English
garrison of forty men, under a commander named Beaufort. A vassal of
Douglas's, Thomas Dickson, proposed to his lord a plan for the seizure of
this stronghold. He knew the countryman who supplied the garrison
with firewood, and he offered, if Douglas would lie in ambush near the gate,
to personate this man and procure an entrance. The offer was accepted.
Douglas with thirty trusty followers placed themselves near the entrance
of the castle, and Dickson, arrayed in the costume of the carrier, in
the grey dawn of the early morn, drove his cart of wood up to the gate,
which, with a remark as to his untimely arrival, the unsuspecting porter
threw open. Dickson immediately stabbed the porter, and giving the signal,
Douglas and his men rushed in and completed the work, all the garrison
being put to death save one, who escaped and gave the alarm to the English
troops in the vicinity. Concentrating on Sanquhar, these laid siege to the
castle, but Douglas found means to convey, by his henchman Dickson, a
message to Wallace, at that time in the Lennox, and he, leaving a detachment
to complete the work he had then in hand, immediately marched to Douglas's
relief. The English fled at his approach, but he overtook them before they
reached Dalswiuton and put many to death. Douglas, adds the writer, was
after this made warden of all the district from Drumlanrig to Ayr.^
The action taken by Douglas opened up the whole district of Galloway to
Wallace's victorious arms, and was the beginning of more united action on
the part of some of the nobles. James, the High Steward, with his brother
John, Sir Andrew Moray of Bothwell, Alexander de Lindsay, Sir Richard
Lundin, with Wishart, the Bishop of Glasgow, all came to the help of the
* Blind Harry's Wallace, vol. ii. pp. 269-277.
9G SIB WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, '' LE HARD I r
patriot.^ It had also the further effect of rousing Edward to greater exertion.
Up to this time he had considered the forces he had left in Scotland amply
sufficient for quelling the rebellion, but he now took more effective measures.
His campaign in Flanders prevented his personal attendance, and he there-
fore appointed John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, to the office of Guardian
of Scotland, and directed him to collect an army from the northern counties
of England and invade the scene of insurrection.- Wallace, meanwhile, was
endeavouring to clear the country of the English governors and churchmen,
and to replace the ejected garrisons with his own men. He was also about
this time joined by another Scottish noble, Robert Bruce the younger,
afterwards so distinguished, but who at this time had been acting a double
part. His heart was with his countrymen, but he wished to keep up au
appearance of fidelity to the English king, probably in the hope that the
latter would yet assist him to the throne of Scotland. His conduct,
however, excited suspicion, and the English wardens of the Marches con-
sidered themselves warranted in summoning him to Carlisle and demanding
a further pledge of his fidelity. He attended as required and renewed his
oath of fealty to Edward, swearing upon the host and the sword of Thomas
a Becket. To assure the minds of Edv/ard's officers, Bruce made a descent
upon the lands of Sir "William of Douglas, sacked his castle, and carried
off his wife and children to his own castle in Annandale. With this,
however, Bruce contented himself. On his return to his own neighbourhood
he assembled his father's men (the elder Bruce being then absent in England),
told them his oath had been extorted by violence and under bodily fear, and
that he extremely regretted having given it, and hoped he might obtain
absolution in a short time. "No man," he said, "ever held his own flesh in
hatred, and neither do I : I must hie me to my own people, I shall attach
^ Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. i. p. 127.
^ Chronicon Walter! de Hemingbiirgh, vol. ii. p. 131.
SUHREXDERS TO THE ENGLISH AT IRVINE. 97
myself to my nation, from whence I drew my birth : Do you the same. Be
willing to go with me, and ye will be my councillors and dearest friends."
His father's men, however, refused his invitation, but not daunted by this,
with his own followers he passed over to the side of Wallace.^
The Earl of Surrey carried out his instructions from the English king by
despatching to Galloway a large force of upwards of forty thousand soldiers,
under the command of his nephew, Henry of Percy, nominal warden of the
district of Galloway and Ayr, They encamped the first night at Lochmaben,
and were attacked during the night by the Scots. Setting fire to the huts
in which they had been lodging, the English repulsed their assailants, and
afterwards proceeded to Ayr to receive to the king's peace the inhabitants of
Galloway. During the three days the southern forces remained in Ayr, onlv
a few Scots came to surrender themselves, but learning that "Wallace
was encamped at Ir\'ine, a distance of four leagues from Ayr, Percy at once
proceeded thither, and found the Scots posted by the side of a small lake.
Hemingburgh narrates that, when the Scottish leaders, the Bishop of
Glasgow, tlie Steward of Scotland, and Sir William Douglas, observed that
the English cavalry was superior to their own, though they had twice the
number of infantry, they became afraid, and sent messengers to the English
to inquire if there was any one who had power to receive them to the kind's
peace. On being answered in the affirmative, Sir Eichard de Lundin, who
had not previously taken the oaths of allegiance to the English king, imme-
diately passed over to the English army and surrendered to Edward's pleasure,
saying he would fight no longer in company with men who could not agree
among themselves. The rest of the Scottish leaders then became alarmed, and
at once capitulated on the usual terms of safety of person, and full pardon for
all offences committed up to that day, to which Percy agreed on condition of
Edward's consenting. "Wallace alone stood firm, and would not surrender.-
1 Chronicon Walter! de Hemingburgh, vol. ii. pp. 129. 130. - Thkl. pp. 1.^2, 1.3.3.
vol.. I. N
98 SIB WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, " LE IIABBL"
Mutual instniments were drawn up by Percy and the Scottish barons,
detailing the conditions of the surrender. Percy guaranteed their safety
and granted permission to the Bishop of Glasgow, the Earl of Carrick, and
the High Steward to cross over to Gascony to the assistance of Edward.^
The Scottish barons, on the other hand, confessed in degrading terms that
they had risen with the community against Edward and against his peace, in
his lordship and land of Scotland and Galloway, and that they had committed
arson, murders, and robberies, in their own persons, and caused their men to
do the same, on account of which they submitted to the pleasure of their lord
the king, willing to make full amends for these offences at his pleasure.
This submission is dated at Irvine, the 9th of July 1297, while the English
counterpart is dated the 7th.'-
This shameful desertion of Wallace did not daunt him in his efforts to
make Scotland independent, though it tended to protract the struggle.
The unfortunate dissensions which so often weakened the Scots in the
presence of their enemies, were here also the operative cause why, with a
strong army and so gallant a leader, not a blow was struck, when, had
harmony prevailed, success might have been insured. But the nobles
appeared to disdain to hold command under Wallace.
Soon after the treaty of Irvine, the Earl of Surrey came to Berwick and
learned what had been done. Negotiations were then entered into between
him and the Scottish nobles as to the terms upon which the latter would
cease hostilities. The Scots complained of Edward summoning them for
service in his foreign wars as an injury and dishonour.^ Hemingburgh says
they were undecided how to act ; they deferred producing their promised
hostages, demanded the conservation of all their ancient laws and customs,
but upon frivolous excuses put off from day to day coming to any settlement.
' Stevenson'a Historical Documents, vol. ii. ^ Stevenson's Historical Documents, vol. ii.
p. 192-194. - Vol. iv. of this work, p. 52. p. 198.
A PRISOXElt IX THE CASTLE OF BERWICK. <>0
In the meantime Wallace was gathering the people together, and the English
proposed that they should ride out and disperse them. At this the Scottish
magnates touk alarm, and threw the blame upon Douglas and the Bishop of
Glasgow, who, to clear themselves from tlie imputation, surrendered their
persons to Surrey, Sir William Douglas first, and tlien the Bishop,
whereupon the latter was placed in ward at Bcxburgh, and the former at
Berwick.^
From other sources of information it would appear that Douglas was
detained by Percy after the surrender at Irvine, and brought by him on to
Berwick. In a letter to Edward, dated 24th July 1297, the captain of the
castle of Berwick informs the king that Sir Henry of Percy and Sir Eobert
of Clifford had come from the West to Eoxburgh, and brought with them Sir
William of Douglas and Sir Alexander of Lindsay. The WTiter gives a
glimpse of the feelings of Sir William Douglas, who seems to have been a
very impatient captive. He writes: — " Because Sir William Douglas has not
kept the covenants which he made with Sir Henry of Percy, he is in your
castle of Berwick in my keeping, and he is still very savage and ver}-
abusive, but I shall keep him in such wise that, if it please God, he shall not
escape." The letter concludes with a gentle liint, that as the church of
Douglas was vacant, and worth about two hundred marks, it might be given
to the Treasurer of Scotland (Cressingham), who was very active and
laborious in his Majesty's service.- From the terms of this letter and what
' Chronicon Walter! (leHemiugburgh, vol. ii. -w-ick in irons and safe keeping, Ood be
pp. 133, 134. thanked, and for a good cause, as one who
has deserved it. And I pray you, if it be
2 Stevenson's Historical Documents, vol. ii. your pleasure, let him not be liberated for
p. 205. In the same work is quoted another any profit or influence, until you know to
letter in the Public Record Office, Londou, to what the charges against him amoimt. Of
the same effect. " Sire, — Sir WiUiam of your other enemies, may God avenge you, if
Douglas is in your prison in the castle of Ber- he pleases." — {Ibid. pp. 205, 206.]
100 SIR WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, '^ LE IIARDir
follows, it is evident that, whatever the pretext, the conditions of the
capitulation at Irvine as to personal liberty were not fulfilled to Sir
William of Douglas. A week later, Surrey himself wrote to King Edward
that the unfortunate knight was in the castle of Berwick in strong irons
and safe custody, the excuse for such treatment being that he did not, as
the others did, produce his hostages on the day appointed.^
Douglas's devotion to his own country and his taking part with Sir
William Wallace was followed by the usual confiscation of his lands in Essex
and Northumberland. A royal warrant was issued ordering the lands to be
seized by the Sheriffs of these two counties, and that all the stock, with tlie
growing corn and other things, should be sold at as good value as possible,
and the proceeds given in to the royal treasury. This mandate was issued on
7th June.- The news of Douglas's imprisonment would also appear to have
been acceptable to the English king, and it is perhaps the best tribute to
the personal influence of Sir William of Douglas and the value of his
services to the cause of Scottish independence, that King Edward resolved
never to release him now that he was a captive. Circumstances, however,
necessitated his removal from Berwick. Wallace, at Stirling, inflicted on
Surrey and his large English army a crushing defeat, which caused all the
Englishmen remaining in Scotland to re-cross the Border as speedily as
possible. They also evacuated Berwick, to which the Scottish leader sent a
force under Haliburton, though the castle of Berwick was not surrendered by
the English garrison while the Scots held the town. In their retreat from
Scotland the English took Douglas with them, and on the 12th of October
an order was signed by Prince Edward in name of his father for the captive's
admission into the Tower of London.^ In a settlement by Edward on
Eleanor, wife of William Douglas, of the manor of Wodeham Ferrers, for
' Stevenson's Historical Documents, vol. ii. p. 218. The letter is diitetl Ist Aucjust 1297.
2 Ihhl. p. 176. 3 ma, p. 2.35,
HIS DEATH IX THE TOWER OF LONDON. 101
lier sustenance during her husband's imprisonment, on 23d October 121)7, lie
is described as then detained in the prison of the Tower of London.^ For
his support while in captivity the sum of 4d. per day was paid,- and lie
appears to have ended his days in the Tower.
Tytler, on the authority of Sibbald, who quotes in his commentary on the
Uelationes Arnaldi Blair, a MS. Douglas History by Crawford, states that
Douglas was present at the appointment of Wallace as Governor of Scotland
in name of Baliol, at Forest Kirk, in Selkirkshire, in 1298.^ But this is
scarcely possible. After being placed in the Tower of London, he is not
again found taking any part in his country's affairs. One chronicle records
that he died in Berwick of misadventure (de mischef),* but as there is no
indication on the part of the writer that he was aware of Douglas's subsequent
removal into England, it may be inferred that he only wished to put a proper
finish to an eventful life. Godscroft has two theories — that he either died in
Hog's Tower in Berwick, or being removed from Berwick to Newcastle, thence
to York, he died in the castle there, and was buried in a little chapel at the
south end of the bridge. This, too, is quite fanciful. He assumes the year of
Douglas's death to have been 1302, as in the following year his eldest son
made an ineffectual claim to recover his lands of Douglasdale,^ which had
been bestowed by the English king on Sir Eobert Cliftbrd.^ This grant was
probably made in 1298, as in that year, on the 26th of July, the church
of Douglas was given to Geoffrey de Stokes by the king, who does not on
* Stevenson's Historical Documents, vol. ii. ^ Scalacronica, p. 124.
p. 235. ° History of the Houses of Douglas and
Angus, pp. 19, 20.
- Exchequer Memoranda, Roll 26 Edward i
Gth November 1297.
« Edward the Third of England ia 1332
referred to this grant, and promised Douglas-
2 History of Scotland, vol. i. p. 146. The dale to the grandson of this Clifford, if the
Forest Kirk referred to was Carluke, in attempt he was making to reduce Scotlantl
Lanarkshire, which was then popularly so should be successful. — [Chronicon de Laner-
called. — [Origines Parochiales, vol. i. p. 115.] cost, p. 271.]
102 SIB WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, '' LE IlARDir
this occasion say that the lands are in his hands.^ It is ascertained,
however, that Sir William died ahout three years before 1302, or some time
in 1298, apparently while still an inmate of the Tower. In January 1299
King Edward issued an order directing the dower lands of P^leanor de Ferrers
to be restored to her, and slie is then described as the widow of Sir William
Douglas.- He may have been dead before the gi'ant of Douglasdale to
Clifford, and another grant of his manor of Fawdon, which was made on
24th November 1298, to Gilbert of Umfra^'ille.^
The boldness and daring displayed by Sir William procured for him
the appellation of " Le Hardi," or the Bold. He maintained the prestige
and power of the rising house of Douglas, and added considerably to the
extent of its possessions. It was probably through his second marriage that
he added to his pre\'ious territory the lands he held in the counties of
Fife, Dumfries, Ayr, Wigton, and part of those he owned in Hadding-
tonshire. But from time to time these were confiscated, and at the end
of his life they were in the hands of aliens. A meed of praise can-
not be withheld from his services to the cause of Scottish independence,
and though greater resolution would have increased liis merit, he yet died,
as Barbour puts it, a martyr for the liberty of his country.
" Put in presoun Schir Wilyliam was
That of Douglas was lord aud syr.
Of him tha^ makit ane martyr
Fra tha in presoun him sleuch
His landis that war far eueuch
Tha to the lord of Cliffuvd gaf." ^
Sir William of Douglas was twice married. His tirst wife is stated
by the Peerage authors and other writers to have been a daughter of
' Stevenson's Historical Documents, vol. iL p. 289.
« Writ of Privy Seal, 20th January 1298-99.
3 Close Roll, 27 Edward i. • Barbour's Bruce, p. 13.
HIS MARRIAGES. 103
William de Keth, but no evidence is found to support that statement. Sir
William's tirst known wife was Elizabeth, the daughter of Alexander, High
Steward of Scotland, and consequently sister of Douglas's co-patriot, James,
the High Steward.^ In accord with this view, Barbour describes Walter,
High Steward in the time of Robert Bruce, the son of James, and Sir
James Douglas, tlie son of Sir William, as " cousins in near degree." - In
another place that historian mentions the same Sir James Douglas as
entertaining Sir Alexander Stewart of Boncle, the son of Sir John Stewart,
brother to James the High Steward, as " his esme's " (uncle's) " son." ^ Tlie
marriage of a William Douglas to Elizabeth Stewart is narrated by Chalmers,
but he affirms it to be William Douglas, Lord of Lugton, who, he says, received
lands in Lanarkshire from James the High Steward after 1283, his authority
being a charter in his own collection,^ the terms of which, however, he
does not communicate. The earliest known connection of the Douglas
family with the lands of Lugton is in the reign of King David the
Second, when that monarch granted a third part of that territory to
Henry of Douglas, a member of the Dalkeith branch of the family ; ^ but
the name of Douglas of Lugton was not assumed until a later period.
Chalmers's statement accordingly appears to be incoiTect, and the husband
of Elizabeth Stewart could be no other than the only William Douglas
of note then living, Sir William " Le Hardi." She predeceased him
before 1289.
The second wife of Sir William of Douglas was Eleanor of Lovain or
Ferrers, his rough wooing of whom has already been narrated. Blind Harry
thinks that this English marriage did Douglas little good.
^ Andrew Stuart's History of the Stewarts, '^ Andrew Stuart's History, quoting Bar-
p. 14. hour, p. 54.
* Caledonia, vol. i. p. 583.
- Barbour's Bruce (Spalding Club), p. 2G1. ^ Registruni Magni SigiJli, p. 68.
104 ^7 A' WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, ^' LE HARD IT
" Becauss he had on Sotherouu sic thing wrocht,
His wyft' was wraith ; hot it scho scbawit noclit,
Wndyr cowart hyr malice hid perfyt,
As a serpent watis hyr tyni to byt.
Till Douglace eft scho wrocht full mekill cayr.''^
On her liusbaud's arrest and imprisonment in the Tower of London she
left Scotland, and made application to Edward for sustenance out of her
English lands, these being at the time forfeited in the king's hands. Edward
gi-anted her the manor of Wodeham Ferrers, which formed part of the dowry
she had brought to Sir William of Douglas out of the lands of her former
husband. The manor had been recently valued at £16, 2s. 6d. annually, and
out of this revenue Eleanor, Lady Douglas, was to take £10 yearly for her
own sustenance, and pay the balance into the king's exchequer,"- She
survived her husband, and after his death obtained from the Eno-lish kin^
her dowry out of Douglas's lands in Scotland, an order being sent to the
Chancellor of Scotland to assign her a reasonable dowry, according to Scot-
tish law and custom.^
Sir William of Douglas left three sons, James, Hugh, and Archibald, of
whom the first only was the offspring of Elizabeth Stewart. The chroniclers
ascribe to Sir William four sons, two by each of his wives. Xo evidence as
to a fourth son has been obtained, but it has been ascertained that Hu^h
and Archibald Douglas were the sons of Eleanor de Ferrers. Of the three
sons of Sir William Douglas " Le Hardi " the memoirs follow.
^ Blind Harry's Wallace, by Jamieson. Aliauore de Ferrers qe fu la femme Monsr.
vol. ii. p. 277- Williaue de Douglas qele pent aver soeu
douayre q. a ly a peut des terres qe furent au
dit Monsr. William ai Koiame d'Escoee.
H'eat Bre. Cauc. 8coc. qd. assignet ei dotem
^ Rolls of the Parliaments of England, suam ronabilem scdm legem et consuetud.
vol. i. p. 470. Ail re Seingnr. le Rei prie ncium illar'.
' Stevenson's Historical Documents, vol. ii
p. 235.
105
v.— 1. SIE JA:\rES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS,
COMMONLY CALLED THE GOOD SIR JAMES.
1298—1330.
A MOXG the many heroes of the wars for Scottish independence whose
-*--*- names are cherished in the remembrance of a grateful posterity, the
Good Sir James of Douglas takes rank with Wallace and the royal Bruce.
Succeeding to the misfortunes of his heroic but martyred sire, and withal
inheriting his dauntless and unbroken spirit, Scotland had no more successful
champion for her liberties and freedom than the " doughty Douglas." Side
by side with his king, he laboured with unfailing fidelity and devotion amid
dangers, privations, desertions, defeats, painful toOings, and hair-breadth
escapes, until by a series of successes, to which he largely contributed, his
country was redeemed from an alien yoke, and he had at length the
satisfaction of seeing the independence of his country settled on a basis
of enduring stability. No wonder he was beloved of his sovereign, and
intrusted by him when dying with a most sacred mission, — to bear his heart
to the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem; nor less wonder can it be that the
story of his life and deeds of chivalry are recounted to the youth of every
succeeding generation, as an example alike of pure and ardent patriotism
and of heroic daring.
So closely associated with King Eobert the Bruce in all his sufferings and
wanderings, as also in his victories and ultimate success, was Sir James of
Douglas, that the historians of the one cannot discharge their task without
VOL. T. 0
106 SIB JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LOJUJ OF DOUGLAS.
in large measure detailing the history of the other. Hence in the noble epic
poem of Barbour, which traces the life and battles of " The Bruce," the
Good Sir James occupies a position little inferior to that of the king
himself.
When Sir William of Douglas, the father of Sir James, was imprisoned
in the Tower of London, and the lands and castle of Douglas conferred upon
Sir Eobert Clifford, one of King Edward's favourites, Sir James Douglas was
still but a youth,
" ane litill knaf
That was than bot ane litill page." ^
He resolved to seek refuge from danger in France, and accordingly passed
over to Paris, where for three years he lived in a simple manner. Tidings then
came of his father's death in prison, and in the hope of redeeming his estates
and his countrymen out of thraldom, he returned to his native land, betaking
himself, in the first instance, to William of Lamberton, bishop of St.
Andrews. He was courteously received, and was at once placed by the bishop
among his retinue, remaining for a considerable period, beloved and esteemed
by all his associates.
Barbour presents his readers with a description of the good Sir James,
which, as it was obtained from those who had seen the hero, may be accepted
as tolerably accurate. Douglas, he says, was of a commanding stature, well-
formed, large-boned, and with broad shoulders. His countenance was some-
what dark, but frank and open, set off by locks of raven hue. Courteous in
his manner, wise though retiring in his speech, by a slight lisp in which he
resembled the " good Hector of Troy," and gentle in all his actions, he won
the hearts of his countrymen. In battle, however, he presented a front
altogether terrible to his foes; and at all times was a determined enemy
to everything treacherous, dishonourable, or false.
^ Barbour's Bruce, Spalding Club edition, p. 13.
REFUSED HIS DOUGLAS LAXDS BY EDWARD I. 1304. lO;
When King Edward was engaged in the siege of Stirling, so bravely-
defended against him and the flower of the English army by Sir William
Oliphant and a mere handful of Scottish soldiers, or perhaps after it had
suiTendered, Lamberton visited the king, taking with him Sir James
Douglas. Many of the Scottish barons were present to do homage, amongst
whom Lamberton led his youthful ward into the royal presencCj and craved
that he also might be permitted to tender his homage, and receive back his
heritage. "What lands does he claim ?" inquired the king. " The lordship
of Douglas, if it please your Majesty," replied the bishop, " for his father
was lord and owner thereof." The wrath of Edward was at once aroused,
and in a tone which admitted of no question, he commanded the bishop to
address him no further on such a subject. " Let the youth," he said, " seek
lands where he can. As for those of his father, who was a rebellious subject,
and died for his felony in my prison, I am his rightful heir. My loyal
Clifford has received the lands, and possess them he shall." ^ Without
another word, Lamberton and Douglas withdrew from Edward's presence;
and the latter, convinced of the hopelessness of expecting any favour from
the English king, returned with the bishop to form his own plans for the
recovery of his inheritance.
The progress of events at last brought the wished-for opportunity. Scot-
land was, indeed, more than ever prostrate at the feet of Edward. Wallace
and his brave associates were dead or dispersed. Yet the friends of liberty,
though compelled to maintain an outward show of fealty and submission
to the man who had obtained possession of their country by taking advantage
of its misfortunes, nursed hopes of ultimate victory, and longed for the
opportunity of realising their aspirations by deeds of bravery. Even during
the siege of Stirling, whither they had gone to renew their homage to
Edward, Lamberton and Bruce had met at Cambuskenneth, and entered into
^ Barbour's Bruce, p. 18.
108 S/R JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
a solemn bond for mutual defence in all their future actions, with the
significant stipulation that neither should attempt any hazardous undertaking
without acquainting and consulting the other.^
Bruce and Sir John Comyn, as is well known, had also entered into
mutual understandings for the recovery of the national independence ; but
strong suspicions of the treachery of Comyn in regard to these led to his
assassination by Bruce at the high altar of the church of the Friars Minorites
of Dumfries. Bruce had already been doomed to death by Edward, and as
his case was as desperate as it could be, he resolved to claim the crown
of Scotland and raise the standard against Edward. He acquainted Lamberton
with what he had done, and with his intentions, tidings so agreeable to the
bishop, that on receiving the letter he summoned all his retainers and read
it to them, adding that he hoped the prophecy of Thomas of Ercildoun
would now, by the help of God, be verified, and IJobert the Bruce succeed
in delivering the country.
Barbour relates that Lamberton had no more attentive listener than
Sir James Douglas, who, at the conclusion of the repast at which the
communication was read, sought a private interview with the bishop.
" You know, sir," said Douglas, " how that the English have disinherited
me, and are all in arms against the Earl of Carrick for killing that
man, and he claims to govern the country ; therefore, sir, if it please
you, I would fain share his fortunes, be they good or ill; and I hope
through him to win back my lands in spite of the Clifford." The
bishop was well pleased at the youth's determination, but to save
the appearance of complicity counselled him to depart secretly. He
also gave him his blessing, some money, and leave to appropriate his own
palfrey, Ferand, with permission, if his groom objected, to take the steed in
spite of him, a liberty of which Douglas had to take advantage, for the
^ Palgrave's Documents and Records, Scotland, vol. i. p. 323.
JOIXS KIXG ROBERT THE BRUCE IN 130(3. 109
fellow resisted so stubbornly that, according to the old chronicler, Douglas
"Fellit him with ane suerdis dint,"
before he could saddle the horse and go forth. Xo leavetakings retarded his
departure, and probably within a couple of hours after hearing the letter
from Bruce read, he was on his way, alone, to join him at Lochmaben.
Leslie adds that he was also the bearer of a considerable sum of money
from Lamberton to Bruce, to aid him in his efforts.
Bruce had already set out on his way to Scone to be crowned, and
Douglas met the cavalcade at Erickstane,^ a lofty hill at the head of
Annandale. Dismounting from his palfrey, Douglas, on bended knee, hailed
Bruce as his rightful sovereign, made known who he was, and declared his
wish to share the fortunes of his king, Bnice gladly received the young
and ardent adherent, and knowing the prowess of his family, at once gave him
a command in his small army.- He accompanied Bruce to Glasgow and
afterwards to Scone, where, on the 27th of March 1306, the coronation of
the rightful king was effected with all the solemnities possible under the
circumstances, for Edward had carried off the regal insignia. Here Godscroft
represents Sir James of Douglas as taking part in an ancient custom, which
consisted in piling up a little hill of earth, formed by contributions from
the estates of the landed proprietors in the kingdom, who thereby performed
an act of homage to the newly crowned king, aud recognised his superiority
over their possessions. The hillock thus created was called Omnis Terra,
and Sir James of Douglas is said to have added to it some of the soil from
the lands of Douglas.^
' To an immense hollow, square in form, stolen cattle. The place is also popularly
made by the meeting of four hills at this called '• The Deil's Beef-tub." It is described
point, tradition gives the name of "The by Sir Walter Scott in " Redgauntlet."
Marquis of Annandale's Beef-stand," from the - Barbour's Bruce, p. 31.
circumstance that the Annandale reivers were ^ History of the Houses of Douglas and
wont to use the place for the concealment of Angus, p. 24.
110 SIR JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
A few months after this auspicious commencement the brightening hopes
of the new Scottish Court were sadly beclouded by the defeat of Bruce at
the hands of Aymer de Valence in the battle of Methven. With difficulty
escaping capture, Bruce found himself on the morning after the battle
surrounded by only a faithful few, among whom were his brother Edward,
the Earl of Athole, Sir Gilbert Hay, Sir Nigel Campbell, and Sir James
Douglas. For a time the mountains of Athole afforded them shelter and
protection ; but at length, worn out with their sufferings and privations, and
their numbers becoming constantly reduced, the little band ventured to the
town of Aberdeen. Here they were joined by the Queen, Sir iSTigel Bruce,
and the wives of some of the companions of Bruce, who had resolved to
accompany their husbands and share their privations, if unable to add
aught to their solace. After a short stay in Aberdeen the small party, thus
increased, were forced by their enemies to resort again to the hills towards
the source of the Tay. The presence of the ladies afforded an agreeable
diversion amid their privations, and for their subsistence, the stern warriors
vied with each other in the chase or in the more ingenious devices of snarino-
game, which they brought as spoils to their gentler companions. In these
sports none excelled the youthful Douglas, while his native buoyancy and
ready wit cheered and consoled the hearts of all, and encouraged even Bruce
himself, on whom the care of all depended.^
Brought in the course of their wanderings to the borders of Argyll, the
king and his companions were suddenly beset by a force, numbering over a
thousand men, under the leadership of the Lord of Lorn, who was related by
marriage to the Comyns. In the conflict which ensued both Sir James
Douglas and Sir Gilbert Hay were wounded, but the personal prowess of
Bruce compelled his opponent to withdraw such of his caterans as had not
been slain. The fear of more such encounters and the approach of winter,
^ Barbour's Bruce, p. 4G.
SHARES BRUCE' S PRIVATWXS, c. 1306. Ill
which had ah'eady sent forth its harbingers in the shape of " cald, and
schouris snell," resulted in the ladies of the party being sent under the
care of Sir Nigel Bruce and the Earl of Athole to Kildrummie Castle, which
was expected from its great strength to stand a siege of any duration if
provided with plenty of provisions. Bruce himself, with two hundred
followers, resolved to seek shelter in one of the Western Islands, and
having given up all their horses to the ladies, and those who were to convoy
them, they began their journey on foot. Retreating through Perthshire, they
gained the shores of Loch Lomond, but were here brought to a stand for want
of the means of transport. To walk round the loch was attended with no
little risk, while their enemies were on their track. From this danger
the party escaped by Sir James Douglas discovering, sunk under the water
near the shore, a very small boat, sufficient to carry over two at a time,
with another to row. Bruce and Douglas were the first to cross, but it took
all that night and the following day to complete the transport, even with
some of the men swimming ; and during the weary task Bruce beguiled the
impatient hours with stories of romance and chivaliy.
When all had crossed, the company was divided into two parties, under
the command respectively of Bruce and Douglas, each of which went in
search of game or food of some kind. Scant success fell to the lot of either,
but an unexpected and affectionate meeting took place between Bruce and
his steady adherent, jNIalcolm Earl of Lennox, when the immediate wants of
the fugitives were abundantly attended to, and a secure though short rest
obtained. At such a juncture, however, the neighbourhood of Argyll was
no sure refuge for Bruce, and Sir Nigel Campbell having procured shipping,
with the necessary stores, the king took leave of his kind entertainer, and
set sail for Kint}Te. Thither Lennox was immediately compelled to follow,
and thereafter shared the fortunes of his royal master. It was in recognition
of his kindness at tliis time that Bruce, after the battle of Bannockburn,
112 SIE JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
granted to him the privilege of gu'th or sanctuary for three miles round
the church of Luss, as well on water as on land,^
A few days were spent in Kintyre with Angus of Isla, who placed at
Bruce's disposal his castle of Dunaverty, and then, with his following
increased to three hundred, the king crossed to tlie little island of Eachrin,
on the Irish coast, to spend the winter.- But while this afforded them
shelter and safety, the ladies and those who had remained to defend them
in Kildrummie Castle, had fallen into the hands of Edward, from whom they
received little mercy.
The sojourn in Eachrin was but a weary solace to men of active and
anxious minds. Barbour represents Sir James Douglas as angry at the
protracted but enforced idleness, and also at the cost and trouble which
their stay was entailing upon the poor inhabitants of the hospitable island.
He accordingly, as soon as the season permitted, proposed to Sir Eobert
Boyd that they should make a descent upon the island of Arran, and
wrest the castle of Brodick out of the hands of the English. Boyd at
once consented, and from his intimate personal knowledge of the district,
and the castle itself, presaged a successful issue. They intimated their purpose
to the king, and here Godscroft narrates the well-known incident of Bruce
and the spider, but instead of making Bruce the spectator of the insect's
efforts, successive failures and final achievement of its purpose, gives that
position to Sir James of Douglas, who related it to the king in the course
of a consultation respecting their future procedure.
" Sir," says Douglas, " I being somewhat solitary in the fields, seriously
contemplating of your affairs, and casting my eyes about, I espied a spider
climbing by his web to the height of a tree, and at twelve several times
I perceived his web broke, and the spider fell to the ground. But the
thirteenth time he attempted and climbed up the tree without difficulty.
^ The Lenaox, by William Fraser, voL i. pp. 23G, 237. - Barbour's Bruce, pp. 70-7G.
DOUGLAS AXD THE SPIDER. 113
So, sir, although fortune hath shewn herself adverse towards you in twelve
several battles and encounters whereby your majesty is driven to this
exigence as to take the Hebrides for your refuge, my advice is to follow the
example of the spider, to push forward your majesty's fortune once more, and
hazard yet our persons the thirteenth time, and I trust in God he shall give
a happy and prosperous event to our enterprise. Which counsel, being heard
by the king, after mature deliberation, the opinions of all being thoroughly
examined, the conclusion was that the Lord Douglas, accompanied with forty
men, should sail to the isle of Arran (as then commanded by the English)
and attempt with these small forces, assisted, as they hoped, by the inhabi-
tants, to recover the place for their own use." ^
Having matured their plans, Douglas and Boyd set sail for Arran, where
they arrived in safety by night. Next morning they waylaid the under-
warden of the castle, on his landing with a cargo of provisions, arms, and
clothing. They slew most of the soldiers and carriers, chased the rest within
the gates of the castle, and then retired with their booty to a narrow but
secure gorge in the neighbourhood, where in a few days they were joined by
Bruce with the rest of his party. From Arran a messenger w^as despatched
to discover the condition of Carrick, and signal to the king if affairs were
ripe for an attack. The signal decided on, the lighting of a fire on the
heights near Turnberry Castle, was unwittingly given by some one, where-
upon Bruce and his whole party set sail for Carrick. Proceeding to his
own castle of Turnberry, occupied at the time by Percy and a large force
of the English, Bruce laid waste in the night-time the whole district in the
immediate vicinity, slew all the dependants and soldiers quartered in the
houses, and carrying off great spoil, fortified himself in the hills.
Encouraged by this success, Douglas meditated striking a blow at the
wTongful possessors of his own inheritance, and having obtained Bruce's
^ Godscroft'a ais. History, p. 44.
VOL. I. P
114 SIR JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
permission, he set ofi' for Douglasdale accompanied by only two yeomen.
In disguise he reached his native valley, and having privily sought out
his father's sturdy and faithful henchman, Thomas Dickson, was cordially
and affectionately welcomed, and secreted in his house of Hazelside. Here
Dickson night after night brought to his young lord one by one the most
trustworthy and devoted of his father's vassals, who, overjoyed to see the son
of their former lord, swore to give him their loyal and unyielding support.
These furnished Douglas with all the information needed to mature his
plans, and he speedily revealed to them the plot he had formed for the
overthrow of their English oppressors. It lacked but a few days to Palm
Sunday, when the garrison of Douglas Castle would march out in force to
the neighbouring church of St. Bride. Douglas, too, would be there in
the guise of a peasant, bearing a flail, his armour covered with a mantle,
while his men would also present themselves armed, though outwardly in
the guise of peaceful worshippers. The signal for the united onset was to
be their war-cry " Douglas."
The English had not the slightest suspicion of the terrible surprise that
was in store for them, and with unusual carelessness the castle was left
in the sole care of the porter and the cook. All had come forth to the
solemnity, and had almost filled the little church, when the dreaded
slogan burst forth, and they were suddenly attacked both from within and
without the edifice. The signal had been somewhat premature, before
Douglas himself was on the spot, one result of which was that his faith-
ful vassal Dickson was stricken down before assistance could be ren-
dered.^ The English soldiers made a desperate resistance, but inspired by
^ Tytler, Sir Walter Scott, and Godscroft, The slogan having been raised too soon,
all state that Dickson was killed in this Dickson and another rushed into the church
encounter, but the narrative by Barbour and began to lay about them,
implies no more than that he was jilaced " Bot tha in hy war left lyand."
hors (k combat in the beginning of the melee. Shortly after this, the barony of Symingtou,
THE DOCGLAS LARDER, 1307. 115
the intrepidity and courage of their leader, Douglas's men were completely
victorious. The castle was next entered, and finding there the repast which
had been prepared for the slaughtered garrison, Douglas and his followers sat
down and enjoyed it at their leisure. They afterwards removed from the
castle everything that was valuable or costly. Tiien gathering together all
the remaining provisions, malt, corn, flour, they tossed them in a heap into
the wine cellars, staved in the heads of the casks of liquor, beheaded their
prisoners, and flinging their bodies, and those of their fellows who had fallen
in the church, indiscriminately with the carcases of dead horses into the foul
mass, set fire to the pile, and reduced all with tlie castle to ashes. The
memory of this ghastly deed is preserved in the traditions of Douglasdale by
the name of the " Douglas Larder." ^
According to Barbour, Douglas did not return at once to King Eobert, but
lurked quietly among the hills of his own lands, though Godscroft thinks, and
with probability, that he must have rejoined Bruce. Meanwhile Sir Piobert
Clifl'ord, on hearing of the destruction of the castle, came from England with
a large staff of workmen, and having rebuilt the edifice, left it in charge of a
captain named Thirlwall, No sooner, however, had Clifford retired than
Douglas resolved to test the mettle of this new warden, and placing an
ambuscade on the lands of Sandilands, at some distance from the castle, in the
early morning he sent a few of his men to drive off some cattle that were
pasturing under the walls of the fortress. They did so, and drove them towards
the spot where Douglas and his men lay concealed, wliile a number of the
garrison, led by Thirlwall, started in pursuit. As soon as the latter had
passed the ambush they were assailed both in front and rear, and in the
in Lanarkshire, was bestowed by King Eobert and Hazelside long afterwards. [The Ufiper
theBruce upon Thomas, son of Fvichard, [Regis- Ward of Lanarkshire, by Irving and Murray,
trum Magni Sigilli, vol. L pp. 15, 78], and the vol. i. p. 188; vol. ii. p. 139.]
family then assumed the surname of Syming-
ton. His descendants held both Symington ^ Barbour's Bruce, p. 115.
IIG
SfR JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LOUD OF DOUGLAS.
conflict Thirlwall and several of his men were slain, a few escaping by flight
to the castle, closely pursued by Douglas, who, however, was unable to
capture the castle on this occasion.^
Having obtained information that the Earl of Pembroke was on his way
from England with a large force, which included John of Lorn and Bruce's
own nephew Randolph, who had joined the English after being taken prisoner
at Methven, Douglas hastened to Cumnock to warn the king and aid him in
the emergency. It was at this time that the well-known adventure of Bruce
with the sleuth-hound and John of Lorn took place, when he and his followers
were so separated that the king was left alone. He was immediately joined
at an appointed rendezvous by Douglas and a mounted force, and seizing,
by Douglas's information and advice, an opportunity when the English,
thinking themselves victorious, were lying careless and insecure, they
inflicted on one of their largest outposts a crushing defeat. Bruce then made
himself master of Kyle and Cunningham, compelling the inhabitants to
acknowledge him as their king. Thereupon Pembroke despatched Sir John
de Mowbray- from Both well with a thousand men into that district. But
Sir James Douglas, with sixty men, posting himself at a place called Ederford,
in the only way by which Mowbray could pass, a narrow defile flanked on
both sides by morasses impassable for horse, quietly awaited the approach of
the English. No sooner had their vanguard, headed by Mowbray himself,
reached the spot, than it was vigorously attacked by Douglas and his men,
who, strewing the pass with the bodies of their foes, cut off the retreat of
the English leader, and forced his followers to fly. In desperation Mowbray
cut his way through the lines of the Scots, and effected his escape to the
castle of Inverkip, then garrisoned by his countrymen. This success was
followed by a victory on the part of Bruce, who defeated Pembroke at Loudoun
1 Barbour's Bruce, pp. 140-142. Mowbray, but Tytler supposes it rather to be
- Barbour gives the name as Sir Philip de John. — [History of Scotland, vol. i. p. 240.]
DEFEAT AND RETREAT OF THE ENGLISH, 1307.
117
Hill ou 10th May. Pembroke retreated to Ayr Castle. Three days later, it
is said, a second army, under the command of Ralph de Monthermer, Earl of
Gloucester, suffered a still more disastrous defeat, and was chased to the
same refuge, to which Bruce laid siege, but was compelled to raise it, and
betake himself to the hills on the approach of another army of relief.^ Some
sharp skirmishes in Glen Trool, which afterwards took place, so disorganised
the plans of the English that Pembroke was forced to retire into England.
Edward now saw tliat if the English crown was to retain its hold
upon Scotland, he must as formerly command his troops in person. Sum-
moning an immense army to meet him at Carlisle, he placed himself at its
head and commenced his march. But " the Hammer of the Scots " had
already stricken his last blow. He expired, on the 7th July 1307, at Burgh-
upon-Sands, a small village a few miles distant from Carlisle, commending
with his last breath and in most solemn terms, the completion of his task
to his son and successor.
Under Edward the Second of England the army collected by his
father only marched to Cumnock, and retired again into England without
accomplishing anything. Another army under John of Brittany, Earl of
Richmond, the newly appointed Warden of Scotland, is said to have inflicted
a defeat upon Bruce, and to have rendered it expedient for him to retire into
the north of Scotland.^ But the probability of any such battle is greatly
weakened by the fact that every historian, save one anonymous chronicler,
is silent on the subject, and that when Bruce went north with the object
of reducing the English garrisons there and the recalcitrant Scots, he left
Sir James Douglas in the south to reduce the border districts of Selkirk
and Jedburgh.^ Douglas began this task by a third attack on his own
castle in Douglasdale, which had become so famous in the annals of chivalry
1 Scalacronica, p. 132 ; Triset's Annals, p. 413 ; Hemingburgh, vul. ii. p. 265.
- Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. i. p. 24.'5. ' Barbour, p. 188.
118 SIR JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
that it was known as " the Adventurous Castle." ^ The story is told of a wealthy
heiress of noble English birth, beset with suitors, assembling them all at a
festivity, and a minstrel having sung the deeds of the redoubtable Douglas in
his own lands, and the danger of holding such a hazardous but honourable
post as Douglas Castle, she openly declared her intention to bestow her hand
upon the knight who should hold it for a year and a day in the interests of
the King of England. Of all the knights who surrounded her table only
one. Sir John de Wanton,- was found brave enough to accept the conditions.
His offers to hold the post were accepted, and he it was who, at this time,
was in command of Douglas Castle, with a stronger garrison than any of his
predecessors.
Understanding that the castle was not over-well stocked with supplies,
Douglas conceived a stratagem whereby he might draw out the governor with
his troops into an ambush, and then overthrow them. On the mornin" of a
great fair day at Lanark, after placing his men in ambush at a convenient
spot, he instructed fourteen of them to fill sacks with grass, throw them over
the backs of their horses, and concealing their armour under countrymen's
frocks, to drive their beasts past the castle, as if they were traders on
their way to market. The passage of the large cavalcade with provender
so much needed by the garrison was reported to Sir John de Wanton,
who at once ordered his men to start in pursuit, and rode at their head.
They passed the ambuscade unheeded, and drew near their supposed
prize, when suddenly the sacks were thrown away, the rustic garments
followed, and Douglas's men leaping on their horses, the English were
confronted with a body of well-armed and resolute warriors. Sir John
de Wanton at once attempted a retreat to the castle, but only turned to find
' Sir Walter Scott's novel " Castle Dan- - Barbour calls him Sir Joha Webetoun,
gerous " is based upon the incidents of thi.-> but Tytler is of opinion that it should be
third assault by Douglas upon Douglas Castle. Wanton. — [History, vol. i. p. 2.51.]
CAPTURES RANDOLril IN TWEEDDALE, c. 1308. 119
himself beset on all sides, and in the struggle which ensued the garrison
were overpowered and nearly all slain, with their commander. On his dead
body, it is said, was discovered a letter from the lady, in the hope of whose
hand and heart he had accepted his fatal post. Douglas next proceeded to
the castle, which was yielded up to him. On their surrender he not only
spared the lives of the English soldiers who had remained therein during
the affray, but dismissed them with marks of kindness to their own country.
On this occasion Douglas razed the castle to the ground.^
For some time after this exploit, the reduction of the English strongholds
in the forests of Selkirk and Jedburgh occupied Douglas fully, and it was
during this period that he captured Eandolph, Bruce's nephew, who was
fighting in the English interest against his uncle. Approaching one night
a solitary liouse on the banks of the Lyne in the moorland district of
Tweeddale, where he intended to lodge, he heard strange voices which yet
were not altogether unknown. He surrounded the building with his men,
and was successful, after a stubborn contest, in making prisoners of Randolph
and Alexander Stewart of Boncle, the latter being Douglas's own cousin,
while a third, Adam of Gordon, effected his escape. This capture was
one of the most important events of the campaign, and after feasting his
two prisoners, Douglas hastened on the following day to place them at the
disposal of the king. For rashly and imprudently defying his uncle's right
to arraign him, Randolph was committed for a time to close confinement ;
but better thoughts prevailed, and on submission he was created Earl of
]\[oray, and by his brave and daring deeds amply redeemed his former
unpatriotic conduct.
Bruce, despite a serious illness, had carried out a most successful cam-
paign in the north of Scotland, in the course of which he inflicted that terrible
vengeance on the Comyns and their country known as the " harrying of
1 Barbour, pp. ISS-191.
120 SIR JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
Buchan." His brother Edward, too, in conjunction with Douglas,^ had com-
pletely subjugated the district of Galloway, while Douglas had given good
accounts of the districts allotted to his care. With the forces of Douglas united
to his own, the kiug now determined to pay part of his debt to the Lord
of Lorn, and made an incursion into his territory. Lorn posted his men on
the heights above the well-known Pass of Brander, at the foot of the majestic
Ben Cruachan ; but Bruce, informed of his intention, sent Douglas with a
body of archers by a circuitous route, to take possession of the higher parts
of the mountain. On entering the Pass the royal army were immediately
assailed with shouts by Lorn's Highlanders, who detached great stones and
rolled them down the precipitous slopes, then dashed forward to the attack.
Already the nimble, light-armed soldiers of Bruce were far up the hill to meet
them, and when the onset began the Highlanders were unexpectedly attacked
by Douglas and his archers in the rear, and broke and fled. The troops of
Lorn sustained great slaughter in the pursuit, and Lorn iled, after having,
from his galleys in Loch Etive, beheld his o%vn defeat, which he was power-
less to prevent. Bruce then laid siege to the castle of Dunstaffnage, occupied
by the father of John of Lorn, Alexander of Argyll, who was compelled
to surrender and swear homage to the king.
After some further successes, among which was the capture of the castle
of Rutherglen, Bruce assembled his first Parliament at St. Andrews towards
the close of the year 1308 (16th March). Douglas was present as one of the
barons of the realm, and took part in sending the letter to Philip the Fourth
of France, who had, by his ambassador, asked assistance in his crusade a^-ainst
the Saracens — a letter in w^hich the Scots state their sincere sympathies
with the object of the request, but also that they are necessitated to defer
participation until their own kingdom had been delivered from oppression
and the grievous storms of war.- Tliis was just such a reply as might have
1 Chronicon de Lanercost, p. 212. - Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, voL i. p. 439.
SUCCESS OF THE EFFORTS OF BRUCE, c. 1308. 121
been expected from Bruce and Douglas and their compatriots, and one in ^^■\nd^
the entire community would heartily join, they having been taught by their
patriotic bishops that to fight against -the King of England was as meritorious
as warring with the Saracen in the Holy Land.^ At length, too, the fruits of
their heroic efforts were appearing, for Bruce was distinctly acknowledged
by the French king as King of Scotland, and assured of his sympathy a^nd
friendship. This was frequently shown by the intervention of Philip of
France in behalf of the Scots ^vith the King of England.^ The Pope also
favoured the cause of Scottish independence.
William Lamberton, Bishop of St. Andrews, and Pobert Wishart, Bishop
of Glasgow, had, shortly after the coronation of Bruce in 13U6, been seized
by Edward the First and imprisoned in England. Two years afterwards
Pope Clement the Fifth wrote to Edward the Second demanding their libera-
tion, and requesting that sovereign to refrain from interference in matters
ecclesiastical Edward at once gave some enlargement to Lamberton, but
decHned at first in the ca==e of Wishart. Lamberton renewed his oath of
fealty to Edward in August 1308, and on the IGth of February 1309-10
he was appointed one of several commissioners to conclude a truce with the
Scots.3 The Bishop of St. Andrews seems to have inspired the King of
England with a remarkable degree of confidence in his fidelity, so that he was
not only permitted but urged to remain in Scotland in the English interest,
and Edward not once, but four times between July 1311 and December
1312, implored the Pope to excuse the absence of that bishop from the
general councQ at Vienna, on account of the urgent necessity of his presence
in Scotland, to promote and secure its tranquillity.* How much cause Edward
had for such confidence may be inferred, not only from the entire absence of
1 Palgrave'a Documents and Records, Scot- 3 Ryder's FaJera, vol. ii. pp. 45, 54.
land, vol. i. p. 34S.
2 Rymer's Fcedera, vol. ii. pp. 63, 68, 79. ^ Ihid. pp. 141, 158, 172, 190.
VOL. I.
122 SIR JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
success in Lamberton's mission, but from the fact that, a few days after he
had been intrusted with the commission to conchide a truce with the Scots,
he presided over a general council of the Scottish clergy held in the cliurch
of the Friars Minorites at Dundee. His patriotic colleague, Wishart, Bishop
of Glasgow, was also present, and a document was drawn up asserting
and defending the right of Eobert Bruce to the throne, acknowledging him
as the lawful and crowned king of Scotland, engaging to defend him, and
maintain the liberties and independence of the country against all enemies,
and declaring all contraveners of their declaration guilty of treason.^
This being a conclave of clergy, it seems probable that it would be secret,
and its enactments unknown save to the King of Scotland and his chief
adherents, otherwise it is difficult to account for the continued confidence
of the English king in the Bishop of St. Andrews. The business of the
truce seems to have been attended to afterwards, but it is said that the Scots
insisted on receiving a good round sum of money before consenting to the
overtures.-
The breathing space was but short. Bruce and his warlike followers
were too eager to see the complete emancipation of their country to risk
delays, and laying siege to Perth, provoked Edward to further invasions.
Four expeditions successively entered Scotland, two of which were led by
the English king in person; but Bruce was not to be found, and as the
country had no entertainment for such guests, especially as it was suffer-
ing from a severe famine, the invaders were compelled to return almost
as they came. It was now Bruce's opportunity, rendered all the more
favourable by dissensions between Edward and his nobles. Collecting his
forces from their scattered retreats, Bruce, about the middle of August 1311,
made a sudden descent upon the Xorth of England. Entering by the Solway,
^ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, - Tytler'a History of Scotland, vol. i.
vol. L p. 4G0. p. 257.
RAIDS OX THE NORTIIERX COUXTIES OF EXGLAND, 1311. 123
he burnt and laid waste all GiUsland, a large portion of Tyndale and the
town of Haltwhistle, returning after eight days with a great booty. In the
following month a second invasion was made, this time tlu-ough Xorthuni-
berland to Durham, and so unexpected was tbe assault that most of the
inhabitants were surprised asleep in bed. Douglas was despatched hence to
Hartlepool and returned with numerous spoils, including many of the
burgesses and their wives, wlio had to pay heavily before receiving their
liberty. This expedition lasted for iifteen days, and was characterised by great
severity. Warned by the fate of their neighbours, the inhabitants of Northum-
berland sent messengers to Bruce begging a truce of a few months' duration,
for which they agreed to pay him two thousand pounds.'^ These invasions
were repeated in the following year, when Hexham and Corbridge were burnt,
and Durham was again visited, probably by Douglas, as Bruce remained at
Corbridge. The attack was made on a market day, so that the spoils were
vastly increased, and after much loss of life and property, the inhabitants
purchased a brief truce for the payment of two thousand pounds, and per-
mission to the Scots to march through the district unmolested whenever they
pleased. Northumberland, Cumberland, Coupland, and "Westmoreland pur-
chased immunity for the same period, namely, till midsummer following, at
the same rate, and as the money could not be obtained at once, they gave
hostages for its payment. Nor was it forgotten to repeat the visit on the
expiry of that truce.-
An attempt was made by Bruce upon the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed,
which, but for the barking of a dog, would probably have succeeded. The
garrison was alarmed in time, and repelled the invasion. Other fortresses
were not so fortunate, and while Perth fell by the wit and stratagem of Bruce,
and Edinburgh by the daring of Eandolph, the strong and important fortress
1 Chronicon de Lanercost, pp. 216, 217 ; '^ Chronicon de Lanercost, pp. 219, 220,
Hemingburgh's Chronicle, p. 294. 222.
124 Sin JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
of Roxburgh owed its reacquisition by Scotland to the ingenuity and prowess
of Sir James Douglas. It lay in the district which had been assigned to
him as the special field of his labours, and Douglas was not the man to
leave anything undone which would tend to the success of his mission.
When the force of arms was not likely to succeed, he was as fertile in
stratagem as he was courageous in combat.
The ruse resorted to in the taking of this castle, as related by Barbour
and others, approaches the ridiculous. Choosing an occasion on which the
garrison were likely to be engaged in the enjoyments of a religious festivity,
tl\e evening of Shrove Tuesday, the 27th or 28th of February 1312-13,
Douglas caused his trusty followers to don black gowns over their mail, and
imitate his example. Throwing himself upon all-fours in the darkening
twilight, he slowly approached the castle. The band were observed from the
walls, but so well was the assumed character sustained, that the sentinel
merely observed to his comrade that at least one of the neighbouring
husbandmen was bent on enjoying himself, as he had left all his oxen out,
and was met with the rejoinder that no doubt it was so, though he ran
considerable risk of losing them, seeing the Douglas was in the vicinity.
The black oxen at length reached the foot of the castle walls. Here
they assumed new forms, and threw to the summit of the wall a strong
hempen ladder fitted with an iron hook, made specially for this expedition
by one of Douglas's followers, Simon of the Leadhouse, who was also the
first to ascend. Attracted by the click of the iron on the wall, one of the
soldiers on guard rushed to the spot, and attempted to unfix the ladder on
which the invaders were now ascending. One deadly blow of Simon's knife
terminated the attempt, and the body was thrown over the wall for the
encouragement of his comrades. Another of the garrison came up at this
moment, and seeing Leadhouse standing alone in a costume differing from
that of the English soldiery, at once gave him battle. But he too was over-
CAPTURES THE CASTLE OF ROXBURGH, 1313. li>.5
powered. The rest were engaged in jovial merrymakings in the hall, quite
unsuspicious of danger, when their mirth was rudely interrupted. The cry
of "Douglas! Douglas!" resounded through the chamber, and the unarmed
and defenceless revellers were mercilessly slain. The captain of the castle,
Gilmyn de Fiennes, succeeded with a few of his men in reaching the tower,
which they barricaded and held for a short time against the Scots. But,
after receiving a severe wound in the face, De Fiennes capitulated, on con-
dition of being permitted to pass in safety with his men into England. He
was accordingly escorted to the Borders, but only to die shortly afterwards
from the efiects of his wound. Roxburgh Castle was then destroyed by
Brace's orders, and this measure had the effect of reducing the whole of
Teviotdale to his allegiance.^
Edward Bruce, the brave and chivalrous brother of Kinc: Eobert, bore no
small share in the victorious progress of the Scots towards their final emanci-
pation from English thraldom. It was to a somewhat rash challenge
thrown out by him to the English governor of Stirling that the eventful
battle of Baunockburn was due. That battle was fousiht on 24th June
1314, in the vicinity of Stirling, where Bruce with his staunch commanders,
Randolph, Edward Bruce, Douglas, and Walter the High Steward, and his
army of thirty thousand men, chiefly infantry, had previously posted them-
selves to await the arrival of the English. The left wing was intrusted to
Douglas and Walter the High Steward, Randolph being in command of the
centre, Edward Bruce in command of the right wing, while Bruce himself
remained with the reserve of cavalry.
The English host, estimated at one hundred thousand men, had reached
Falkirk, and were beginning the last stage of their march. Douglas and Sir
Robert Keith, Marischal, were despatched by King Eobert to reconnoitre, and
came back with the report of the vastness and splendour of the advancing
1 Barbour's Bruce, pp. 232-237.
12G ^7^ JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
army. This information, however, was not imparted to the Scottish troops,
though it served to make their leaders more wary and cautious. On the day
preceding the decisive struggle, the two armies came into each other's view,
and a collision took place the same day, in which was strongly brought out
the generosity of Sir James Douglas. King Edward of England had des-
patched a strong body of cavalry, under the command of Sir liobert Clifford,
to relieve the English garrison in Stirling Castle. Clifford, unobserved by
the Scots, was well on his way to the castle, when the watchful eye of Bruce
detected the attempt, and Randolph, whose duty it appears to have been tu
frustrate any such efforts, was gently chid by his royal uncle for his
neglect, Eandolph immediately set off to repair the eiTor, and a sharp
skirmish ensued between his party and that of Clifford. Douglas, who
stood with Bruce watching the encounter, begged hard for leave to go to his
assistance, but Bruce refused, fearing to break up his lines, until Douglas,
no longer able to stand by and see his friend worsted, and perhaps slain,
insisted on going to his aid. He obtained a reluctant permission. But
before he had gone half-way he saw that Eandolph had ah'eady secured
victory, and, unwilling to detract from the honour due to the victor, he
returned with his men without offering assistance.
Before the engagement on the following day Douglas, with Walter the
High Steward, and many others, received the honour of knighthood in presence
of the army. The battle of Bannockburn has often been described in works
of general history, as well as in special accounts, and need not be narrated
here. Details of his personal prowess have not been handed down, but vre
may be sure that Douglas bore his full share in the action all through that
eventful day ; and when the English host had given way, and their king
sought safety in flight, Douglas begged and obtained leave to pursue him.
With but sixty horsemen he started in the wake of the royal fugitive, \\ho
was surrounded by five hundred. On the way Douglas was joined by a
PURSUES EDWARD FROM BANXOCKBURX, 13U. 127
kinsman of his own, Sir Laurence of Abernethy, who until then had adhered
to Edward, and was on his way to join the English army with a small
contingent of eighty men. On being informed by Sir James of Douglas of
the result of the battle, he at once transferred his allegiance to King Eobert,
and joined in the pursuit of his late master, AVith his small company,
Douglas did not deem it prudent to risk an open attack on King Edward's
escort, but by keeping close on their rear and cutting off any who lagged or
straggled, he forced them to speed their course. The retreating party were
overtaken at Linlithgow, and a halt for rest was made at Winchburgh, but
Douglas, by hovering on the outskirts of the English camp, obliged them
to make it of very short duration. The flight was then continued to
Dunbar, where the Earl of ]March received King Edward into his fortress,
while his escort, still followed by their pursuers, only found refuge in
Berwick-upon-Tweed. But the castle of Dunbar was no secure refuge for
the English king, and he was fain to escape from Scotland in a small boat
furnished by his host.
Though practically deciding the long contested question whether or not
Scotland should be independent of England, the battle of Bannockburn did
not conclude hostilities between the two nations. On the motion of Bruce,
negotiations for peace had been entered into,^ but failed, and for thirteen
yeai-s an intermittent warfare was still waged. To Sir James of Douglas
was committed the difficult task of clearing and guarding the marches, and
to no knight more brave or more devoted to his country could this work
have been intrusted. His personal prowess and daring were such that
while his own followers were inspirited and animated by his example, the
English were inspired with terror at his appearance, and even at the mention
of his name. Mainly through his efforts the attempts of the English to
regain the prestige they had lost at Bannockburn were defeated, and a
1 Rotuli Scoti^E, vol. i. pp. 131-133.
128 SIB JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
succession of brilliant victories added to his country's battle-roll. He was
esteemed, says Froissart, " the bravest and most enterprising knight in the
two kingdoms," and Barbour adds that the dread of his name was so great
in England, and especially in the Marches, that mothers used the name of
the " Blak Doutilas " to frighten their children with.^
About the beginning of August, Edward Bruce, Douglas, and John of
Soules, at the head of a large army, made a raid into England, near Berwick,
and passed through Northumberland and Durham to the river Tees, even
crossing it and penetrating to the town of Richmond. Their course was
marked by fire and slaughter, the inhabitants of the invaded districts fleeing
to the woods and castles for refuge, or with their cattle and sheep being
driven before the Scottish soldiers. Durham and the surrounding district,
however, escaped the flames by purchasing immunity for a large sum.
The incursion appears to have been made in several detachments for the
sake of covering a larger area, but in returning the Scots united their
forces at Richmond, and went back by Swaledale and Stanmoor, burning
Brough, Appleby, Kirkoswald and other towns, and destroying the crops.
The inhabitants of Coupland followed the example set by Durham, and
secured exemption on this occasion by sending messengers with a large
ransom."
A few months' rest followed, during which Douglas attended the Parlia-
ment held by King Robert Bruce at Cambuskenneth, in the early part of
November,^ when an important Act was passed regarding those Scots who
^ Barbour's Bruce, p. 360. Some of the old and to her terror she saw the Douglas by her
chronicles relate an incident of the siege of side. - Chronicon de Lanercost, p. 228.
Roxburgh: A soldier's wife quieting her child ^ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. i.
with this threat, but finding it have the con- p. 464. Douglas was a witness to charters
trary effect, hushed it with the assurance that granted on this occasion. — Eegistrum de Dun-
the Black Douglas should not get it. " You fermelyn, p. 229 ; and Miscellany of the
are not so sure of that," said a strange voice, Spalding Club, vol. ii. p. 211.
PHESUST IX PARLIAMENT AT AYR, 1315. 129
had not yet tendered their allegiance to Bruce, and then, in the end of
December, the Scots made another descent upon the northern counties of
England. Entering by Tyndale they spread thence eastward towards New-
castle and westward to Haltwhistle, and before leaving Tyndale they obliged
the inhabitants to do homage to the King of Scotland. They also subdued
Gillsland and the surrounding country, destroyed Northumberland a second
time, and compelled the county of Cumberland to pay to King Eobert Bruce
six hundred merks as tribute for the six months between 25th December
1314 and the 24th June 1315.1
Shortly after this Douglas accompanied Bruce to the west of Scotland,
and was present in Dumbarton at the granting of the privilege of girth
or sanctuary to Malcolm, fifth Earl of Lennox, in return for his constancy
and support both in Bruce's peril and now in his triumph.'- He then went
Avith the king to Ayr, where an important Parliament was held to settle
the succession to the crown. The meeting took place on the 26th of April,
and Douglas is proved to have been present by witnessing several charters at
the same place on 1st May following.^
The conquest of Ireland as a kingdom for Edward Bruce, Earl of
Carrick, having been resolved on, a portion of the Scottish army was
despatched thither under his leadership, and that of Thomas Eandolph,
Earl of Moray. Bruce and Douglas remained in Scotland.^ On the
return of the ships which had conveyed the troops to Ireland, Bruce fitted
out an expedition against the "Western Islands of Scotland, and personally
taking its command, with Walter, the High Steward of Scotland, who had
just become the king's son-in-law by his marriage with his daughter Marjory,
he speedily subdued his old enemy John of Lorn, and the minor Highland
1 Chronicon de Lanercost, p. 230. ' Munimenta de Melros, vol. ii. pp. 3S0-
2 The Lennox, by William Fraser, vol. i. 382.
p. 236. * Chronicon de Lanercost, i>. 230.
VOL. L R
130 SIR JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
and Island chiefs, who ]iad lent tlie Lord of Argyll their aid.^ Douglas, on
the other hand, returned to the Borders, and collecting his men, made a
third raid into the English territor}" (about 29th June 1315), ravaging the
bishopric of Durham and the town of Hartlepool, the inhabitants of the
latter place escaping to sea in their boats on his approach. He burned no
towns on this occasion, being satisfied with taking a very large booty.^
It was next resolved to lay siege to the strong English fortress of
Carlisle. To effect this Bruce and Douglas joined their forces, and
mustering a considerable army, arrived at Carlisle about the 2 2d of July.
Bruce, it was commonly reported, had vowed that he would eat no flesh
until he had avenged himself on the wardens of Carlisle.^ This, if true,
was probably in return for the ignominious and cruel fate to which
his two brothers, Thomas and Alexander (the latter being at the time
Dean of Glasgow), had been subjected in that city. Thomas was dragged
through Carlisle tied to horses' tails, and, \vith his brother, was afterwards
hanged and beheaded, their heads and bodies being exposed on the tower
and gates of the city.'* At least the remembrance of these things would
add fuel to the fury of the Scots, and for ten days they held the city
and its citadel in strict siege, on each day making an assault on one of the
three gates, or on all three simultaneously.
The citizens, however, knowing that quarter would not be given, exerted
themselves to the utmost, and sent such showers of darts, arrows, and stones
from the walls upon their assailants, that the Scots remarked that surely
stones were multiplied, or grew within these walls. On the fifth day of the
siege the Scots constructed a machine to project large stones a^-aiust one of
the gates and the wall, but this did little or no injury, save killinfr one of the
^ Barbour's Bnice, p. 319. - Chronicon de Lanercost, p. 230.
3 Chronicon Walter! de Hemingburgh, vol. ii. pp. 294, 295.
* Chronicon de Lanercost, p. 205.
THE SIEGE OF CARLISLE, 1315. 131
defenders. They next constructed a large wooden tower so high that it
overtopped the walls, but the citizens divining their intention, caused their
carpenters to erect a higher tower of wood at the part of the wall against
which the assault was to be directed, and the Scots seeing this, or unable to
move forward the ponderous erection, though mounted upon wheels, over
the wet and slimy ground, did not bring it into use.
Then the Scots made many long ladders for scaling the walls at a
number of places simultaneously, and also a machine called a sow for
undermining the walls. They scoured the country for miles around, cutting
down the standing crops and every growing thing they could lay hands
upon, which they tied into bundles, and attempted with these to fill up
the moat on the east side of the city in order to secure a dryshod passage
across to the walls. Besides this, to span the moat, they constructed
long wooden bridges running upon wheels, to which cords were attached
for drawing them, and on the ninth day of the siege, bringing all their
warlike instruments to bear, they made a grand assault upon the whole
circuit of the walls, but especially upon the eastern side of the city, A\here
the bulk of the Scottish army was massed.
This was but a feint, however, to divert attention from what was to be
the main attack. Sir James of Douglas, choosing the more daring and agde
of the Scottish forces, had stationed himself on the opposite side of the city
at a place where, on account of the height of the walls and the difticulty of
invasion, the citizens would naturally think no assault would be attempted, and
would therefore leave the place comparatively defenceless. He had provided
himself with long ladders, and to protect his soldiers while climbing, had posted
a strong force of bowmen to shoot down any who might show themselves upon
the wall. While the soldiers leapt to the ladders and scaled the walls, the
shafts fell fast and thick upon and within the walls, but through the bravery
of the defenders the attempt was utterly foiled. The ladders were pushed
132 SIR JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
from the walls, and many of the Scots were slain and wounded. The other
attacking parties fared no better, as neither sow, ladders, nor bridges
were of any avail, and at last the Scots were forced to raise the siege and
retire, which they did on the 1st August, leaving behind them their warlike
engines and several important prisoners.
During the siege they are said to have laid waste and given to the
flames all Allerdale, Coupland, and Westmoreland, taking an immense
booty in cattle and other property.^ It was during this time also that
Douglas visited Egremont and the Priory of St. Bees, in Westmoreland,
plundering the church and burning the houses of the Prior at Cleator
and Staneburn.-
Nothing daunted by their repulse at Carlisle, Bruce and Douglas resolved
to make another attack upon the towTi of Berwick, and an expedition was
secretly organised to attack it both by sea and land. The point chosen for
assault was a spot between the Bridge-house and the Castle, beside the sea,
where there was no wall. Unfortunately for the enterprise the night was
clear and moonlit, and through the vigilance of the watch the attempt was
discovered before an entrance had been effected. The Scots were driven
back, and Douglas himself is said to have escaped with difficulty in a small
boat.'
But with such leaders the Scots never knew wdiat it was to be beaten,
and if the fortresses were too strong for them they had other means by which
they could insure success. Negotiations for a truce had passed once more
between the two realms,* only to be nipped in the bud, apparently by the
refusal of Edward to recognise Bruce as King of Scotland, and hostilities
were accordingly resumed. With a fleet on the one hand, the Scots threat-
ened the principality of Wales, which had just been forced to submit to the
^ Chrouicou de Lanercost, pp. 230-232. ^ Chronicon de Lanercost, p. 232.
' Leland's Collectanea, vol. i. p. 24. * Rymer's Fcedera, vol. ii. p. 289.
WARDEN OF SCOTLAND IN BRUCE'S ABSENCE, 1316. 133
English Kiiig;^ and on the other, they sent, about midsummer (June 24,
131G) a strong force, probably under the command of Douglas, into England.
On this occasion they again invaded the town of Eichmond, and had begun
their work of devastation, when the nobles who held the Castle offered them
a large sum of money to refrain from burning the town and the surrounding
district. This the Scots accepted, but they merely sought pastures new,
and penetrating England for sixty miles in a westerly direction to Furness,
destroyed everything in their way, and gave the entire district to the flames.
Furness they had never before reached, and they found not only great spoil
of cattle, which they carried thence with a large number of prisoners of both
sexes, but an abundance of iron — a commodity then so scarce in their own
country that they are said to have been overjoyed at the discovery .^
At the urgent entreaty of his brother Edward, King Robert Bruce set out
for Ireland to his assistance,^ and appointed Sir James Douglas and Walter
the High Steward, wardens of the kingdom in his absence.* Douglas held
at this time, also, the high office of Justiciar of Lothian,^ and was warden of
Jedburgh.^ Taking advantage of Bruce's absence, the English king resolved
once more to attempt the retrieval of his fortunes in Scotland ; but Douglas
was too experienced and wary a warrior to be taken unawares, and Bruce
had not left the care of his hard-won kingdom in the hands of one in
whom he had not the most complete confidence. Douglas indeed seems
to have anticipated some such attempt, and to have taken up his quarters
in a position where he would be ready for any emergency. The place
chosen was the liaugh of Lintalee, on the banks of the river Jed, at a
point where his camp would have the natural protection of the river and a
^ Rotuli Scotiae, vol. i. p. 159. * Barbour's Bruce, p. 361.
^ Chronicou de Lanercost, pp. 232, 233.
o ^T_ . ^ir li. 1 TT • 1 , ^ Munimenta de Melros, vol. ii. p. 3S5.
' Chromcon Waiten de Hemingburgh,
vol. ii. p. 295. 6 jiia, p 382.
134 Sm JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LOUD OF DOUGLAS.
deep ravine on two sides, while on the third a strong double rampart was
constructed. Below the camp in the face of the cliff was a large cave, con-
sisting of three apartments, which, in the event of a sudden surprise, would
have afforded at least a temporary refuge.^ Here Douglas caused to be
erected what Barbour calls a " fair manor," and having stocked it abundantly
with provisions and other means,
" till mak gud cher till his men," -
he awaited the course of events.
Aymer de Yaleuce, Earl of Pembroke, the former English guardian of
Scotland, had, after the battle of Bauuockburn, been appointed warden and
captain of all the country between the rivers Trent and Tweed, Roxburgh
being the assigned limit.^ He began by collecting all the men of Tyndale,
and first laid waste some parts of Northumberland, not sparing, it is said, a
single blade. As soon, however, as he entered Scotland, and encountered a
few Scots, his men at once turned and fled, and were pursued for a
considerable distance, while many were slain.^ After the siege of Carlisle,
Aymer de Valence was partly superseded by the appointment of Thomas,
Earl of Lancaster, as superior captain over the same territory.^ Under
him a general muster of the English had been proclaimed for the 2-l:th
of June, at Newcastle, but was prorogued by royal mandate till the feast of
St. Lawrence (10th September 131G).*^ As has already been seen, the Scots
observed the first day, and kept the muster at Eichmond and Eurness, but
the English forces were not present. By the departure of Bruce and two of
his brave commanders. Sir Edward Bruce and Eandolph, an opportunity was
^ Origines Parochiales Scotiit, vol. i. p. 3S6. * Chronicon Walter! de Hemingburgh,
vol ii. p. 295.
- Barbour's Bruce, p. 372. * Rotuli Scotia;, vol. i. p. 149, dated Sth
August 1315.
^ Rotuli Scotise, vol. i. p. 149. ^ Rymer's Ftedera, vol. ii. p. 291.
ENCOUyTER WITH RICHMOND AT LI NT ALEE, 131 G. 13.3
given which the English did not overlook, and a large army was summoned
by Edward the Second, in which he included his Gascon vassals, to meet at
Newcastle-on-Tyne in the first week of October.^ The king, however, did
not appear, and after waiting for some time beyond the appointed day, the
army was disbanded."
Douglas meanwhile was passing the time at Lintalee, well informed, no
doubt, of what was taking place in England ; and learning from his scouts
that the Earl of Arundel, with Sir Thomas Eichmond, instead of returning
home, had crossed the borders with a force of ten thousand men, he
determined to give battle. Eichmond, says Barbour, envied the fame of
Douglas, and resolved to measure swords with him on the first opportunity.
He thought that the renowned warrior was only feasting at Lintalee, and his
avowed intention was to cut down the forest of Jedburgh, for which he armed
his men \\\i\\ wood-axes. Douglas had only fifty men-at-arms and a body
of archers; but he knew that Eichmond would require to march through
a narrow pass on his way, and he resolved to meet him tliere. The old
chronicler likens the place to a shield, broad at the entiy, but gradually
narrowing to a point, where there was not " ane pennystane-cast of bred,"
and wooded on either side. Here Douglas plaited together the young birches
which grew on the sides of the pass, making it practically impervious, and
placing his archers in a hollow on one side, with directions to shoot on a
given signal, he himself, with his armed men, took up a similar position on
the other, and awaited Eichmond's approach. The English leader came on
unwittingly, until within bowshot of the ambuscade, when Douglas raised his
terrible war-cry, the signal for the archers to shoot, and while the English were
disconcerted with the showers of arrows falling among them, Douglas and his
small band spurred upon the English host. Instiuctively the rival leaders
sought each other, but Eichmond was no match for the impetuous Douglas,
^ Rymer's Fcedera, vol. ii. pp. 295, 296. -' Clironicon de Lanercost, p. 233.
136 Sin JAME:s of DOUaLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
and fell, stabbed to the heart with his opponent's dagger. Seizing the furred
cap which surmounted the helmet of Eichmond, worn by him, it is said, as a
badge of connection with the ducal house of Brittany,^ Douglas cut his way
througli the English army, and disappeared into the recesses of the forest.
Seeing their leader slain, and discomfited by this sudden attack, the
English withdrew to a place of safety.-
While Douglas was engaged in this skirmish, he learned that a priest
named Ellis had, with three hundred men, taken possession of his place of
Lintalee. He and his companions at once proceeded thither, found the
audacious intruders feasting on what was not intended for them, and with
the proverbial ferocity of hungry and angry men, to use the words of
Barbour,
" With suerdis that scharply schar
Tha servit tham full egirly."
Scarce one escaped to tell the tale to the English host encamped at somt;
distance ; and they, when they heard the fate of their companions, left the
forest standing as it was, and hastened back over the border.^
On another occasion, while Douglas was encamped in the forest, Edmund
de Caliou, a Gascon knight, made a raid from Berwick, of which he was
governor, into the lower parts of Teviotdale and the Merse, and having secured
a considerable booty in cattle retraced his steps, driving his spoils before him.
They were observed by Sir Adam Gordon, who informed Douglas of what had
taken place, and suggested that, if they were pursued at once, the cattle might
be retaken. Douglas readily consented, and summoning such of his men as
were at hand, instantly started in their track. Ere long the raiders were
discerned in the distance, who, on discovering that they were pursued, sent
forward the cattle under the care of some countrymen, and forming them-
^ Hailes' Annals, voL iL p. 82.
* Barbour's Bruce, pp. 372-37G ; Scalacronica, p. 143. ' Barbour's Bruce, pp. 373-377-
DEFEAT OF CALIOU AND NEVILLE^ 1317. 137
selves into a compact body, awaited the arrival of Douglas. Perceiving their
design, and that the Gascon had a force twice as numerous as his owu, Sir
James encouraged his men to the conflict. He unfurled his banner, bidding
his men take advantage of a neighbouring ford to aid their attack, and as
Caliou and his men approached, at once gave battle. Singling out the Gascon
leader, as it was his wont to do, Douglas was soon hotly engaged, and his
dauntless courage so inspired his followers that the Gascon troops were forced
to fly, leaving their lord and many of their number dead upon the field. The
cattle were thereupon driven back. This fight is said to have been the
toughest ever engaged in by Douglas, as he had so few men at his command,
and it increased his fame greatly.^
Another knight in England's service. Sir Eobert Neville, wroth that no
name was in the mouths of any for valour save that of Douglas, is reported
to have exclaimed openly, " What ! is there no one of any worth save he ?
Ye speak of him as if he were without an equal. But I avow before you
all that if he ever come into this neighbourhood he will also discover my
presence, or if in war I see his banner displayed, I shall certainly assail him,
although ye call him never so brave." Neville was at this time in Berwick,
and the challenge having been reported to Douglas, he determined to give the
knight an opportunity of acquiring the coveted distinction. Gathering his
men, he marched all night to the vicinity of Berwick, and daybreak beheld
his banner displayed in view of the city. To attract the attention of the
garrison still more, he sent some of his men to burn one or two of the neigh-
bouring villages, with instructions to return at once in case of attack.
This brought Neville out of Berwick with a strong and picked force, as
the city was crowded at the time with the inhabitants of the surround-
ing districts who had taken refuge there. The English knight led his
forces to the summit of a hill, and addressing them said it was his desire
^ Barbour's Bruce, pp. 351-355.
VOL, I. S
138 SIR JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
now to put an end for ever to the disorders constantly occasioned by-
Douglas, but it was expedient to wait until the Scottish soldiers were dis-
persed to foray, when they would become an easy prey. Douglas, however,
had no intention thus to weaken his force, and seeing that the English, at
first numerically stronger than himself, were being constantly augmented by
fresh arrivals, he resolved to give battle at once. He accordingly led his
men up the hill against his foes, and a stubborn contest ensued. Douglas
and Xe\alle met in the thickest of the fray, and fought long together, but
the superior strength and skiU of Douglas prevailed, and Xeville was
killed. This gave the Scots renewed courage, and raising their wonted
battle-cry they attacked the English so impetuously that they broke and
fled, and were pursued by the Scots to a considerable distance. A great
number of the English were slain, and several distinguished prisoners taken,
among whom were Sir Ealph Neville and the Baron of Hilton, After
clearing the field of his foes, Douglas proceeded at leisure to foray and
destroy the country around, the spoil of which he distributed entirely among
his men, retaining nothing for himself.^ It was this generous and unselfish
spirit, along with his considerate bearing towards them at all times, which
especially endeared him to his followers, and made tliem willing to dare and
endure an}-tliing and everything with and for him.
When King Eobert Bruce returned from Ireland to his own kingdom, it
was resolved to renew the assault on Berwick-upon-Tweed, at this time
the principal commercial port which England possessed. Eandolph had
returned with his royal uncle,- but the king's brother, Edward Bruce, having
been crowned King of Ireland, remained in his new dominions. He had
^ Barbour's Bruce, pp. 355-3.59. Scala- Durham, in a dispute as to which should be
cronica, p. 143, This chronicle relates that " le plus graunt meistre."
Sir Robert Neville had slain Kichard Fitz- "^ They were both at Sconeon 1st June 1317.
Marmaduke, cousin of King Robert Bruce, at [Antiquities of Aberdeen, voL iii, p. 313.]
CAPTURE OF BERWICK, 1317. 130
won his kiugJom with great bravery; but the English were still able to
maintain a strong force in the island, which was increased until it numbered
tenfold the army at the disposal of the new king. Yet even with such over-
whelming odds he did not hesitate to join battle, but it was only to meet an
untimely fate near Dundalk, on 5th October 1318.^ During the absence of
Bruce from Scotland, the English king had been resorting to the unmanly
expedient of procuring the interference of the Pope, desiring to accomplish
by ecclesiastical authority what he could not do by force of arms ; but to
such arguments neither Bruce nor his gallant countrymen would for one
moment listen. Interdicts followed, but were only laughed at by the Scots,
who, especially in a matter of this kind, made small scruple as to whether
their king or the Pope had the first claim to their allegiance.
About the middle of December, Bruce was lying with his army about
twelve miles from the town of Berwick, busied with preparations for its
siege, when, through the Marischal, Sir Piobert Keith, he received overtures
from one of the burgesses of that city for its deliverance into his hands.
The English Governor, John de Witham, it is said, was unusually severe, and
had given offence to not a few of the inhabitants. One of these, named
Peter Spalding,- proposed betraying the city, and being connected with the
Marischal through having married a cousin of Sir Piobert, he communicated
his plans to him. The burgesses of Berwick took part in guarding the walls,
and knowing that it would fall to his lot to be on watch at the Cow Gate
on a certain evening, Spalding offered, to assist the Marischal in gaining
an entrance.
Bruce accepted the offer, and directed the Marischal, and also Douglas
and Kandolph, to enter the city that night by the way indicated, and he
would join them in the morning with the main body of the army. Under
1 Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. i. p. 303.
2 Barbour calls him Sym of Spaldiug. Page 386.
140 SIE JAMA'S OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
the guidance of Spalding the scaling of the wall was successfully accom-
plished, the intruders keeping themselves in strict ambush until daybreak,
when they intended to go through the town cautiously and in battle array,
sending off detachments to plunder the houses and deal with such as
resisted. No sooner, however, did day dawn than the greater part of the
soldiers broke away from their leaders, and spread themselves all over
the town to pillage at their own hand, the result of which was that
the governor of the castle, Eoger de Horsley, observing only a mere
handful of Scots in the city, made a sortie from the castle, and had
nearly expelled the intruders again over the walls. The bravery of the
leaders, however, and the courage of those who rallied round them, was
successful in driving back their assailants into the castle. Berwick was then
given up to pillage, and Bruce entered the city with the rest of the troops.
The castle resisted for five days and then capitulated.
The Scots, to their honour, used their triumph with moderation, though
the same city had been the scene of great cruelty when formerly taken
by the Enghsh. In a bull of excommunication against Bruce, the Pope
charged him with a great slaughter of the inhabitants, accompanied with
inhuman cruelty.^ But this is denied by the English historians, whose
testimony was not likely to err on the side of partiality at least,- and one
distinctly affirms that though the English were spoiled and expelled, few or
none, except those who resisted, were slain.^ The lenity shown by Bruce
and the other Scottish leaders is all the more remarkable when it is
remembered what indignities they themselves had suffered at the hands of
the English king. It was in this very place that Douglas's father. Sir
William " Le Hardi," had been imprisoned in irons, and his capture rejoiced
over by his custodiers. Perhaps it was in memory of him that the tower in
^ Theiner's Vetera Monumenta, p. 205. Adam Murimuth. [History of Scotland, voL i.
- Tytler mentions Thomas de la More and p. 318.] ^ Chronicon deLanercost, p. 235.
THE DOUGLAS TOWER IN BERWICK. 141
Berwick, between the castle and the town, was named the Douglas Tower
and afterwards bore that name, being repaired as such in 1357.^ Godscroft
states that the name of the tower in which Sir William was confined was
Hog's Tower ; and it may be that the English themselves changed its name
in memory of its distinguished occupant. But, at any rate, so powerful
had the name become, that it commanded the recognition of both friends
and foes, even by memorials of this kind.
Spalding, through whose instrumentality the conquest of Berwick was
made so easy, was liberally rewarded by King Eobert Bruce with the gift of
certain lands and possessions in Berwick, which at the presentee's request
were afterwards exchanged for the lands of Balzeordie and Pitmudie, in
the county of Forfar, with the keeping of the royal forest of Kilgerry.-
He had formerly been in the service of King Edward the First in Gascony,^
and may not have been trusted by the Scots in Berwick. One of the
English chroniclers, Hardyng,* states that he was ultimately slain by the
Scots, after his departure from Berwick.
By the capture of Berwick the Scottish army was enriched with a great
abundance of the munitions of war ; and while the king, according to
Barbour, abode at Berwick, he sent forward a strong body of men, doubtless
under Douglas and Piandolph, to ravage Northumberland. The Scots on
this occasion extended their inroad to Xewcastle-on-Tyne, and then
returned to Berwick. Bruce resolved not to dismantle this town as he
had done others, but left it with a strong garrison in the custody of his
son-in-law, Walter, the High Steward, and then returned into the Lothians.^
Before, however, disbanding their army the Scots made another raid into
1 Rotuli Scotiae, voL i. p. 799. ^ Chronicon de Lanercost, Notes, p. 420.
^ History of the Carnegies, Earls of ■* Chronicle, Ellis's etUtion, p. 308.
Southesk, by William Eraser, vol. i. p. xiv ; ^ Chronicon de Lanercost, pp, 234, 235 ;
voL ii. p. 482. Barbour's Bruce, pp. 392, 393.
142 SIB JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LOUD OF DOUGLAS.
Eiiglaud in the following month of May, penetrating as far as Eipou and
Knaresborongh, which, with Skipton, Northallerton, and Eoroughbridge, was
given to the flames. Ripon was only saved from a similar fate by the pay-
ment of ransom of a thousand marks. The Scots returned laden with booty,
driving before them a great multitude of cattle and prisoners of both sexes.^
Important political arrangements now demanded the attention of the
Scottish Court. The death of the king's brother. King Edward Bruce, in
Ireland, and also of his daughter, the Princess Marjory, after the birth of her
only child, Eobert Stewart, afterwards King Robert the Second, rendered it
expedient to recall the Act of Settlement made at Ayr in 1315, and to enact
a new one. For this and other legislative work a Parliament assembled at
Scone on 3d December 1318, which, after expressing their own allegiance,
and enjoining the same upon the whole country, declared that in the event of
the kincr's death without surviving issue male, the succession should devolve
upon Robert Stewart. If he succeeded to the crown before reaching majority,
or if any heir of the king's own body succeeded while yet a minor, the office of
tutor to the heir to the throne was devolved upon Thomas Randolph, Earl of
Moray, and in the event of his death, upon James, Lord of Douglas, until the
majority of the community considered the heir able to govern the kingdom in
person. Both Randolph and Douglas accepted the trust reposed in them,
and vowed upon the gospels and the relics of the saints, faithfully and
diligently to observe the same, and to administer the kingdom for the com-
bined welfare of it and the heir to the crown. The rest of the Parliament
took a similar oath, the whole proceedings being conducted with great
solemnity.-
This transaction reflects the highest honour upon Douglas, and shows,
on the one hand, that he possessed not only military qualifications of the
highest order, but also powerful administrative abilities ; and on the other,
1 Barbour's Brace, p. 236. - Acts of tLe Parliaments of Scotland, vol. i. p. 405.
A FFOIXTED TO SUCCEED RA XD OLPH IX THE EEGEXC }; 1 3 1 8 . U 3
the very high appreciation in wliich he was held by the entire nation.
Eaudolph, Earl of Moray, was also valiant, but his being chosen for the
regency was due in part to his blood-relationship to Bruce. Douglas had no
such claim, and owed his election to this very high position wholly to his
personal merits and faithful service to his king and country.
The loss of Berwick was not relished by King Edward the Second, and he
wreaked his vengeance on the unfortunate inhabitants, who, although stripped
of everything they possessed in Berwick by the Scots, were now declared to
have forfeited everything else they had, on account of their fault in allowing
the city to be taken.^ Edward then issued a summons to the Earl of
Lancaster to meet him at York, with all his forces, on the morning after St.
James the Apostle's day (26th July), to proceed against the Scots ; but this
purpose, on account of dissensions between the king and the earl, seems to
have been laid aside.- The instructions for preparation were, however,
renewed in December,^ and Edward, meanwhile, used every art to compass
the overthrow of his foes. He took his case so frequently to the Pope, that
the Fioman Court must have been weary of it, all the more so that all their
fulminations were unheeded. He also implored the Count of Flanders, the
Duke of Brabant, and the towns of Newport, Dunkirk, and others, to exclude
the Scots, supporting his request with the consideration that they were
excommunicated ; but he was met in some cases with a courteous though
firm refusal, while Eobert, Count of Elanders, openly recognised the regal
title of Biobert Bruce.*
At length Edward resolved to strike a blow in person, and from York,
where he had been residing since September 1318, he issued orders in the
following July for the muster of a powerful army at Xewcastle-upon-
Tyne. He enlisted the prayers of the clergy in his behalf, and for their
1 Rymer'a Fcedera, vol. ii. p. 3GU. 3 jj^i^^ p. 330,
2 Ihid. p. 365. ♦ Ihkl pp. 386-394.
Hi SIR JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LOUD OF DOUGLAS.
encouragement, bestowed on many ecclesiastics prospectively a number of the
Scottish prebends and benefices.^ On the 15th August the English army
crossed the Tweed, and thoroughly investing Berwick, both by sea and land,
made energetic preparations for carrying it by storm. The assaults were
carried out with great determination, but the Scots, under the command of
Walter the High Steward, foiled every attempt to obtain an entrance. Their
heroic defence is related at length by Tytler,^ and need not therefore be
repeated here.
To relieve their gallant comrades, Bruce and Douglas planned a raid into
England on an extensive footing, and the latter, with Eandolph, Earl of Moray,
was despatched on this errand, at the head of fifteen thousand men, their inten-
tion being nothing less than to seize the Queen of England, who had been left
in supposed security at York. A Scottish prisoner, however, revealed the plot,
and when the Scots arrived at York they found that their intended prize had
escaped. They made what amends they could to themselves by following
their wonted course of spoliation and plunder, and the town of Boroughbridge
was again given up to conflagration. On this occasion, however, the English
took greater heart. The men-at-arms, indeed, were all with the king's
army at Berwick, but the ecclesiastics were numerous, and highly elated
with the hopes of victory, and of rich rew^ards of Scottish benefices. They
accordingly resolved to strike a blow for their king. Under the guidance
of William of Melton, Archbishop of York, and the Bishop of Ely, about
twenty thousand men, monks, priests, mendicant friars, and peasants, with
the burgesses of York, a rude and undisciplined assemblage, proceeded
to intercept the Scots, which they did at Mitton, a small town on the river
Swale, about twelve miles to the north of York. On their approach the
Scots formed for battle in their accustomed manner, in a close compact mass,
and raising a tremendous shout, so terrified the raw levies headed by the
^ Ryiner's Fcedera, vol. ii. pp. 400-402. - Hiatorj- of Scotland, vol. i. pp. 323-32S.
THE CHAPTER OF MITTOX, 1319. 145
doughty bishops, that their ranks at once wavered, and at the advance of the
Scots, broke and fled. Forming into their separate divisions, tlie Scots
mounted and pursued the flying host, of wliich no fewer than three thousand,
lay and ecclesiastic alike, were put to the sword, and another thousand were
drowned in the attempt to cross the river Swale. As usual, many prisoners
were taken, whose ransom helped to enrich the Scots. This engagement was
popularly called " The Chapter of Mitton," in allusion to the clerical
elements of which the English ranks were composed, and to their priestly
leadersliip. The principal leader indeed escaped, but had cause to rue his
rash adventure, as it reduced him to the necessity of begging.^
The diversion thus made by Douglas and Randolph had the desired effect.
On the news reaching Berwick, dissensions arose again between Edward and
the Earl of Lancaster, wldch resulted in the latter withdrawing from the
siege his complement of the English army, about one-third of the whole.-
The rest of the army were dispirited both by their want of success against
Berwick, and by the intelligence of the ravages of the Scots among their
homes, so that Edward resolved to raise the siege, and attempt to intercept
Douglas and Eandolph on their way home. On learning his intention
the Scottish leaders took another route and reached Scotland with their
spoils unmolested, leaving, for the satisfaction of the English army, their
track marked by fire and desolation. A list of no fewer than between
eighty and ninety English towns and villages burned and destroyed by the
Scots in this expedition in Yorkshire alone is given in letters addressed to
the tax collectors of that county,^ and from such a computation some estimate
1 Chronicon de Lanercost, p. 239 ; Walsing- Scots, and of favouring Bruce's claim to the
ham, p. 89 ; Raine's Historical Papers and sovereignty. He was executed for treason
Letters from Xorthem Registers, pp. 294-296 ; shortly after this. — [Raine's Historical Papers,
Barbour's Bruce, pp. 403-405. etc., p. 285 ; Chronicon de Lanercost, Notes,
'^ Lancaster was strongly suspected of p. 422 ; Barbour's Bruce, p. 415.]
carrying on a secret correspondence ■with the -^ Rymer'a Fcedera, vol. ii. p. 409.
VOL. I. T
14G SIR JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
may be formed of the fearful havoc wrought in the north of England by
these repeated Scottish incursions.
This terrible raid was succeeded by another on the 1st November follow-
ing, under the same two commanders. The inhabitants of the northern
districts of England had just garnered their harvest, when the Scottish
army came sweeping down upon them through Gillsland, burning and
destroying as formerly, and on to Borough-on-Stanmore in "Westmoreland,
where, after ten or twelve days' harrying, they returned through Cumljerlaud,
driving their booty before them, and marking their course in their usual
method.^
After this the Scots were inclined to agree to a truce, and one of two
years' duration was signed, which brought a temporary repose to the warriors
of both countries.- It was cheerfully agreed to by the Scots, remarks an
English historian, not because they were fatigued with their wars, but
because they were satiated with English spoils. ^ The truce was signed on
25th December 1319.
These two years of rest from war w^ere otherwise eventful, both as
regards the kincjdom of Scotland and the domestic concerns of Doudas liim-
self. The Pope had renesved his fulminations against Bruce, even recalling
the slaughter of John Comyn at Dumfries;* and summoning Bruce and several
of the Scottish bishops to his presence.^ Although there were not wanting
evidences that the hand of Edward was in the matter, Bruce deemed it prudent
to endeavour to conciliate the Papal See. Eor this purpose a Parliament
was convened at Arbroath, and the famous letter or manifesto to the Pope
drawn up, which, in the most respectful and reverential language, yet with a
firmness and courage born of the justness of their cause, affirmed the determi-
' Chronicon de Lanercost, p. 240. * Rymer's Fcedera, vol. ii. pp. 407-413.
- Rymer's Fcedera, vol. ii. p. 416. ^ Raine's Letters from Northern Registers,
^ Walsingham, p. 89. pp. 296, 302-304.
RECEIVES G EASTS OF LANDS, 1320. 14'
nation of the Scots to maintain that independence which was their birthright,
and throwing back upon the Pope himself the responsibility of the bloodshed
which must ensue if he continued to favour the English in their unjust pre-
tensions. Nay, while they were and would be obedient sons of the Pope as
God's vicegerent, they committed the defence of their cause to God himself,
the great King and Judge, with full confidence, and in the persuasion that
He would endow them with strength and overthrow their enemies. To this
document, alonir with the rest of the nobles, Douglas affixed his seaL"^
It was about this time that the long and disinterested services of Douglas
were in some measure recognised by the grant of the lands, castle, and forest
of Jedburgh, with the town of Bonjedward,^ and of tlie barony of Stabilgorton
in Eskdale,^ both dated at Arbroath, the 6th of May 1320. A month pre-
viously, while the Court was at Berwick, before removing to Arbroath, he
received the important charter of his own ancestral domains of Douglasdale
and Carmichael, which is known as the boundary charter, as it describes with
some minuteness the limits of the Douglas territory in the county of Lanark ;*
and even anterior to this he had obtained a gift of the lands of Polbuthy in
Moffatdale.^ The Soulis conspiracy was the cause of another estate being
conferred upon the Lord of Douglas, that of the extensive barony of
Watstirker or Westerkirk in Eskdale.^ William de Soulis, wdio had but
recently been received into favour by Bruce, and on account of his connection
with the blood-royal, was created high butler of Scotland, formed a plot
to assassinate Bruce and others, with the object of setting himself upon
the throne, as the lineal descendant of the illegitimate daughter of King
1 The letter is dated Gth April 1.320. Acts ^ Dated ISth December 1.318. Vol. iii. of
of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. i, p. 475. this work, p. 9.
2 VoL iii. of this work. « Charters, dated 20th April and 30th Seji-
3 Ibid. p. 10. tember 1321, voL iii. of this work, p. 10 ;
* Dated 1st April 1320. Vol. iii. of this work. Registrum Honoris de Morton, vol. ii. p. 20.
148 .SIR JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
Alexander the Second, who had married Alan Uurward. The conspiracy was
revealed by the Countess of Strathern, and after being tried and condemned
by the Parliament held at Scone in August 1320, popularly called the "Black
Parliament," Soulis and his accomplices were executed, and their lands
forfeited to the crown.
Douglas also about this time obtained grants of the forests of Selkirk,
Ettrick, and Traquair,^ sometimes known by the simpler designation of
Ettrick Forest, or The Forest, also the constabulary of Lauder or Lauder-
dale,2 with the barony of Bedrule in Teviotdale. He likewise received the
lands of Cockburn in Berwickshire, which had come into the power of
the Crown by the forfeiture of Sir Peter Luband, a Gascon knight, some
time governor of Edinburgh Castle under the English. The possession of
some at least of these lands at this period is proved by a gift made by
James, Lord of Douglas, to Pioger de Moravia, son of the lately deceased
Archibald de Moravia, of the tenement of Fala, in the barony of Heriot. This
important charter, which defines the boundaries of this early possession of
the Murrays of Falahill and Philiphaugh, w^as granted at Newbattle Abbey
on 1st September 1321.^ The gift was bestowed on Eoger of Murray in
return for his services to the Lord of Douglas ; and at the pressing request
of the latter, the Abbot of Newbattle, two months later, bestowed on
Murray the privilege of drawing water from a moss situated on the west
side of the way called "Derestrete" (probably the Eoman road, as it is
elsewhere called the via regia or highway) into the ditch (matriccm fossaw)
which forms the boundary between the Abbot's lands and Colden. For
this right Murray w^as to pay the sum of three shillings yearly to the Abbey.*
Towards the close of the period of truce between Scotland and England
the relations between the two countries became somewhat complex. The
1 Robertson's Index, p. 10, No. 24. ^ Vol. iii. of this work.
• Ibid. p. 10, No. 21. * Registrum de Neubotle, p. 229.
NEGOTIATIONS WITH EARL OF LANCASTER, 1321. 149
Earl of Lancaster raised a rebellion in the north of England, in which he
allied himself with the Scots, the negotiations between them being proved
by letters of safe-conduct to one of Lancaster's emissaries from Donglas/
and also from Randolph,- the former evidently as warden of the ]\rarches,
the latter as lieutenant of the kingdom. Other letters passed between
Douglas and the conspirators, which, though not signed by him, were sealed
with his seal.^ A document found after death upon the body of the Earl
of Hereford, who sided with Lancaster, gives further evidence of the con-
spiracy. It was agreed that Bruce, Randolph, and Douglas should assist
Lancaster, whom they designated King Arthur, wherever and whenever sucli
assistance was required, in England, Wales, or Ireland, without claiming any
share in the conquests achieved by him. On the other hand, Lancaster
and his supporters promised never to tight in future against the Scots, and
when their own ends were accomplished, to do what lay in their power to
secure a durable peace between the two nations on the basis of Scottish
independence.'*
Perhaps it w\as in fulfilment of part of this programme that only a fort-
night after the truce between the two kingdoms had expired, Douglas,
Eandolph, and Walter the High Steward engaged in another of those
incursions which had already so desolated the northern provinces of England,
as it appears that Douglas met with the chief conspirators at Lancaster's seat
at Pontefract.^ It may, however, have been spontaneous on the part of the
Scots, either on account of the spirit in which Edward had kept the truce,
or because of intelligence that it was the English king's intention to resume
hostilities at once, or both causes combined. At any rate, it was ever
Douglas's policy to strike swiftly and surely, and by being first in the field
1 Vol. iv. of this work, p. 53 ; Rymer's ^ Vol. iv. of this work, pp. 54, 55.
Fcedera, vol. ii. p. 463. . * Rymer's Fcedera, vol. iL p. 479.
2 Ibkl p. 472. 5 /^/f^, pp, 4(57^ 474,
150 SIR JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
he was able to disconcert his foe not a little. On this occasion Durham was
again the theatre of operations, and while Randolph remained at Dermiugton,
Douglas and the High Steward respectively visited the districts surround-
ing Hartlepool and Richmond, the last-named place redeeming itself from
destruction by a timely indemnity.^ It was immediately after this that
Lancaster's insurrection was overthrown by Edward's troops, and the Earl
himself beheaded at Pontefract.-
The success of his arms against his revolutionary subject inspired Edward
still more w^ith the desire to visit the Scots with a similar chastisement. He
accordingly made preparations on an elaborate scale for invading the northern
kingdom, and when the Pope, after receiving the letter from the King and
Parliament of Scotland, wrote recommending Edward to make peace with
Bruce, Edward replied requesting the Pope to give himself no further trouble
ou that score, as he had resolved to secure a lasting peace by force of arms."^
On learning this intention, Bruce, in person, made another destructive raid
into England as far as the town of Lancaster, where he was reinforced Ijy
Douglas and Randolph, when they penetrated to Preston, and five miles
beyond that town, a distance altogether of over eighty miles from Scotland.
Many religious houses were on this occasion sacrificed, and on their return,
after spending nearly three weeks in England, the Scots invested Carlisle
for five days, and devastated all the country around through which they
passed. This may have been done to avenge the death of their late ally, the
Earl of Lancaster, and the demonstration at Carlisle, the seat of the new
Warden of the jMarches, Sir Andrew Hartcla, who had been instrumental in
Lancaster's death, was probably intended to apprise that leader of the
contempt in which they held him. Their return into Scotland with an
immense amount of plunder and many prisoners was effected only on the
^ Chronicon de Lanercost, pp. 241, 242.
2 Ibid. pp. 242-245. ^ Eymer's Fcedera, vol. ii. p. 4S1.
I.yVASIOX OF .SCOTLAND BY EDWARD II., 1322. 151
day preceding that ou which the English army had been appointed to muster
at Newcastle, 25th July.^
Despatching a fleet to the Firth of Forth with supplies for his huge
army, estimated to consist of one hundred thousand men, and also fitting
out a squadron to operate on the west coast of Scotland, Edward himself
set forward on August 1st. His progress through the south of Scotland
was unopposed, the population having removed themselves, with their
cattle and goods, either into strongholds or to inaccessible mountiun
fastnesses. The English accordingly found themselves obliged to rely
for support upon what they had brought with them until they reached
Edinburgh. Here, however, disappointment also awaited them. Bruce had
retired across the Forth, which the English ships, owing to contrary winds,
could not enter. Edward remained at Edinburgh three days, during which
he sent out foraging parties to scour the Lothians. They succeeded, says
Barbour, in getting one lame cow at Tranent,^ but as it did not go far towards
meeting the exigencies of the case a retreat was ordered. Starvation proved
" sterner than steel," and as they hastened their march through the desert
by which they had come, they found the vigilant Warden of the Scottish
Marches quite on the alert, and ready to take advantage of any opportunities
which disorganisation in the English host might afford.
1 Chronicon de Lanercost, p. 246 ; ilymer's with the rest of the cattle. The "conquest,"
Fcedera, vol. ii. p. 485. however, cost the English a knight, for at the
coal mines at Tranent a lame rustic, a collier,
- Barbour's Bruce, p. 427. This historian armed with a long hooked stick, drew one of
says that the animal obtained at Tranent cost the English knights otf his horse, and cora-
upwards of a thousand pounds. What is pelled him to pay a good round sum for his
implied may be gathered from an anecdote ransom. His redemption, says Fordun, en-
related by Fordun about the same thing. In riched the poor man. No wonder the Earl of
their foray, he says, the English could only Warenne remarked that the ilesh of that co>v
find one lame bull which it had not been was by far too dear.— [Goodall's Fordun,
found possible to remove to a place of safety vol. ii. p. 27 S.]
152 SIR JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
A company of three hundred soldiers was sent forward to occupy the
abbey of iNIelrose, whom Douglas attacked and nearly exterminated. This
deterred the now debilitated English army from encamping in the neigli-
bourhood, and hastened their departure across the Border, after taking what
revenge they could by destroying the monasteries of Melrose and Dryburgli
and killiniz a few feeble monks who had not been able to flee. On arrivintr
in their own country the soldiers fell so voraciously upon the food furnished
to them, that in addition to those already slain by starvation great numbers
died of dysentery, the total loss being about sixteen thousand men.
While Edward re-entered England by the East Marches, Bruce, ^Wth
a force which Barbour states as eighty thousand men, crossed the Sol way
Firth, and after wasting all the country around Carlisle, proceeded to lay
siege to Xorham Castle, on the river Tweed. Here, probably, he was
joined by Douglas, and as the fortress was too strong to be quickly reduced,
the siege was suddenly raised.
Edward had by this time reached Biland Abbey, a religious house between
Thirsk and Malton in Yorkshire, where he reinforced his army by new levies,
and rested while they assembled. Here he received the news of the aban-
donment of the siege of Xorham Castle, and again taking heart, issued orders
for the further increase of his army to pursue the war. Bruce, however, had
left Norham only for a bolder venture, nothing less than to meet the English
king and Ids army on their own soil, and indeed in the very heart of England.
The Scots made their advance secretly, choosing a way through the
rocky district of Blakhoumer, which, on account of its inaccessibility,
they had hitherto avoided. Desolation, as usual, marked their entire
course. Directing their march towards the Abbey of Biland, the Scots
encountered a strong English force under Sir John of Brittany, Earl of
Itichmond, who had been sent out to reconnoitre the advance of the Scots.
The English posted themselves along a steep and rugged hill between
BATTLE OF BILAXD ABBEY, 1322. i^:;
the abbeys of Bilaiid and Eivaulx, across which, through a narrow pass,
lay the way to Biland. A council of the Scottish commanders was lield,
and Douglas vohmteered either to force tlie pass or compel the Engli.sh
to come down to the plain. His offer was accepted, and the bravest of
the Scots at once flocked to his banner. As he proceeded to the scene of
conflict he was joined by Eandolph, Earl of Moray, who, rather than remain
among the spectators, w^ent simply as a volunteer. The entrance to the pass
w^as contested by Sir Thomas Uchtred and Sir Kalph Cobham, two English
knights, but, after a stubborn resistance, both were overpowered, and Cobham
fled, while Uchtred, disdaining to do so, was taken prisoner.
A more formidable impediment to the passage of the Scots was caused
by the stones and masses of rock which the English on the heights hurled
down upon them. To check this, Bruce selected from his ranks all the
" Irishry " of the Western Isles and Argyllshire, wdio, from their experience
among their native mountains, were as nimble as deer. These he directed to
scale the crags and attack the English from above, wliicli was done, and the
English were driven from the hill. Their main body did not await the
arrival of the Scots, who now rapidly defiled through the pass, and Edward,
as soon as he heard of Eichmoud's discomfiture, lost no time in taking his
departure from Biland Abbey, hotly pursued by Walter the High Steward
to the gates of York.^ So suddenly had he been compelled to take to flight,
that the royal plate, treasure, and baggage were left to their fate, and as had
been the case on his inglorious flight from Bannockburn, when he was chased
by Douglas to Dunbar, so now for a second time Edward sustained the loss
of his privy seal.-
» Tytler say3 that the chase lay in the which indeed was the English king's nearest
opposite direction to Bridlington ; but Bar- place of refuge.
hour, Walsingham, Leland, and the Chronicle
of Lanercoat, all agree that it was to York, " Rymer's Foedera, vol. ii. p. 498.
VOL. I. U
154 .S77i' JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
His army, which lay around Bikmd, was routed with great slaughter.
Many fled to the neighbouring abbey of Ilivaulx, on the river Eye, but it
was soon reduced, and not a few prisoners of note were there taken, including
the Earl of riichmond, and Henry of Sully, grand butler of France, who,
with other French knights, had joined the standard of Edward. It fared ill
with Eichmond, who, on account of some insolent remarks, which had been
reported to Eruce, was treated with marked disdain, and placed in strict
confinement, until, after some lapse of time, he was ransomed for twenty
thousand pounds.^
The French knights, on the other hand, were treated with kindness and
courtesy, invited to remain at the Scottish court while they pleased, and
afterwards, when they desired to return to France, Bruce loaded them with
gifts, and sent them away. The Scots spoiled the monasteries of Biland and
Eivaulx, enriching themselves with Edward's private treasures, then spreading
over the district as far as the "Wolds, and all around York, they scattered
desolation and destruction everywhere. At Beverley they stayed their hand,
being prevailed upon to spare that town in return for an indenmity of four
hundred pounds ; then admonished of the approach of winter, and having
spent upwards of a month in England, they retraced their steps homeward,
entering Scotland on the 2d November with a multitude of prisoners of
varied rank, and with immense spoil, both of kind and cattle.^
To Douglas himself at the battle of Biland three French knights, with
their squires, had surrendered, Eobert and William Bertram and Elias
^ Barbour's Bruce, p. 43G. The Pope threw - Barbour's Bruce, pp. 431-437; Chronicon
upon Edward the duty of raasoming llich- de Lanercost, pp. 247, 248 ; Lelands Coi-
mond and Sully. — [Rymer's Foedera, vol. ii. lectanea, vol. i. j). 250; Walsingham, p. 9.5;
p. 507.] Sully afterwards repaid Bruce's Goodall's Fordun, vol. ii. pp. 27S, 279 ;
kindness by acting as intermediary in the Raine's Letters from Northern Registers, pp.
negotiations for peace which followed this 316-323.
battle.— [//./V, p. .-.11.] ^
THE EMERALD CHARTER, 1324. \5r>
Anillage, whose ransom was fixed at four thousand four hundred nierks
sterling. To please the King of France, Bruce, as already stated, extended
special favours to the captured French knights, and in return for foregoing;
the amount of the ransom of these three, Douglas received from Bruce
the famous grant known as the Emerald Charter. This was a gift, not
of lands, but of the criminal jurisdiction of all the extensive baronies
which Douglas held of the Crown at that time ; of the " indictments of
robberies, and full administration thereof," over all his lands M'ithin the
kingdom, with the exception of articles relating to manslaughter and the
Crov/n, which the king reserved. It further freed James, Lord of Douglas, and
his heirs and tenants, from all the usual feudal services, such as suits of court,
warding of castles, poindings and captions, etc., except the common aid
due for the defence of tlie realm. One feature which was unique about this
grant was the mode of investiture, which was given by the king taking
an emerald ring off his own finger and placing it on the finger of the Lord
of Dou2:las, as an endurincr memorial in name of sasine, that the errant
should be firm and secure to him and his heirs for ever. It is also worthy
of remark that the grant is made absolute, and is not accompanied with any
terms of reddendo. This extensive judicial authority was conferred on
Douglas when the king and he were together at Ber\vick-on-Tweed, on 8th
November 132i.^
King Eobert during the month following the grant of the Emerald
Charter to Douglas appears to have remained in the town of Berwick,
disposing of the lands there which had belonged to his rebeUious subjects.
Here, too, he received in open council the resignation of a portion of
the lands of Alexander of Keith, which lay in the barony of Longforgan.
Thence he proceeded to Arbroath, where, ou 6 th Februar}', James, Lord
of Douglas, attested a regrant of these lands to Alexander Keith, and
* Vol. iii. of this work, pp. 11, 12.
156 Sm JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
failiucr heirs-male, to his dauLrhter Allies and her husljand, William Aveiiel.^
The king, however, returned to Berwick at the close of this month, and
here Sir James, Lord of Douglas, received a gi-ant of the lands of Buittle
in Galloway. This included the whole parish of that name, with the
exception of the lands of Corbettoun, and those belonging to Patrick
MacGibbothyn. The lands of Buittle, of which the marches are explicitly
stated, and on which was situated the castle of John Baliol, were given to
Sir James Douglas and his heirs in free barony, with exclusive jurisdiction,
except in the four pleas of the Crown, and with the rights of patronage of
churches, liberty of burgh, wreck of the sea, anchorages of harbours, etc.,
for a pair of gilt spurs yearly to be rendered at Troqueer.-
In the month of March following King Robert the Bruce held his
Parliament at Scone. Sir James Douglas was present, and received from
the king a special connnission in favour of the monks of Melrose. To rebuild
their church from the ruins left by the English army in their last retreat
from Scotland, King Eobert at this time granted to the abbot and convent
all the duties exigible from the justiciary and sheriff-courts of Eoxburghshire,
to the extent of two thousand pounds sterling. The officials were instructed
to give this debt of the king preference over all other claims until the amount
was paid. To insure that these dues were diligently collected and faithfully
paid to the church, Bruce appointed James, Lord of Douglas, super-auditor
of the accounts, and executor, with viceregal powers of justiciary, for enforc-
ing the payment.^ The amount, however, had not been realised forty-three
years later, as in 13G9, King David the Second confirmed the gift made by
his father, and appointed Sir Archibald of Douglas in room of his late father,
Sir James, to oversee the discharge of the debf*
1 Original Charter in Glamis Charter-chest. ^ Liber de Melros, vol. ii. pp. 325, 326.
* Confirmation of charter, 10th September
2 Vol. iii. of this work, pp. 12, 13. 1369, ihhl pp. 405-407.
TRUCE WITH ENGLAND, 1325. 157
During the years 1325 or 1326, Douglas, in company with Bishop Lam-
berton of St. Andrews, paid a visit to the castle of Tarbert on the east coast
of Kintyre, tlien in process of erection. This is shown by the following entry
in the Chamberlain Eolls for that period : " To litter for the chambers of the
Lord Lishop of St. Andrews, and Sir James, Lord of Douglas, with the cutting
and carriage of branches of birch for repairing the hall and chambers, 2s. 2kl."^
The ruins of this castle still form a picturesque object on the coast of Argyll-
shire. King Eobert appears in his later years to have taken delight in
cruising about the western islands, and he was probably so engaged when
Douglas and the Bishop of St. Andrews were at Tarbert.
After his disastrous defeat at Biland Abbey in 1322, Edward the
Second of England was fain to obtain a truce from the hands of Bruce,
who, however, only consented after the Grand Butler of France, Henry de
Sully, had used his influence in Edward's favour. During the negotiations
Bruce manifested his contempt for his foe by giving out that he was
about to send another expedition into England, the news of which caused
the English king to summon his vassals for defence of the country. They
were, however, spared the invasion, and a truce of thirteen years' duration
was at last arranged, in the course of which Edward was obliged to acknow-
ledge Bruce as King of Scotland.- Sir James of Douglas was one of the
magnates of Scotland, whose oaths for the observance of the truce Edward of
England directed his Commissioners to receive.^ It was with no good
will that Edward entered into the truce at all, and he resorted to his
former practice of stirring up the Pope against the Scots. Randolph, Earl
of Moray, had been despatched to Ptome by Bruce to endeavour to conciliate
the Pope, and so far succeeded that the latter addressed a bull to Bruce, in
which he addressed him as King of Scotland. This gave offence to Edward,
1 Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, vol. i. p. 58.
2 Rymer'a Foedera, vol. ii. pp. 510-524. ^ Ibid. p. 522.
158
SIR JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
who, on remonstrating with the Pope, received the reply that it had been
done for prudential reasons, and not in the way of determining Bruce's right
to the throne of Scotland. The Pope desired that his missive should reach
Bruce, and, no doubt, mindful of the treatment which his emissaries received
at the hands of the Scots when on a former occasion they sought to deliver
letters to the king without due acknowledgments, did not desire to see them
again rejected. Edward, however, so far succeeded in his persistent negotia-
tions at Eome that at his special instance the petition of the Scots for
the removal of the ecclesiastical censures under which they lay was refused,
and for this he was profusely grateful.^ At another time he found fault with
the wardens of the Marches for granting safe-conducts too freely to the
Scots,^ and shortly afterwards instructed the Bishop of Durham and others
to fortify the castles of Norham, Alnwick, and others against the Scots. ^
But in the same year he was deposed from the throne of England by his
own son.
England's relations with Scotland did not improve with the assumption
of the reins of government by King Edward the Third. He was but a boy
at the time, and though his Council were bound to respect the treaty
between the two countries, they did so in a manner which, in connection
with former marks of disrespect, provoked the Scots to resentment. Bruce's
regal dignity was ignored, and acts of piracy were committed on Scottish
merchant ships at sea,-* until Bruce, says Tytler, declared his resolution of
disregarding a truce already violated by one of the parties, and of instantly
invading England, unless prevented by a speedy and advantageous peace.^
The Scots appear to have been the aggressors in this open breach of the
truce, and Bruce is even said to have sent a challenge to the King of
England. If the representations of the English authorities are to be accepted.
' Rymer's Fceclera, vol. ii. pp. 609, 613.
•' Ihid. p. 624. 3 jiia, p 620.
* Barbour's Bruce, p. 446.
'•' History of Scotland, vol. i. p. .3.")0.
THE SCOTTISH SOLD III RY IX 1327. I'^f)
Edward was in the belief that they were merely coming to the BorJor.s
for the ratification of the truce, when the Scots laid siege to Norham Castl^
on the very night of the young king's coronation at London.^ On learning
this, Edward gave orders for a general muster of his army at Newcastle-
on-Tyne,- and declared his intention of being himself present in person at
the Assendjly.
In his brilliant and sparkling narrative of the events of this time,
Froissart includes the story of the campaign which now ensued between
Scotland and England. He gives so lively a picture of the Scottish soldiery
of the period, and of their mode of foray and warfare, that though it has
been often quoted, it is impossible to resist the temptation of transfening it
to these pages.
" The Scots are bold, hardy, and much inured to war. When they make
their invasions into England, they march from twenty to four-and-twenty
leagues (miles) without halting, as well by night as day ; for they are all on
horseback, except the camp-followers, who are on foot. The knights and
squires are well mounted on large bay horses, the common people on little
Galloways. They bring no carriages with them on account of the mountains
they have to pass in Xorthumberland ; neither do they carry with them any
provisions of bread or wine ; for their habits of sobriety are such in time of
war that they will live for a long time on flesh half-sodden, without bread,
and drink the river-water without wine. They have, therefore, no occasion
for pots or pans ; for they dress the flesh of their cattle in the skins, after
they have taken them off: and, being sure to find plenty of them in the
country which they invade, they carry none with them. Under the fla]) of
his saddle, each man carries a broad plate of metal ; behind the saddle, a httle
l»ag of oatmeal: when they have eaten too much of the sodden flesh, and
their stomach appears weak and empty, they place this plate over the fire,
' Ist February 1327. Chronicon ile Lanercost, p. 25S. - Eymer's Fcedera, vol. ii. p. 702.
IGO SIR JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
mix with water their oatmeal, and when the pL^te is heated, they put a little
of the paste upon it, and make a thin cake, like a cracknel or biscuit, which
they eat to warm their stomachs : it is therefore no wonder that they perform
a longer day's march than other soldiers. In this manner the Scots entered
England, destroying and burning everything as tliey passed. They seized
more cattle than they knew what to do with. Their army consisted of four
thousand men-at-arms, knights and esquires, well mounted ; besides twenty
thousand men, bold and hardy, armed after the manner of their countr}', and
moimted upon little hackneys, that are never tied up or dressed, but turned
immediately after the day's march to pasture on the heath, or in the fields.
This army was commanded by two valiant captains. The King of Scotland
himself, who had been very brave, yet being old, and labouring under a
leprosy, appointed for one that gallant prince, so renowned in arms, the Earl
of Moray, who bore upon his banner argent three pillows gules; the other was
Sir James Douglas, esteemed the bravest and most enterprising knight in the
two kingdoms : he bore for arms, azure on a chief argent. These two lords
were the greatest barons, and most renowned for their prowess and other feats
of arms."
Another vivacious chronicler, Holinshed, refers to the appearance of
the English soldiery in this campaign. They were all clothed in coats and
hoods embroidered with flowers and branches very seemly, and they used to
nourish their beards. He adds that the Scots, in derision thereof, made the
following rhyme, which they affixed to the church-door of St. Peter toward
Stangate : —
" long bearHco, f^arteleeac,
IPapntcD l)OODC0, tDptlcisflC,
(Sape coatc0, cracclcasc,
itia&e ©nclanuc tljriftlcijsc.'"^
As Froissart observes, Bruce was now no longer capable of persoiialh'
^ Holinshed's Chronicle, vol. ii. p. S90.
THE CAMPAIGN IX WEAR DALE, 1327. IGI
conducting the expeditions of his army, as he was afflicted with the disease of
leprosy. To his well-tried generals, therefore. Sir James of Douglas, and
Randolpli, Earl of Moray, the king committed the command of the Scott isli
army in three di^'isions. With them he associated Donald, Earl of Mar, a
kinsman of his own. Before the end of June, Eandolph and Douglas crossed
the Border, devastating all the parts of Northumberland through which they
passed, and ravaging the whole district of Weardale in Durham.^ Thence
they proceeded to Appleby in Westmoreland, and their arrival there was
signified, about 1st July, to the young King of England in a letter by his
uncle, the Earl of Kent.- Upon this Edward tlie Third, then at Durham, gave
orders for strongly fortifying the city of York, as his mother, brother, and
sisters were to remain there during the war ; ^ and placing himself at the head
of a magnificent army, numbering altogether between fifty and one hundred
thousand men (historians fluctuate between these two figures), he proceeded,
it is said, to Barnard Castle.* The Scottish array, composed, as Froissart
relates, of light and heavy cavalry, amounted to about twenty-four thousand
men. Though their whereabouts was indicated by the smoke of burnin"
villages and the desolation which usually marked the track of the Scots in
England, the English leaders could not come up with the Scottisli army.
Yet the latter were only a few miles in advance. Two days were spent in
this fruitless chase, the Scots leading their pursuers over mountain and
valley and through marshes until the English soldiery were completely
exhausted. There were such marshes, and savage deserts, mountains and
dales, says Froissart, that the English soldiers were forbidden, on pain of
death, to pass before the banners of the marshals. Edward and his
councillors were, however, determined to prevent the return of the Scots to
their own country, and at midnight the English army was called to arms to
1 Barbour's Bruce, p. 4-18. ^ Kymer's Fa>dera, vol. ii. p. 709.
2 Cbronicon de Lanercost, p. 539. * Chrouicon de Lanercost, p. 259.
VOL. I. X
1G2 SIR JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
pursue their journey at break of day. The object in view was by a forced
march to take possession of Hayden Bridge on the Tyne, by which it was
expected the Scots would cross that river. So confident were the En-^lish
O
commanders of bringing the Scots thus to a final and decisive- engagement,
that each soldier was ordered to carry with him but one loaf of bread, and no
provision was made for the horses, while all baggage was to be left in the
wood in which they were encamped.
When day began to appear the English set forward in all haste, " through
mountains, valleys, and rocks, and many evil passages." Night was falling
again when tlie vanguard of the army reached the Tyne, but a passage
was effected, and Edward, with a large portion of his army, took up
their position on the north bank of that river, in small comfort, as they
had brought no implements with them to construct lodgings, neither had
they food. To add to their discomfiture, rain began to fall heavily, which
swelled the river to such a height that the passage of the rest of the
army in the morning was rendered impossible. In these circumstances
the English host remained, some on the one side, and some on the other
side of tlie river, for eight days, during winch they knew not where the
Scots were, but still expecting they would return by this ford as they had
come by it. The Scots, on the other hand, knew as little about the where-
abouts of the English host, and so they remained posted strongly on a hill
in Weardale, beside the river Wear. But the comfort and plenty in their
camp was in perfect contrast with the wretched and famine-stricken condition
of their foes.
After a seven days' sojourn on the banks of the rain-swollen Tyne, the
discontent and murmurs of the soldiers compelled the English commanders
to abandon their resolution of awaiting the arrival of the Scots. Edward
accordingly, on the 27th of July, gave orders for recrossing the river and
returning southwards on the following day. At the same time he offered the
DISCOVERY OF THE SCOTTISH ARMY. 1G3
reward of kniglithood from his own hands and the heritable gift of a huudred-
poimd land to the man who first brought tidings of the whereabouts of thu
Scots. This caused a number of squires and knights to scour the country
around, and one of these, Thomas de Rokeby, had the good fortune to fall
into the hands of the Scottish outposts. Eokeby was led before the Scottish
commanders, to whom he frankly confessed his mission, and the reward
promised by Edward. They at once dismissed him in order to earn his
reward, with instructions to make aU haste and to inform the English king
that they had been waiting his advance for the last eight days in as perfect
ignorance of his whereabouts as he had been of theirs, and that they would
now be glad to meet with him.
Meanwhile the English host was slowly retracing their steps southward,
and had already spent three days on the march, amid the tokens of the
desolation wrought by the Scots. On the fourth day, the 1st of August,
as they approached Blanchland on the Derwent, where the ruins of the little
abbey there reminded them of their hitherto unseen foes, Rokeby came up in
all haste to the king with his information and message that the Scots were
awaiting his attack within a few miles of his present position. After resting
and collecting his troops, and conferring on Rokeby his well-earned reward"
Edward set forward under the guidance of the newly-made knight. In a
short space the armies were in view of each other for the first time, although
the campaign had already extended over a fortnight.
Barbour narrates that on the approach of the English host, Douglas went
out to reconnoitre, leaving his comrade Randolph in charge of the camp. On
the return of Douglas, Randolph inquired if he had seen the enemy, and,
in reply, Douglas told him of the splendour of the English host, of their
immense numbers, and that they were advancing in no fewer tlian seven
battles. Randolph met the inteUigence with the response that though
they were as many again, they should fight with them. To which DougL
164 .9/7? JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
is said to have replied, " Sir, praised be God that we liave a commander that
dare undertake such deeds ; but, by St. Bride, if my counsel be taken, we
shall by no means fight unless at a clear advantage; for, in my opinion,
where the numbers are so disproportionate, it is no dishonour to the weaker
party to use every advantage they may chance to obtain." ^
On this principle Sir James Douglas carried out this entire campaign,
and brought it to a successful issue, while to have acted on Randolph's
chivalric but imprudent suggestion, would have been to court certain destruc-
tion. Both leaders were largely gifted with a high degree of bravery and
courageous daring ; but Douglas, while on all fitting occasions displaying his
activity and jDrowess, in which he at no time more distinguished himself than
in this campaign, qualified it with such a measure of patient and cautious
prudence, that it was almost impossible ever to find Mm off his guard.
When the English leaders perceived the strong and impregnable position
chosen by Douglas,— a high hill, at the foot of which ran in a rocky bed the
rapid river Wear, his army, in three divisions, commanding the precipitous
heights at every point,— they felt that an attack on the Scots, posted as they
were, was a hopeless task, and resorted to stratagem in order to allure
them from the hill. Heralds were sent to invite the Scots to come down to
the plain, and the English offered to give them time to set their battle in
array tliere, or else to allow them to pass the river and obtain a footing on
tlie other side. But the Scots declined the request, and returned a message
that as they had come without the leave of the English king and his lords,
and had done as they pleased in their passage through the country, which the
English might amend if they could, so they would remain where they were
so long as it pleased themselves. The Englisli thereupon resolved to besiege
the hill, as they could not storm it, thinking to starve the Scots into submis-
sion, as they knew they were destitute of other provisions, although they had
^ Barbour's Bruce, pp. 44S, 449.
EXGAGEMEXTS BETWEEN THE TWO HOSTS. 1G:
great abundance of cattle. For three days the armies faced each other on
opposite sides of the river. On one of these days the English detached a
force of one thousand archers, inwardly well fortified by wine, and supported
by a body of men-at-arms, to endeavour to break the ranks of the Scots
by an attack on their flank. Douglas observed the movement, and at once
took steps to meet it. Placing a strong body of mounted spearmen under
the command of his youngest brother, Archibald Douglas,^ and the P'arl of
Mar, he pointed out a place of concealment where he desired them to lie in
wait until they got his signal to pursue and slay the foe. Donning a gown
over his armour, Douglas went forward to meet the archers, and when within
a short distance, began to retreat in the direction of the ambuscade. It was
not until they were within bowshot of the Scots, that an English knight
spurred his horse forward to the archers to warn them that the man tliey
were following was none other than Douglas, who would play them a trick.
At the mention of the name, the boldest quailed, and the whole body of the
archers turned and fled. Too late ; Douglas raised his hand, and the hidden
spearmen dashed forward to the rout. Before the archers regained the river
three hundred bodies strewed the field. So vigorous Avas the chase, that Sir
William Erskine, a Scottish knight of that day's creation, was borne by
his charger into the midst of the Englishmen, who made him prisoner. But
he was immediately exchanged for several Englishmen taken by the Scots.
Another attempt of a similar kind was met by Douglas with equal
success. The English knew there was no possibility of their prevailing
unless they could dislodge the Scots from their chosen heights. Secreting a
1 Archibald Douglas is said also to have slaughter. — [Scalacronica, p. 154.] Hailes
signalised himself in this campaign by forag- thinks this must have occurred when Edward
ing expeditions in Durham, and to have was camping by the river Tyne. — [Annals,
encountered a band of Englishmen at Dar- vol. iii. p, 72.]
lington, whom he defeated with great
166 Sm JA}fES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
strong force in a valley behind the Scots, the English leaders formed the rest
of their entire strengtli in line of battle in front, and advanced to the attack.
The Scots descended to meet them, but having been apprised by his scouts of
the ambush in rear of the liill, Douglas caused his soldiers to return at once
to the summit, where tliey could with ease defend themselves against both
attacks if made. " They flee," cried the English. " Xot so," replied Sir John
of Hainault, the leader of the foreign cavalry employed by Edward, who at
once perceived the stratagem. "That flight is well planned. I see their
armed men behind them, and they are but assuming their former position,
ready to defend themselves if pressed. They have seen our ambush. Yon
folk are wisely governed, and their leader for advice, worship, and wisdom,
is fit to govern the empire of Eome." ^
During the three nights spent by them on the hill, the Scots kept large
fires burning, and raised a great din by blowing horns and uttering
tremendous shouts. When the morning of the fourth day dawned, to the
astonishment of the English, the hill which the night before had resounded
with the shouts of the Scots was now bare and tenantless. A search for
the truant foes resulted in their discovery in the afternoon, posted on
another hill in Stanhope Park, by the same river side, about two miles
distant from their former camp, and in a position even more inaccessible than
the former, being defended by the river in front and by a spacious forest in
the rear. Hither they were followed by the English, who likewise took up a
position on the north bank of the Wear similar to the one they formerly
occupied.
That same night when the English host had just settled into repose, Sir
James of Douglas, choosing out two hundred (according to Froissart, althou-'di
Barbour says five hundred) of his sturdiest men-at-arms, rode off silently,
and having crossed the river at some distance from the rival camps, accosted
* Barbour's Bruce, pp. 447-454.
IiWASIOy OF THE EXGLISII CAMP. ic;
the English outposts with the remark, " Ha, St. George ! no watch !" Thinking
him one of their own officers on his rounds, they made no opposition, and
Douglas dashed furiously into the English camp, he and his men slashiiig at
the tent ropes as they went, bringing down the canvas about the sleeping
soldiers, and slaying any they came across. With a select few, Douglas
himself pressed forward to the royal pavilion, cut the ropes, and would have
slain the young king had not the royal chaplain and several of the king's
personal attendants sacrificed their own lives, and suffered the king to escape.
The alarm had now been raised, and Douglas, whose terror-inspiring name
had been resounding through the English camp, blew his horn, and gathering
his men, charged back through his rapidly thickening foes. At one point,
according to Earbour, the leader was cut off from his companions by a resolute
Saxon armed with a massive club ; but Douglas's great strength once more
saved him, and the fellow was slain. With insignificant loss, Douglas
regained the shelter of his own camp, and to Eandolph's inquiry as to the
success of his expedition, replied, with a touch of disappointment in his
tone, that " They had drawn blood, but that w^as all."
Randolph was of a mind to fight in open battle, but Douglas would not
consent, and gave it as his opinion that they should retreat towards
Scotland. To enforce his advice, Douglas is represented by Barbour as
telling Randolph the story of a fox which entered the lodge of a fisher-
man in his absence, and proceeded to breakfast on a salmon which lay
there. The fox was disturbed in his meal by the return of the fisherman,
who, on observing the intruder, seized a weapon and stationed himself in the
doorway. Tins being the only means of exit, the fox was nonplussed, but
observing the fisherman's mantle lying on the bed, seized it with his teeth,
and drew it across the fire, which was burning on the hearth. To rescue
his garment the man dashed forward to the lire, and Eeynard having got the
passage clear, lost no time in taking his departure, leaving the fisherman
1G8 Sin JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS
to bemoan the loss of both salmon and mantle. "The English," he added,
"are the fisherman, we the fox. They bar the way by which we should
return home, but I have found out a road which, though somewhat wet, will
afford us the means of retiring unmolested." To this course they were
compelled by the impossibility of making any forays in search of food, and
their present stock would not last them long. It was accordingly resolved
that, without indicating to the soldiers for what purpose they were to do so,
all should hold themselves in readiness to follow the banner of Doun-las bv
the following midnight.
Next day (August .5th) the Scots were busy with their preparations. One
of them, M-ho chanced to fall into the hands of the English, was so hard
pressed, that he gave information to tlie English of what was going for-
ward, but was unable to say for what purpose. The English, fearin<:r an
attack, set themselves in array for battle at nightfall, and remained under
arms all night, momentarily expecting the onset of their foes. The Scots liad
as usual, on darkness setting in, lit large fires, and set up their wonted din
with horns and shouting ; but at midniglit they took their departure, and bv
daybreak were far on their journey homewards. Two Scottish trumpeters
were shortly afterwards found and brought into the English camp, who
stated that they had been left to inform the English of their country-men's
departure. On sending for confirmation of this news the English found the
hill deserted, but where the Scottish camp had been was the miserable spoil
of five hundred dead cattle, three hundred undressed leather caldrons fixed
upon stakes over the fires, full of water and flesh to be sodden, and upwards
of a thousand spits with meat ready to roast, with more than ten thousand
old leather brogues, still bearing the hair. Five English prisoners were also
found in the camp, naked and tied to trees, some of them with their leus
broken, being those probably, says Hailes, who had been wounded in the
skirmishes, and who could not be removed.
DEPARTURE OF THE SCOTS HOMEWARDS. 1G9
The English also discovered the way by which the Scots had taken their
departure, namely, across a most dangerous moss, through which they had
constructed a road with branches of trees, removing these as soon as they
had passed, in order to prevent pursuit. It is said that when the English saw
the route chosen they were afraid to pursue.
The English council of war decided that a pursuit of the Scots was
worse than useless, and resolved to return to York. The youthful sovereign
wept in grief and chagrin at the escape of his enemies. But as fidly a month
had been spent in pursuing a handful of Scots without a single opportunity
of inflicting a blow, during which time their own magnificent army had from
want and hardships suffered enormous loss, the English leaders deemed it
imprudent to continue the inglorious struggle. They made the best of the
situation they could, as appears from a summons to the Archbishop of Canter-
bury, dated 7th August, for the meeting of a Parliament at Lincoln, to consult
about the defence of the kingdom, in which the king is made to say, that he
had gone north to bridle the insolence of the Scots, but that they, after being
surrounded, as far as possible, in Stanhope Park, slipped away secretly under
cover of night. He, however, gives as a reason for calling the Parliament,
that the Scots had threatened to return soon to tlie damage of the country.^
At Durham, where, after a march of two days, the English rested, they found
the baggage which they had left in the wood, when so eager to forestall the
Scots at the Tyne. It had been recovered by the inhabitants of Durham
and carefully looked after. On the 15th August they arrived at York, and
there the English army was thanked and dismissed.
Alarmed at the prolonged absence of his army in England, King Eobert
the Bruce collected another army, and despatched it, under the command of
the Earls of March and Angus, for the relief of Douglas and Eandolph. The
two forces had the good fortune to meet on the day following the departure
^ Rymer'a FaHlera,vol. ii. p. 712.
VOL. I. Y
170 SIR JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
of the Scots from Stanhope Park, and returned together to Scotland.^
Douglas, however, made good his threat of returning to Enghind ; for Bruce
having again laid siege to Xorhani Castle, which he succeeded in reducing,
Douglas and Randolph made an assault on the castle of Alnwick, both of
which had been recently strengthened by Edward's orders. It is said tliat
while portions of the Scottish army were occupied with these fortresses, Bruce
with another division rode up and down Xorthumberland, as if it was his own
kingdom, parcelling out the estates and making grants of them to such as he
pleased.- The siege of Alnwick was not successful, or it was raised in order
that the entire force might be concentrated upon the reduction of the strong
fortress of Xorham. Percy afterwards ventured out of his castle and made a
raid into Teviotdale, but the fact being reported to Douglas, he threw himself
between Percy and his castle of Alnwick, and forced him to flee, under cover
of night, to Newcastle.^
Although the English Parliament at Lincoln, in September 1327, had
been summoned for the prosecution of the war with Scotland, better counsels
prevailed, and on commissioners being appointed to treat with the Scots,
Bruce at once consented, and arrangements were made for carrying on the
negotiations with all celerity. Safe-conducts were granted by Edward for
no fewer than one hundred Scots to come to York, and the king's officials
w^ere instructed to receive and treat them with all honour.^ A provisional
truce was arranged, and the terms of the proposed treaty of peace were
discussed in Parliament at York, the chief managers of the business being
Mortimer for the English, and Douglas for the Scots.^
It was only now, indeed, that Scotland won her hard-fought-for prize
— her national independence — which had cost her war for so many long
>■ Barbour's Bruce, pp. 465, 466. * Eymer's Fcedera, vol. ii. pp. 719, 723, 728.
- Ibid. p. 467. ^ Walsingham, p. 109 ; Hailes' Annals,
^ Scalacronica, p. 155. vol. ii. p. 140.
RECOGXITIOX OF SCOTLAXD'S IXDEPEXDEXCE, 1328. 171
years. But it had also cost the English dear, and they might well con-
gratulate tliemselves on the loss of such a possession, whicli to them, indeed,
was never more than ideal. It was fitting, too, that Sir James of Douglas,
whose father had borne his share in the beginning of these heroic struggles,
and who himself, in common with Wallace and with Bruce, had contributed
so much to their success, should now in Scotland's name receive from
Edward's hands the reward of victory. For before any other matter was
entered upon, it was demanded by Scotland, and yielded by a decree of the
English Parliament, that Bruce be recognised as rightful and lawful king of
Scotland, and Scotland as an independent kingdom, all right or claim of
superiority being renounced by the Iving of England for ever. To confirm
this, Edward authorised his commissioners to take oath upon his soul.^
An enduring peace was then agreed upon, and, to seal it, the marriage of
Prince David of Scotland to the sister of Edward the Third, Princess Joanna
of England, was arranged. The other terms of the treaty were likewise most
advantageous and favourable to Scotland, and it was ratified by Bruce him-
self and the English commissioners, at Edinburgh, on 17th March, and by
Edward, at Northampton, on 4th May 1328.2
The peace was also the occasion of the restoration to Sir James Douglas
of the barony of Fawdon, in Northumberland, and of "all the other lands and
tenements and rents which William of Douglas, his father, had held in the
kingdom of England." The grant was made at Eltham, in the county of
Kent, on 12th May 1329.=^
Bruce's increasing malady prevented him from gracing with his own
presence the nuptials of his son, the young Prince David, now only in his
fifth year, with the Princess Joanna of the Tower, as she was also called, from
the circumstance of her having been born in that fortress, who was only in
^ Ist March 1.32S. Rymer's Fcedera, vol. ii. p. 730.
» Ibkl. pp. 734, 735, 740, 741. 3 Vol. iv. of this work, pp. 4, 5.
172 SIR JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
her seventh year. He, however, appointed Douglas and Eandolph to take
his place. They accordingly accompanied the Prince, now created Earl of
Carrick, from Cardross to Berwick, and there, in the king's name, received
the Princess from the Queen Dowager of England and the English commis-
sioners, for neither did the King of England personally take part in the
proceedings. The marriage was celebrated in Berwick amidst great festivities
and rejoicing, the people of both countries fraternising happily together.^
Bruce made Cardross, on the Clyde, his residence during the last years
of his life, and it was there that he was seized witli the fatal attack of
his illness which terminated a noble and eventful career. There, too, he kept
his court, at which Douglas appears frequently. Bruce was not, however,
confined to his mansion on the banks of the Clyde, for Douglas was with him
at Glenluce a few weeks before his death.^ lie was again at Cardross in
the month of May, by which time Bruce was aware of his approaching
dissolution, and, in view of that event, was employed in settling his worldly
affairs. On the 10th of that month he bestowed the lands of Esschelis
or East Shiels, in Peeblesshire, upon AVilliam, son of the deceased Sir
James Douglas of Lothian, and to this gift Sir James of Douglas was
a witness.^ On the following day Bruce granted a letter of protection
to the Abbey of Melrose, threatening with forfeiture any who should wrong
^ Barbour's Bruce, p. 470. latter held the position of Justiciar of Lothian,
2 29th March 1329. Antiquities of Aber- and received from King Ilobert Bruce several
deenshire, etc., vol. iv. p. 712. substantial acknowledgments of his services.
3 Registrum Honoris de Morton, vol. ii. His son, Sir William Douglas of Lothian,
p. 29. The grandfathers of the good Sir known also as the Knight of Liddesdale,
James, Lord of Douglas, and Sir James of rose to higher distinction than his father,
Douglas de Laudonia, were brothers. These and may be said to have succeeded the good
two knights, thus related, from the similarity Sir James in popular fame, being called by
of their names, are apt to be confused by his compatriots " The Flower of Chivalry."
historians, but they are carefully distinguished He was a famous leader in the later wars of
in charters in which their names occur. The independence.
DEATH-BED OF KIXG ROBERT BRUCE.
or injure the monks, and commanding all who exercised judicial authority
throughout the realm to compel the debtors of tire Abbey to pay their
obligations. On the same day, the king also caused what has been called
his death-bed letter to be written, specially addressed to his son, the young
Prince David, and his successors on the throne, enjoining the Prince to
protect the Abbey from spoilers, and to aid the monks in every way possible
in the building of tlieir new church ; " in which," lie says, " I have arranged
that my heart shall be buried."^
The affecting death-bed scene in which King Kobert the Bruce imposed
upon his faithful and heroic comrade and subject the hazardous mission of
conveying his heart to the holy sepulchre at Jerusalem, has been described
by Froissart and also by Barbour, and is well known. Both of these writers
give vivid and touching sketches of what took place, and agree in the main,
though differing a little in detail. It is the prelude to the last eventful
scene of the life of the good Sir James. Froissart's narrative is very graphic.
In it lie says : —
In the meantime it happened that King Ptobert of Scotland was right
sore, aged and feeble, for he was greatly charged with the great sickness, so
that there was no way with him but death. And when he felt that his end
ib-ew near, he sent for such barons and lords of his realm as he trusted best,
and showed them how that there was no remedy with him, but he must
leave this transitory life. He commanded them, on the faith and truth they
owed him, truly to preserve the realm, and aid the young Prince David, his
» Liber de Melros, vol. ii. pp. 32S-330. still appended, but from the death-bed letter
These two letters, which are in dififerent hand- both seal and tag have disappeared, only leav-
writings, are preserved in the collection of ing a mark on the parchment over which the
charter mimiments which belonged to the tag had depended. A facsimile of the death-
Abbey of Melrose, and are now in the posses- bed letter is given in the Liber de Mebos, and
sion of His Grace the Duke of Buccleuch. also in the National Manuscripts of Scotland,
To the letter of protection the great seal is vol. ii. No. xxix.
17-1 SIR JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
son, whom, when he became of age, he charged them to crown king, and give
him their obedience. Then calling to his side the gentle knight Sir James of
Douglas, he thus addressed him before all the lords : —
" Sir James, my dear friend, you know well that I have had much ado in
my days to uphold and sustain the right of tliis realm, and when I had most
difhculty, I made a solemn vow, which as yet I have not accomplished,
whereof I am right sorry. That vow was, that if it was granted me to
achieve and make an end of all my wars, and so bring this realm to rest and
peace, I would go fortli and war with the enemies of Christ, the adversaries
of our holy Christian faith. To this purpose my heart hath ever intended.
But our Lord would not consent hereto ; for I have had so much to do in my
life, and now in my last enterprise I have been seized with such a malady
that I cannot escape. Seeing, therefore, that my body cannot go to achieve
what my heart desireth, I will send my heart, instead of my body, to
accomplish my vow. And because I know not in all my realm a knight
more valiant than you, or better able to accomplish my vow in my stead,
therefore I require you, my own dear special friend, for your love to me, and
to acquit my soul against my Lord God, that you undertake this journey.
In your nobleness and truth I so confide that I doubt not but what ye take
in hand ye will achieve ; and if my desires be carried out as I shall declare
unto you, I shall depart in peace and quiet.
'•' I wish, as soon as I am dead, that my heart be taken out of my body
and embalmed, and that, taking as much of my treasure as you tliink
requisite for yourself and the company corresponding to your estate which
will go with you in the enterprise, you convey my heart to the holy
sepulchre where our Lord lay, and present it there, seeing my body cannot go
thither. And wherever you come let it be known that ye carry with you
the heart of King Eobert of Scotland, at his own instance and desire, to be
presented to the holy sepulchre."
INTRUSTED WITH HEART OF KIXG ROBERT BRUCE. 175
Sir James and all the surrounding barons were unable to restrain their
tears ; but wlien he could command liis speech, Sir James replied, " Gentle
and noble king, a hundred times I thank your grace for the great honour you
confer upon me, in placing in my charge a treasure so noble and so great.
And, sire, though I be neither worthy nor sufficient for such a noble
enterprise, I shall, with a glad heart, do all that you have commanded me,
to the best of my true power."
" I thank you, gentle knight," said the king, " so that you will promise to
do it."
" Undoubtedly, sire, I shall," replied Douglas, " by the faith that I owe
t<.) God and to the order of true knighthood."
" Then I thank you," said the king, " for now I shall die in greater ease
of mind, seeing I know that the most worthy and sufficient knight in my
realm shall achieve for me that to which I could not myself attain." ^
Barbour's narrative differs only in this, that instead of Douglas being the
king's choice alone, he was elected for the task by the nobles to whom Bruce
confided his purpose, desiring them to select one of themselves for its execu-
tion. Their unanimous choice, says Barbour, fell upon the " douchty Lord
Douglas," — a choice which was but the echo of the king's own heart, and
right welcome to Douglas.-
r>ruce died on the 7th of June 1329, and was buried in Dunfermline
Abbey, his heart being, in accordance with his desire, taken from his body,
carefully embalmed, and placed in a costly silver casket. This act was
in contravention of the papal canons, and involved the sentence of exconi-
nmnication, as some time afterwards, in August 1331, Pope John, on the
petition of Randolph, Earl of Moray, granted absolution to all who had
participated " in the inhuman and cruel treatment " of the body of King
1 Froissart's Chronicles (Lord Berner's translation), vol. i. pp. 28, 29.
- The Bruce, pp. 472-475.
17G >SIE JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LOUD OF DOUGLAS.
Robert the Bruce. This document narrates the fact that Bruce's lieart
had been carried, at his own desire, by the deceased James of Douglas, a
knight of Glasgow (that is, of the diocese of Glasgow, Douglasdale beirig
in that see), into Spain, in war against the Saracens. The absolution was
directed to the Bishop of Moray, who was commanded to give effect thereto.^
From the reference in this document to Spain, Burton has inferred that
Bruce's desire was that his heart should be conveyed thither and not to
Jerusalem.- But all that can justly be inferred is that Bruce's heart had
been taken to Spain. There is otherwise good evidence of Bruce's real desire
that his heart should be taken to Palestine.
In preparing to carry out the sacred trust committed to him. Sir Jarnes
Douglas applied for and received letters of safe-conduct from King
Edward the Third, for that portion of the journey to the Holy Land which
might lie within his jurisdiction. At the same time, the Eucrlish Kincr tiave
him a warm letter of introduction to Alphonso, King of Leon and Castile,
requesting that monarch to treat with kingly courtesy the world-renowned
warrior, who, he adds, " burning with love of the crucified, is about to set forth
towards the Holy Land, to the aid of the Christians against the Saracens." ^
Douglas, however, did not immediately set out on his eastern expedition, but
busied himself for several months, indeed, during the winter, in making
preparations on a princely scale. In this interval he also set his own house
in order.
According to Wyutown, Douglas was, unwittingly, the cause of the
attempt by Edward Baliol to seize the Scottish throne. In the exercise of
* Theiner's Monumenta Hibernorum et Sco- and buried in a separate place — a request
toram, p. 251. The question may have been which was granted him. — [fhid. p. 249.]
raised by a petition addressed by Ilandolph to ^ History of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 308.
the Pope in the previous year, for leave to have -^ 1st September 1329; vol. iv. of this
hia heart taken from his body after death, work, pp. 5, G.
DEPARTURE FOR THE HOLY LAND, 1330. i:
liis powers of justiciary, he ordered the arrest of a yeoman, Twyname Lowry-
sown by name, who for being called to account by the ecclesiastical official of
Glasgow for his licentious life, had seized the official (William of Eckfurd)
in the town of Ayr, and compelled him to pay a good round sum of money
before he would release him. As both Eandolph and Douglas were dealing
out strict and severe justice in their circuit courts to those who were
convicted of such crimes,^ Lowrysown knew he had good reason to fear
the result, if captured, and seeing himself unable to avoid the strict search
which was being made for him by Douglas's men, he stealthily departed b}'
sea to France, attached himself to Edward Baliol, and incited him to his
invasion of Scotland.-
Before his departure for Palestine Douglas piously conmiendod his soul
to the prayers of the Church, especially committing himself to the protection
of the patron saint of the Douglas family, St. Bride or Bridget, on whose
commemoration day (February 1, 1329-30) he bestowed on the Abbey of
Newbotle the half land of Kuimad, the other half land being already in the
possession of the Abbey, by gift of the deceased Eoger de Quincy. The gift
was made on condition that a choral mass should be performed at tlie altar of
St. Bride, within their monastery, on her day, and also that in her honour the
monks should on the same day feed thirteen poor people. The object of this
grant was that St. Bride might intercede for the donor with God, and by her
merits and intercessions purchase what was needful for his soul and body.
If the monks were careless or negligent in carr}ang out these conditions, they
' It is related of Ilanilolph at this time that the effects of his crime against the law of
he caused hang a man who had slain a priest, the land. By this strict severity, and by
and who had gone to Eome and purchased making the local magistrates responsible for
absolution, but afterwards returned to Scot- crimes committed, he is said to have made
land. For though, said Randolph, the Pope the country as secure as a man's own house,
might free a man from the spiritual punish- [Wyntown's Cronykil, Book viii. chap. 24.J
ment of his guilt, he could not free him from - Ibid.
VOL. I. Z
178 SIR JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LOUD OF DOUGLAS.
ran tlie risk of forleitiug the grant, wliicli was made in form of indenture at
Douglas's own place of the Park of Douglas.^
It would seem from these and other instances of beneficence to religious
houses, that Douglas had a considerable regard for the Church. He acted as
the protector of some of the religious houses within the south of Scotland,
especially in times of disturbance. For example, the Prioiy of Coldingham
found it to their profit to make over to James, Lord of Douglas, their town of
Swinton, "for his counsel and to have his aid in time of war," but the grant
was evidently only for his lifetime, as the monks endeavoured to recover it
after his death.- He also, shortly before the death of Bruce, acted as an
arbiter in a dispute between the Abbey of Paisley and the monks of Sim-
pringham in England.^ Sir James maintained a chaplain of his own, named
Richard, who is mentioned in connection with a debt of twenty-six shillings
and eightpence from lands in Ednam belonging to the Prior of Coldingliam
at Martinmas 1325.'*
According to Barbour, Douglas took his departure with the heart of Bruce
from Scotland by ship from Berwick, and sailed direct for Spain, landing
in that country, after a tempestuous voyage, at the port of " Grand Seville." ^
Eroissart, however, is more circumstantial in his narrative. With the opening
spring, lie says, Douglas hastened his preparations, and having laid in great
store of all that was necessary, he took ship at ]\Iontrose and sailed for
Sluys, in Flanders. He hoped here to find some noble men who would
accompany him in his enterprise, though he had brought a princely retinue
with him from Scotland. This consisted of a knight-banneret, and seven
1 Registrum de Xeubotle, pp. 100, 101. years, and was finally settled only in 1373, in
- The Priory of Coldingham (Surtees the time of WUliaui, first Earl of Douglas.
Society), p. 21. ■* The Priory of Coldingham, Appendix,
^ 13th February 1328-9. Registrum de p. iii.
Passelet, p. 28. This dispute lasted for many '' The Bruce, pp. 478, 479.
IN FLAiVDERS AND AT THE SPANJSH COURT. 179
other kui^^hts, with twenty-six esquires and other gentlemen of the noblest
families of Scotland. His table displayed regal magnificence, with vessels of
gold and silver, and music of trumpets and clarions and drums, as if he had
been himself King of Scotland. All who came to visit him were royally
entertained, according to their rank, " with two maner of wynes and dyuerse
manor of spices." Douglas remained at Sluys twelve days, never landing,
but making his headquarters in his ship.
After that time, hearing that Alphonso, King of Leon and Castile,
was warring with the Saracen King of Granada, he resolved to offer his
services in that war, and thereafter proceed to Palestine. He accordingly
directed his course towards Spain, and lauded at Valencia, whence he went
straight to King Alphonso, who lay with his army on the irontiers, and was
honourably received and entertained. According to Barbour, Douglas was
the centre of the chivalric circle; the bravest pressed forward to see and
greet one of so much renown. Several English knights were at this time
present in the Court of Alphonso, one of whom was highly esteemed for his
valiant bearing, testified as it was by the many scars he bore on his face.
This knight had heard of tlie fame of Douglas, and longed much to see him,
thinking that his face must be as much scarred as his own. To his astonish-
ment, however, Douglas bore a wholly uninjured countenance, and on the
knight's expressing his surprise, Douglas replied, " Praised be God that my
hands were always able to defend my head." ^
The armies of both Spain and Granada were marshalled near Theba, a
castle on the frontiers of Andalusia and Granada, and a battle was imminent.
According to Barbour, Alphonso gave the vanguard of his army to Douglas,
placing under his command all the other foreign knights at Court. He
represents Douglas as rallying his men before the action, bidding them do
well and fear not, seeing that heavenly bliss was the reward of all who died
' The Bruce, pp. 479, 4S0.
ISO SIR JAAfES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
in the service of God. In the contlict which ensued tlie fcjaracens were routed
and fled, and were pursued hy Douglas with such impetuosity that few could
keep up with the chase. He, at last, finding liiniself supported by only about
ten followers, drew rein and began to retire, when the Moors, seeing so few of
their foes, closed in upon them. Douglas himself might have escaped, but
seeing Sir William Sinclair of Eoslin in the midst of a host of the enemy,
he dashed in to his assistance. It was in vain. The Saracens numbered
twenty to one of their opponents, and Sir James Douglas fell in his
gallant attempt to rescue his countryman, several other Scottish knights,
including Sir Walter and Sir Uobert Logan, of the family of Eestalrig, being
also slain. ^
By some chroniclers it is further added that before joining battle Douglas
took the casket containing Bruce's heart, which he bore on his breast, and
threw it from him into the midst of the ranks of the infidels, addressing it
thus — " Onward as thou wert wont, thou noble heart ! Douglas will follow
thee." Holland, whose allegorical poem of " The Howlat " was written abuut
the middle of the fifteenth century, relates this story of Bruce's heart being cast
forward among the Moors. He was also the first to make the statement,
generally ascribed to the inventive genius of Boece, whose history was not
written until the early part of the sixteenth century, that Sir James of Douglas
went first to Palestine, presented the heart of his late royal master, with many
offerings and prayers, to the Holy Sepulchre, and having got it hallowed, re-
hung it about his neck. After many battles with the infidels, Douglas was on
his way back to Scotland with his sacred charge, presumably for its burial in
Melrose Abbey, when he was driven by stress of weather on the coast of
Spain, learned that the Saracens were there at war with the Christians, and
ottered his services, with the result that he was slain on the plains of Anda-
lusia.- This version of Douglas's journey is likewise adopted by Godscroft.
I The Bruce, pp. 4S1-4S3. - Holland's Book of "The Howlat," cantos 38 and 39.
., ' • fl* ;' Vi «i
''fS^\h\
1'^^
^
>'*•
M •" - ' :*i' if^ -^^■^A'^^-
;t ^
A>
5%
:^/
■■J>
, / ■ .
■ -.»«>
-*.^^
?^i
> is'^
"V '
/^5
'■•'i
v6
4.* ■■-
3:
V": : ... .: .Ill
'•-*^"-^v£?*V
1^1 If
-^
M
m
^^_^^j^^^i£-^'^*^
i^iidi,.
flA--
?">^r
MONUMENT OF SIR JAMES DOUGLAS
'N ST BRIDES.- DOUGLAS.
DEATH ON THE PLAIXS OF ANDALUSIA, 1330. 181
Froissart differs from Barbour somewhat ia his narrative of the battle.
According to him Douglas was in command only of his own men upon one of
the flanks of Alphonso's army. Seeing an advance being made, and thinking
it was to action, wishing also to be amongst the foremost rather than the
hindmost, he ordered his company to charge, which they did, raising their
wonted battle-cry, " Douglas ! Douglas !" He had thought the Spanish army
at his back, but they had halted again, " and so," he says, " this gentle
knight was enclosed and all his company -with the Sarazyns, where as he dyd
menielles in armes, but fynally he coulde nat endure, so that he and all his
company were slayne."^ This fatal battle was fought on the 25th of August
1330.- All the Scottish companions in arms of Douglas, however, were not
slain, and those that remained, having found the body of their leader, and
the casket he so sacredly treasured, rescued both, and departed homewards in
deep soiTow. Bruce's heart was reverently buried in the Abbey of ]Melrnse,
and the remains of Sir James of Douglas were laid to rest in the kirk of St.
Bride in his native valley. A monument, erected to his memory by his son,
Sir Archibald the Grim, Lord of Galloway,^ probably about the year 1390,
after his succession as third Earl of Douglas, still exists in the Douglas aisle
of the former church of St. Bride. It is thus described by Blore : —
" The monument which tradition has assigned to the celebrated warrior
we have just been noticing is on the north side of the Douglas aisle. The
effigy is of dark stone, cross-legged. The right hand has been represented
in the act of drawing the sword, the scabbard of which is held by the left.
Owing, however, to the injury the figure has sustained, the right arm and
hand are broken off and lost, from the shoidder downwards, as in the
corresponding leg from the knee. The long-pointed shield which he hears
^ Froiasart's Chronicles (Lord Bemers' translation), vol. i. pp. 30, 31.
' Hailes' Annals, vol. ii. p. lol ; Fordun's Annalia, edition 1871, p. 353.
^ Barbour's Bruce, p. 487. It is described as of " alabastre."
182 SIR JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
on his left arm is without armorial bearing, and much broken. The "-eneral
style of the figure is rather rude, with the exception of the folds of the
drapery of the surcoat, which, in many parts, are simple and well arranged.
The armour is destitute of the slightest indication of chain work ; and it is
therefore probable that a different material was intended to be represented,
or that the chain work was indicated by colours now obliterated. The feet
rest against the mutilated remains of an animal, probably a lion. . . . The
arch, under wliich the efligy is placed, appears to be of rather more modern
date, is of elegant design, and excellent workmanship. The shield under the
canopy of the arch contains the heart, an addition to the armorial bearings
of the family, granted in consequence of his mission to the Holy Land, but
the three mullets (stars) are now completely obliterated."
Blore also points out that though the style of architecture of this monu-
ment is anterior to the time of the Good Sir James, it was so only in England,
as in Scotland the progress of art rather followed than kept pace with their
wealthier neighbour. The English, while in possession of Douglasdale
during the wars of independence, were so enraged at the Douglases, that it
is improbable they would permit the monuments of the family, if any then
existed, to remain. These circumstances, and the fact that the size and
proportions of the effigy agree with the recorded descriptions of Sir James's
person, point to the conclusion that the monument is his. The injuries
sustained by it and the other monuments were, according to local tradition,
the work of Cromwell's soldiers during his siege of the castle in 1651.^
"This noble James," says Fordun, in taking his leave of this redoubtable
warrior, " was in his day a brave hammerer of the English, and the Lord
bestoWed so much grace upon him in his life that he everywhere triumphed
over the English."- Bower gives a curious alliterative acrostic in Latin upon
Sir James, which he attributes to the pen of the Archdeacon of Aberdeen,
^ Blore's Monumental Remains, No. 5. - Fordun, a Goodall, vol, ii. \>. 301.
TRIBUTES TO IIIS MEMORY. 183
who recorded so many of the brave deeds of the Douglas in his book of the
Bruce. He also gives other Latin verses, which are apparently his own.^
Godscroft, too, produces a Latin stanza on the death of the Good Sir James,
the author of which he appears not to know, while he also quotes the follow-
ing popular rhyme long current in Scotland, and which preserved among his
countrymen the memory of their illustrious benefactor, even amongst those
who had not seen him —
" Good Sir James Douglas, who wise, and wicht, and worthy was,
Was never overglad for no wuiuiug, nor yet over sad for no tineing,
Good fortune and evil chance, he weighed both in one balance." ^
Glowing panegyric on a career which closed in so chivalric a manner
is altogether unnecessary. The history of Douglas bespeaks his valour and
his virtue. He aspired to no higher honour than the love and esteem of
his sovereign, though none of Bruce's doughty chieftains more deserved great
honours, whether from devotedness or length of service. Edward Bruce
obtained the earldom of Carrick, and Eandolph the rich earldom of Moray,
but Douglas bore no personal titles save those which indicated inheritance
of his own paternal lordship, and the simple knighthood conferred upon him
in presence of the whole Scottish army, arrayed at Bannockburn. The title
of the " Good Sir James," so universally applied to the subject of this memoir,
may be considered his highest honour.
Among other tokens of love and esteem for his noble subject, there
is generally reported to have been a sv/ord, believed to have been given by
Bruce on his deathbed to Sir James. The sword, which is about three feet
long and an inch and a half broad at the hilt, and was probably not a weapon
used in warfare, but a sword of State, still exists among the heirlooms of
Douglas Castle. On one side of the blade is the engraving of a heart, to
^ Fordun, a Goodall, vol. iL pp. 301, 302.
- History of the Houses of Douglas and Angus, 1 644, p. 52.
184 Sm JAMES OF DOUGLAS, LOUD OF DOUGLAS.
which two hands point, over the one hand being the letters K- R B., and over
the other the letters I. L. D. On the other side of the blade are depicted
within a shield the royal arms of Scotland, the lion rampant within the
double tressure. The shield is surmounted by a crown. The following
legend is also inscribed on the two sides of the weapon : —
" So mony gvid as of the Dovglas beine,
Of ane svrname, vser never in Scotland seine.
I wil ye charge, efter that I depart.
To Holy gravfe, and thair bvry my hart :
Let it remane ever, bothe tyme and hovr,
To the last day I sie my Saviovr.
So I protest in tyme of al my ringe,
Ye lyk subiectis had never ony keing."
This relic was nearly lost to the family on the occasion of the
rebellion of 1745, as in their retreat from Preston the followers of Prince
Charles Edward took up their quarters for a time in Douglas Castle, and
carried the sword away with them when they left. Only after some
troublesome negotiations with the rebel leaders, was the sword recovered
and replaced in the castle by the Duke of Douglas.
In all previous memoirs of Sir James Douglas it has been assumed that he
died unmarried, and without leaving lawful issue. Although the name of his
wife has not been ascertained, yet it appears that he was married, as he left
a son, William, who succeeded him as Lord of Douglas, as shown in the
following memoir. He had also a natural son, Archibald, surnamed the
Grim, who became Lord of Galloway, and afterwards succeeded as tliii-d Earl
of Douglas, on the death of his cousin, James, the second Earl. Of him
also a memoir is given in its proper place.
p^-'-"'S^rvm^^if<^!PtS>9 Tai"!'^'^*"''^ "'"^ "^ "> '■''^^^'^'^•'''■vwaR^.snBeiswgssjsswTjjnKr^
0)
o
3}
o
o
<
m
z
(D
-<
Z
o
O
OD
m
73
X
m
CD
3)
cz
o
m
H
o
en
:3D
c
>
m
en
o
o
c
o
(-
>
CO
-ff-,*7ij^-^>
ji8fcVai!S.-W^*»Sii«2? -..^
Ui
;Si.?;<*!tiaiSi««%-
i
*^.
■•i !
•iriWSSbiScfeift-: •/ '. *i!'t^;Iilfc«iaiSei':>' ■
185
VI._1. WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS,
SON OF THE GOOD SIR JAMES.
1330—1333.
SIR JAMES DOUGLAS was succeeded in his possessions, and in the
territorial designation of Lord of Douglas, by a son William, whose
existence has hitherto been overlooked by all historians. Even where
the evidence re^-arding hira has been noticed by authors or editors, it has
been treated by them as erroneous, or applied to some other member of
the Douglas family. This may be accounted for partly by the brevity of
his career, and partly by the evidence which exists regarding him being
limited. But that evidence, though scanty, is quite conclusive of the
fact that William Douglas inherited as Lord of Douglas in succession to his
father, the Good Sir James.
The earliest proof of that succession is furnished by the following entries
in the Exchequer account of Reginald More, chamberlain of Scotland, for
the period between Uth March and 14th December 1331 :—
"Et de ix'^xxxiij H \f viij'^ receptis de Willelmo domino de Duglas, ex
nmtuo. Et de iiij<= H receptis de nunciis domini Rape ex mutuo, in defectum
.sexcentarum marcarum debitarum per dominum de Duglas, per finem factum
pro ingressu terrarum suarum." ^
• Original MS. Roll, No. XXI., in H.M. John Davidson, W.S., in the year 1771 ; re-
General Register House, Edinburgh. Thepor- printed by Lord Hailes [Annals, vol. iii.
tion of the roll in which these entries occur p. 362] ; (2) by Air. Thomas Thomson [Cham-
has been several times printed— (I) by Mr. berlain Rolls, vol. i. p. 226], in each case
VOL. I.
2 A
186 WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
i.e. [He burdens himself] with £933, 6s. 8d. received from William, Lord
uf Douglas, upon L^an ; and with £400, received from the Pope's uuucios upon
loan in default of six hundred merks (£400) due by the Lord of Douglas as a
line imposed for entry to his lands.
These money transactions apparently imply that William Douglas lent tu
the Government a sum of £933, 6s. 8d., and then borrowed from the Pope's
nuncios, or permitted the Chamberlain to borrow on his behalf, the sum of
£400, which was the amount of the fine due to the Crown as superior. In
any case, the proof is clear that W^illiam was Lord of Douglas.
The evidence as to William Douglas, Lord of Douglas, seems to have been
unknown to Godscroft. He stated that Sir James Douglas had two natural sons,
William and Archibald, and that William was the famous Knight of Liddesdale,
otherwise called the " Flower of Chivalry."^ In that assertion he has been fol-
lowed by more recent writers, including Tytler,- and even Mr. Cosmo Innes.^
^Ir. Ptiddell, in one of his works, combats the statement of Mr. Innes, and
shows that the Knight of Liddesdale was the lawful son of Sir James Doucrlas
of Lothian,'* a statement abundantly proved at a later date by the Charter
muniments of the House of ]\Iorton.° But ^Ix. Piddell did not in that work,
or in any of his other works in which he treats of the Douglas family, show that
Sir James had a son named William who succeeded him as Lord of Douglas.
If the evidence quoted from the Exchequer Polls stood alone, there might
have been hesitation in giving full weight to it, after the long-continued belief
that Hugh Douglas was the immediate successor of his brotlier, Sir James.
But from other and wholly independent sources there is undoubted evidence
without comment ; and (3) by Mr. Burnett . ^ Houses of Douglas and Angus, ed. 1644,
[Exchequer KoUa, vol. i. p. 390], who ex- p. 52. - History of Scotland, vol. i. p. 3S3.
presses an opinion that the name of William, '^ IJegistrum Episcopatus Glasguensis, vol. i.
as given in the roll, is erroneous, and that it p. xxxviii. . ^ Stewartiana, pp. S3, 84.
should be Hugh. [/^ii. Preface, p. cxi, note; •^ Eegistrum Honoris de Morton, 2 vols..
Index, p. 650.] Bannatyne Club.
COMPLAIXT BY THE MOXKS OP' COLDIXGIIAM, 1332. IS;
regarding William, Lord of Douglas, and that he was in possession of tlie
estates which belonged to his father, Sir James. The latter, during the
wars with England, had received from the monks of Coldingham a grant of
the lands of Swinton, in Berwickshire, and after his death a question arost-
between the monks and his heirs as to these lands. The monks took their
complaint to the Court of King David the Second, and, their testimony being
important, they may here be allowed to tell their own story in a translatiuii
of their letter from the original ISTormau French : —
To the most honourable Priuce and their liege lord, David, by the grace of God,
King of Scotland, to his good Council, their devoted chaplains, Adam, prior of Colding-
ham, and the convent of the same place, show that William, Lord of Douglas, and
Archibald, his uncle, wrongfully against God and the law of holy church, detain from
them their town of Swynton, which was granted to the honourable man Sir James,
lately Lord of Douglas, for his counsel, and to have his aid in time of war, by a
simple monk who had no power to grant the said town in that manner against the
interests of the house of Coldingham. And before the departure of the said Lord of
Douglas from the kingdom of Scotland, they were in sure hope of recovering their
said town, because it was so granted to him against tlie welfare of their house, by a
person who had no power. And since the said lord was commended to God, they
have, with great labour and expense in several places, made suit to the executors of
the said lord to obtain their favour ; in which executors the ordering and administra-
tion remains by the law of holy church, as also of his other moveable goods ; and of
their compassion, so far as lies in their power, they have graciously granted their
petition. But by the will and force of William, Lord of Douglas, and Archibald, his
uncle, they are wrongfully disturbed in their said town, to their loss, valued at two
hundred pounds. Wherefore the said prior and convent pray, for God and the soul of
their nmch honoured lord Sir Robert, late King of Scotland, whom God assoil, seeing
that the house of Coldingham was founded by the alms of the Kings of Scotland,
your ancestors, and the town of Swynton is the chief part of its sustenance, that you
may be pleased to ordain a remedy, pleasing to God and holy church, fur this wrongful
violence.^
' liCtter to the King of Scotland by the A. vi. fol. ol.] Printed in Priory of Colding-
Prior of Coldingham respecting the town of ham, Surtees Society, pp. 21, 22.
Swyuton, wrongfully detained. [Faustina,
188 WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, LOUD OF DOUGLAS.
This important document is conclusive evidence of the successor of Sir
James. It would also appear that William, Lord of Douglas, "was in some
way under the tutelage or guidance of his uncle. Sir xVrchibald Douglas,
who shortly afterwards was made Eegent of Scotland.^
The next reference to AVilliam Douglas, the young Lord of Douglas, is
in the narrative of the fatal field of Halidon Hill, whither he followed hh
uncle, the Eegent. He was, however, not among his uncle's immediate
attendants, but was in the division commanded by the young Steward of
Scotland, who also, like the youthful Douglas, had been taken to that cam-
paign to win his spurs. As is well known, the Scots were defeated, and
left many of their nobles and knights either dead on the field, or captive
in the hands of the English. The Itegent was taken, mortally wounded,
and his nephew, "William, Lord of Douglas, was slain.
Knyghton, the historian, distinctly states that the son of James Douglas
of that Ilk, " "VVillielmus Douglas filius lacobi ejus[dem]," was present at
the battle.- Lord Hailes, ignorant of the existence of William Douglas as
a son of Sir James, suggests a correction. " Eather Archibald," he says, " the
natural son of the renowned Sir James Douglas."-^ But there is corroborative
evidence that Knyghton was accurate in his statement regarding the son of Sir
James Douglas. Sir Thomas Grey, the author of the Scalacronica, who wrote
before Knyghton, and almost contemporaneously with the events he records,
enumerates in his list of tlie slain at Halidon, among " many barons, knights,
and commons," " the Lord of Douglas, son of James of Douglas, who was
slain by the Saracens on the frontiers of Granada, during that pious journey
^ On September IS, 1330, an action was Archibald, who, acting for his nephew Wil-
raised at the instauce of the parson of Angram liara, intromitted with the lands of Fawdou.
or Ingram Church, Xorthnmberlaud, against v.-hich had been restored to tjir James Douglas
Archibald Douglas, regarding common pasture in 13'2'J.
in Fawdon [Patent, 4 Edward iii. p. 1, m. 8, - Knyghton, a/md Twysden, p. 2564.
Public Ptecord Office]. This was proV>ably Sir ^ Bailos" Annak, vol. iii. p. 90.
DEA TU A T HAL ID OX HIL Z, 1 3 3 3. 189
taken with the heart of his king, Eobeit the Bruce, at his dying request." ^
This is conclusive on the point that Sir James Douglas had a son, William,
who fell at Ilalidon. Any discrepancy between Knyghton, who says the
young Lord of Douglas was taken prisoner, and the statement that he was
slain, may be reconciled by supposing that the young man, like his uncle,
the llegent, was mortally wounded, and expired in the hands of his captors.
Tliis evidence also proves that the young Lord of Douglas and his
namesake, William Douglas, afterwards Knight of Liddesdale, were two
distinct persons. The former died on or immediately after the field of Hali-
don ; the latter was at that time a close prisoner in the castle of Carlisle
from wliich he was not released till some time afterwards.- The whole
evidence adduced from the Scottish Exchequer Eolls and the Eecords of
Coldingham, as well as from the contemporary English chroniclers above
quoted, leaves no doubt that the Good Sir James left a legitimate son,
William, who succeeded his father as Lord of Douglas, but whose career
was cut short at Halidon, on 19th July 1333.
At the time of his death, William, Lord of Douglas, was apparently under
age, and probably unmarried. He was succeeded in the Douglas estates by
his uncle Hugh, who became Lord of Douglas. It would appear that the
feudal investiture of William, as heir to Sir James, was never formally
completed, as in the entail of the Douglas lands executed in 1312, Hugh,
Lord of Douglas, is described as heir of his late brother. Sir James. He must
therefore have made up his title to his brother. Sir James, as the last vassrJ
of the Crown infeft in the lauds, passing over his nephew William, whose
title was incomplete, although the money payment exigible on his succession,
or part of it, seems to have been accounted for to the Crown.
A small brass seal-stamp of William, Lord of Douglas, was, according to
^ Scalacrnnica, p. 1G3.
2 Fordiin, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 310; Clironicon de Lanercost, pp. 273, 278.
190
WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
local tradition, found in the year 1788 under the east end of the (;hurch of
North Berwick, near the ruins of the Douglas family burial vault there.
The vault was destroyed by a violent storm in 1774, and several stone cofiius
were thrown down.'^ The seal is of tasteful design, displaying a sliield on
which is a fess surmounted by the three mullets in chief, and a man's heart
in base. The shield is surrounded by tracery work, and the legend —
SIGILLVM • WILLELMI • DNI • DE • DOUGLAS.
That seal may have been made for and used by the subject of this memoir,
although it has generally been assigned to the first Earl of Douglas previous
to his creation as EarL Its style is that of the earlier half of the fourteenth
century, and the workmanship is said to show care and skill. The rirst Earl
had at least four armorial seals, which are well known. They all ditier
from this seal of \yilliam, Lord of Douglas, as it alone has the fess, without
the chief which is found in all the others.
If this seal be that of William, Lord of Douglas, the son and successor of
Sir James, it shows that the heart was introduced into the armorial bearings
of the Douglas family immediately after the death of the Good Sir James.
^ Carte de Xorth Berwic, Preface, p. xxxvi. from the original in tlie possession of Sir Hew
Laing's Scottish Seals, vol. i. p. 46, No. 249. Dalrymple, Baronet, of North Berwick.
An engraving of the seal is annexed, made
191
v.— 2. HUGH DOUGLAS, LOED OF DOUGLAS,
BROTHER OF THE GOOD SIR JAMES. :
1333—1342.
rnHE retired life led by Hugh, Lord of Douglas, and his obscurity in history
-^ as compared with the brilliant careers and stirring lives of his two
brothers. Sir James and Sir Archibald, have led to the behef that he laboured
under some mental or bodily intirmity. Godscroft, who is usually voluble in
praise of his heroes, only says regarding this member of tlie family, tliat
nothing is found of his actions " worthie of memorie. . . . lie was neythur
proper for employments, nor actually alsoe medled he himself with publicke
affaires or matters of State, either in peace or warre."^ But there is evidence
to show that this character was undeserved, and that the statement of
Godscroft was made in ignorance of the real position of Hugh Douglas, wla.,
lived a life of peace, and took no active part in public affairs, not from
incapacity, either bodily or mental, but because, as a Churchman, he was
debarred from those military pursuits in which his brothers excelled.
Hugh, Lord of Douglas, was the elder of two sons of Sir William Douglas
" Le Hardi," by his second wife, Eleanor Ferrers, and was born in England
^ MS. History at Hamilton Palace. Found- Douglas." The Marquis was misled by Gods-
ing on a surmise by Godscroft as to the "dul- croft's statement, and both were ignorant of
nesse of mind" of Hugh Douglas, William, the real position of Hugh Douglas, whose
rtrst Marquis of Douglas, inserted in the memory is only now vindicated from the
margin of the lis. the epithet, "The Dull imputation of imbecility.
19-2 HUGH OF DOUGLAS, LOUD OF DOi'GLAS.
ill tlio year 1204. This appears from a return by the Sheriff of Essex and
Hertford shcjrtly after April 129G, wlio was employed to value the manors
iif Stehbing and otiiers in these counties belonging to Sir AVilliam Douglas,
and to confiscate them to the English king. Besides the goods seized, the
Sheriff made a more interesting capture, which he describes as a son of
William Douglas of Scotland, named Hugii, nearly two years old. This boy
had f)een left in the custody of John le Parker at Stebbing, and as he had
l)een born in England, the Sheriff arrested or detained him in safe keeping
until he should receive further instructions.^
Eor a period of many years from this point nothing has been discovered
regarding the life of Hugh Douglas. How long he was detained in England
does not appear, but the next reference to him shows that he had been
educated for the Church, had embraced that calling, and was a Canon of the
Cathedral Church of Glasgow. The first evidence of his acting in that
capacity was an important meeting of the chapter of the diocese of Glasgow,
held on IGth May 1325, when he would be about thirty-one years of age.
The ritual and constitution of the Cathedral of Sarum (or Salisbury) had
been adopted as the constitution of the Cathedral of Glasgow so early as the
year 1258, with the saving clause, "unless it shall be found injurious" to the
Canons. The disturbed state of Scotland during the wars of independence,
and for many years after Bannockbum, had doubtless affected the Church,
and prevented full adherence to the constitution. In 1322, however, a peace
was concluded with England which lasted for a few years, and gave repose
to both countries for some time. This interval of rest was chosen by the
Canons of Glasgow to renew their obligation to the statutes of the Church of
Salisbury, which, they say, " have been granted and observed in our Church
of Glasgow from a time of which no memory exists." On this occasion no
^ SherifTs Accounts, Public Record Office, London. Cf. Stevenson's Historical Documents,
vol. ii. pp. 43, 44.
A CANON OF GLASGOW CATHEDRAL. }9?,
reservation was made as to acceptance, but the Canons bound themselves tu
keep the statutes inviolable. Hugh of Douglas was not personally present
at this important meeting, but a brother Canon, Richard, called Small,
afterwards Dean of Glasgow, acted as his procurator.^
"What prebend Hugh of Douglas held at this time as a Canon of the
Church of Glasgow, is not apparent. At a later date he held the rectory or
jirebend of Old lioxburgh, which was one of those that gave its occupant a
right tu a stall in the church and a seat in the chapter. If Old Eoxburgh, or
some other prebend of Glasgow, was held by Hugh Douglas at this time, we
may think of him as quietly fultilling his duties of parish priest, with an
occasional visit to Glasgow as his post in the cathedral required. Such at
least might be his lot during the reign of King Robert Bruce and the lives
(if his brother Sir James, and the Regent Randolph. But it is probable that
this peaceful career was interrupted by the turbulent times which followed
the deaths of these three great leaders, and the disasters which befell Scotland
at the battles of Dupplin and Halidon Hill. Hugh Douglas survived both
his brothers and also his nephew, "William Douglas, the son of Sir James,
who, as related in the previous memoir, was slain at Halidon. As Hugh
thus became heir to the Douglas estates, a slight sketch of their fortunes
iluring the ne.xt few years may here Ix* given.
The reverses sustained by the Scottish arms left a large portion of the
south of Scotland at the mercy of the English, and of Edward Baliol, the
nominal king of Scotland. Immediately after the battle of Halidon in 13.33,
Baliol, having assumed the crown of Scotland, made over to the English king
the forests of Jedburgh, Selkirk, and Ettrick, with the counties of Roxburgh,
Peebles, Dumfries, Linlitligow, Edinburgh, and Haddington, to remain for e^■er
a.s appanages of the English crown.'- In these districts lay most of the lands
which Sir James Douglas had received from his grateful sovereign in recogni-
' Registrura Glasguense, vol. i. pp. 2.34, 233. - Rymer's Fccdera, vol. ii. pp. SSS-SOU.
VOL. I. L' i;
194 llUail OF DOUGLAS, LOUD OF DOUGLAS.
tioii of his patriotism and vaLjui'. Nor did Doiiglasdale escape. Lord ClitVord,
grandson of Sir ri(jbert Clift'ord wlio held the Doughis lands in the reign of
King Edward the First, having received and sheltered Baliol when chased
from Scotland by Sir Archibald 1 )ouglas and others in the winter of 1332,
oljtained the lands in grant again from the fugitive nionarcli, "if God should
give him prosperous times, and restore lum to his kingdom."^ There is no
evidence, however, that this grant was ever made good by possession. Four
years later, when, in the end of 1336, Edward the Third of England lay at
FiOthwell to receive the inhabitants of the western counties to his peace, the
Douglas retainers were still faithful to their allegiance. (In this account,
Lord Stafford, in passing through Douglasdale with reinforcements for the
English army, laid the valley waste, and carried off a large spoil. Sir
William Douglas, afterwards known as the Knight of Liddesdale, was lurkiuLr
in the neighbourhood, pursuing the mode of warfare so successfully employed
by the Good Sir James, and wrought considerable damage to the English.'-
The destruction of their homes, however, did not shake the loyalty of the
Douglas men, and they only escaped another similar visitation at the hands
of Sir Anthony Lucy in the autumn of the following year by heavy rains and
tloods, which compelled him to desist from further advance after a most
destructive raid made by him throughout the district of Galloway."
The lands, castle, and forest of Jedburgh, with the forests of Ettrick and
Selkirk, were placed in the hands of English keepers, while the lands in
neighbouring counties were similarly dealt witli.^ Jkiittle, in Galloway, was
at first seized by Edward himself, but afterwards restored to Baliol as his
ancestral possession.^ The castle, to^vn, and forest of Jedburgh were
ultimately bestowed upon Henry Fercy by Edward in exchange for .Vnnan-
' Chronicon de Laneroost, p. 271.
- Ibid. pp. 287, 2SS. * Rymera Foedera, vol. ii. p. SSO, S0<».
■^ Ihhl pp. 201, 202. •' Ihid.
fflS SUCCESSfOX TO THE DOUGLAS ESTATES. 105
dale and the castle of Lochmabeii, which Percy liad received in grant from
Baliol.^ Gifts, however, were not equivalent to possession, and it was easier
to obtain the former than to secure the latter. Sir "William Douglas and
others, says Froissart, secreted themselves for seven years in this very forest
of Jedburgh, making it, as well in winter as in summer, their headquarters,
whence they sallied fortli to " war against all the towns and fortresses
wherein King Edward had placed any garrison, in which many perilous
and gallant adventures befell them, and from which they had acquired much
honour and renown."- The possession w^as therefore of comparatively little
value to the English, as the patriotic Scots steadfastly refused to recognise a
change of ownership.
During this period of confusion the English king bestowed various
Scottish benefices on his favourites, among which was the prebend of Old
Eoxburgh, with the canon's stall pertaining to it. These, in 1337, were
bestowed on Andrew Ormiston.^ If Hugh Douglas had formerly held this
rectory, he must have Iteen dispossessed; but except the probability that
he was so treated, nothing has been discovered as to his movements up
to the time when, by the death ui his nephew, he succeeded to the
Douglas estates. That ho did so succeed is proved by later events, fur
after the return of King David the Second from France to Scotland in
1341, an arrangement seems to have been come to by which Hugh Douglas
served himself heir to his brother Sir James, who had died last infeft
in the Douglas lands,
"While thus in possession of the Douglas territory, Hugh Douglas made
several grants to AVilliam Douglas of Lothian, evidently as a reward for
his vigour in defending Douglasdale, and especially Jedburgh Forest, from
the English. The first of these grants included the half of the barony of
^ Rotuli Scotiai, vol. i. p. 2S0. - Froissart, Johnes' ed., vol. i. p. 77.
^ Rotuli Scotia-, vol. i. p. olG.
196 nUGU OF DOUGLAS, LOUD OF DOUGLAS.
Westei'kirk, with the exception of the iiiauor phice and demesue lands of tlie
same, wliich were reserved to the granter and liis heirs. Apparently at
the same time Lord Hugh granted to Sir "William Douglas the barony of
Stabilgorton, reserving only the castle and the cotlaw. V>\ a third charter,
Sir William Douglas received the whole lan<l of Polbothy (now Polmoody).
Some of the witnesses to this charter are identical with the witnesses to the
two former, from which it may be inferred that all three were granted about
the same time, and before the IGth of February 1341-2.^
On this last-mentioned date Sir William Douglas of Lothian received
from King David the Second, under conditions afterwards narrated in the
memoir of the first Earl, a charter of the lordship of Liddesdale, whence he
derived the title " Lord of Liddesdale," or the " Knight of Liddesdale," by
which name he is best known in history, and which, in his own day,
distinguished him from other members of the illustrious Douglas family.- It
was as Lord of Liddesdale that Sir William Douglas obtained a fourth charter
from his kinsman and chief, Hugh, Lord of Douglas, of certahi lands lying in
the town and territory of Merton, forfeited by Eichard Knowte, in the
superior's hands.^ This charter, in which Hugh assumes the baronial title,
must have been granted between the IGth February 1341-1', when William
Douglas became Lord of Liddesdale, and before the 26th of INIay 1342,
at which date Hugh, Lord of Douglas, made a formal resignation of the
Douglas possessions.
Besides these minor grants, Hugh, Lord of Douglas, made a formal rt-signa-
tion of the Douglas estates in favour of certain heirs of entail. Li canying out
this latest transaction he appeared personally before King David the Second,
and many prelates of the realm, at Aberdeen, on 2Gth Alay 1342, and then and
there, as brother and heir of the late Sir James, Lord of Douglas, formally
' Registrum Honoris «le Morton, vol. ii. pp. 89-92.
- Ihkl. pp. 47, 48. ^ Ihhl. pp. 92, n.*?.
RESIGXATIOX OF DOUGLAS ESTATES, l.]4i\ 197
resigned the lauds of Douglasdale, CaruiicluK'l, Forest of Selkirk, Lauderdale,
Retliocrule, Eskdale, Stabilgortou, Buittle in Galloway, lionianno, and the
farm of Paitherglen, all as held of the Crown. This was done for the purpose
of entailing them to the next heirs, who are named in the charter of regrant
by the same king, given three days afterwards at Dundee, first, ^^'illiam
of Douglas, son and heir of the late Archiljald of Douglas, knight, brother
of the said deceased James, and his lawful heirs-male ; failing whom, th.-
succession opened by a special royal grant to Sir AVilliam Douglas of
Liddesdale, and his lawful heirs-male, whose services to the Crown and
kingdom tlie king acknowledged as being numerous and beneficial; and,
failing them, to .Vi-cliibald Douglas, son of the said deceased James, Lord of
Douglas, and his heirs-male. These all failing, the lands were to revert to
the true and nearest lieirs of Lord Hugh by right of succession.^
Hugh, Lord of Douglas, about this time obtained or resumed possession of
the prebend of Old I^oxburgh, and held it at least for some years. It had
been granted by King Edward the Third, in 1.337, to Andrew of Ormiston,- but
the expulsion of the English from Roxburgh Castle and its neighbourhood, in
1341, left the prebend again vacant. If alive at the time of the battle of
13urliam in 1346, Lord Hugh must by tliat (;vent have been dispossessed in
turn, as his prebend was presented by King Edward the Third, in or before
1347, to Eichard Swynliop. The royal mandate instructs William de
Kelleseye, chancellor and chamberlain of Herwick-on-Tweed, to see that
peaceful possession of '^ the prebend of Old lloxburgh, which Hui;h de
Douglas, clerk, lately held in the cathedral church of ( rlasgow, now vacant
and in our gift," with its fruits and profits, was secured to Richard Swynliop.-
The prebend was afterwards, in 13-52, assigned by the same authority to
' Vol. iii. of this work. The original char- Archibald, third Earl of Douglas, is still pre-
ter is lost, but a transumpt ma.le ia 1391, at served. '^ Rotuli Scoti*, vol. i. p. .-.16.
the instance of tlie last-named heir of entail, * IhhL p. 709.
108 HUGH OF DOUGLAS, WED OF DOUGLAS.
William de Emeldou, when its previous possession by Hugh Lord of Douglas
is again adverted to by the King of England, who adds that it is now vacant
and in his gift by reason of the temporalities of the Bishop of Glasgow
comiug into his hands through the war with Scotland.^
Hugh, Lord of Douglas, was apparently still alive in 13:17, perhaps later,
but little further has been ascertained regarding him. Besides the charters
referred to, he left an enduring memorial of his short enjoyment of the
Douglas estates in the foundation of a chapel in honour of St. John the
Baptist, at Crookboat of Douglas, the junction of the Douglas with the Clyde.
He endowed the chapel with a piece of land of the value of two merks of old
extent, between Hoilgutter on the east and West Burn on the west, the
other boundaries being the Douglas river and the highway, with })asturage
for four horses on the hill of Drumalbin, and certain fees which were wont to
be paid as farms from Drumalbin. The fee from the ferry also was granted
to the chaplain, provision being made for keeping the boat in repair. The
neighbouring lands and tenants supplied meal, thus : Weirland, half a boll ;
the castle, a boll ; the rector, a boll and a stone of cheese ; the two mill<,
one boll ; the I'rior of Lesmahagow, according to custom, a boll of meal and
a stone of cheese; while every house in the muirland of Douglas was to
furnish the best cheese, which, however, could be commuted for two pennies,
if the chaplain or his servant refused the cheese. If any one unbecomingh'
declined to pay the fee, the boatman, as the servant of the Lord, was to seize
anything he pleased, until he was fully satisfied. Such was the endowment
of this chaplainry, as ascertained l>y an inquest held among the inhabitant.-.
of the district in 1550, on the occasion of the appointment by Archibald,
sixth Karl of Angus, of his chaplain. Sir William Bell, \icar of Pettinain, to
the vacant benefice.-
The seal used by Lord Hugh in the grants of lands made by him is still
^ Rotuli Scotiae, vol. i. p. 740. - Vol. iii. of this work, pp. •J42-244.
HIS ARMORIAL SEAL. 199
attached to tlie cliavtev of Westerkiik among the Morton nmnhncnts. It has
been described in the Catalogue of Scottisli Seals, by Mr. Ileniy Laing, as
representing " a knight on horse1)ack, 1)earing a shield, on which there can
Etill be seen tlu^ l)ouglas lieart;" ]»ut this is erroneous. The seal, of which
a facsimile is licre given, is somewhat broken, but really represents a unicorn,
bearing on its back a shield, the upper part of which is gone, but showing a
heart in base. This is an early instance of tlie unicorn licing adopted in
connection with heraldry. The background of the seal is seme of mullets,
arranged in groups of three. It is surrounded by the legend
[s. iiUGONi]s dp: dowgl.vs canonic • •
The legend, also, is erroneously printed by Laing as " S. Hugonis Dowglas
can no mora."
r.y virtue of the resignation made by this Hugh Douglas, and the regrant
by King David the Second following thereon, William Douglas, son of Sir
Archibald Douglas the Eegent, succeeded to the territorial estates and title
ot the Lord of Douglas. But before proceeding with his memoir, the services
of liis father, and the eminent position in the State which he attained,
demand a special notice.
>00
v.— 3. SIR AKCHIBxVLD OF DOUGLAS, KNIGHT,
EEGEXT OF SGOTLANI).
BEATRICE LINDSAY (of Cka^vfokd), in« Win;.
1296—1333.
rpHIS Sir Archibald Douglas was the youngest brother of the Good Sir
-*- James, and the father of the first Earl of Douglas. The earliest
mention of him is in charters by King Robert Bruce of the lands of
Morebattle in lioxburghshire, and Kirkandrews in Dumfriesshire, granted
to him probably after the year 1320, as part of the lands are said to have been
forfeited by Sir John Soulis.^ Some genealogists make Archibald Douglas the
youngest son of the tirst marriage of his father, William Douglas "le Hardi."
He must, however, have been a son of the second marriage with Eleanor of
Lovaine, who was carried off from her friends in Midlothian. Indeed, it i.>
expressly stated by Hume of Godscroft that Archibald was the son of that
lady, and though he gives no proof, yet, as Hugh Douglas was the son uf
the second marriage, and succeeded to the Douglas estates in preference to
William, the son of Archibald, the latter must have been younger than Hu^ii.
An additional reason for believing that Archibald was the son of Eleanor of
Lovaine may be found in the fact that his own daughter's name was Eleanor,
a name formerly unknown in the Douglas family, and no doubt inherited
from her grandmother.
Archibald Douglas v/ould therefore be born about the year 129G, and
' Robertson's Index, pp. 11, 12, '20.
NEVER WAS LORD OF GALLOWAY. 20 1
was thus an infant at his father's death in 1298. Nothing is known (^f
his education or early years. After 1320 lie received the charters already
rt'fcrred to, and in 1324 King Eobert the IJruce further granted to him the
lands of ];attray, Creichmond or Crimond, Carnglass, and others in Buchan.i
r.esides these, he owned Liddesdale, the baronies of Cavers, Drundanriu-,
Terregles, and Westcalder,- and a third part of the lordship of Conveth, in
Aberdeenshire, the owners of the other two thirds being the Earl of ^foray
and Sir Walter Ogilvie.^^ He is called Lord of Galloway by Godscroft, an
crnjr which has been repeated by a modern historian, who gives a reference
to 1 lower.-* That writer, however, gives no ground for such a statement, and
indeed expressly disproves it by naming, as Earl of Carrick and Lord of
Galloway, Sir Alexander Bruce,^ a natural son of Edward Lruce, the brother
(.'f King liobert, who inherited the lordship of Galloway, which had been
-ranted to his father before 1308. Sir Alexander Lruce fell at Halidon Hill,
along with Archibald Douglas, and the latter therefore could never have
possessed the lordship of Galloway. That territory did not come into the
iiands of the Douglases until ISth September 1309, when King David the
Second confeiTed it upon Archibald Douglas, called the Grim, who has been
unfounded by Godscroft with his uncle of the same name.
The public career of Archibald Douglas, so far as appears in the history
of his time, was short, and not very successful. It is to him that Bo\\er
applies an epithet not flattering to his talents as a military leader, namely,
Tyne-man, or Lose-man, indicating that he was rather rash in leading on his
men than skilful in guiding their movements.^ Eut it is doubtful if the-
' Charter jirinted at length in Antiquities Butliwell, many years later.
..f AWTdccn an.l Banff, Spalding Club, vol. ii. - Charter of 1354, vol. ui. of this work,
p. ;5!t4. The lands of Crimoml are erroneously ^ Registrum Aberdonense, vol. i. p. 58.
described as Orniond in Douglass Peerage, ^ Tytler's History of Scotland, v.d. i. p. 3[)i».
Wood's edition. Ormond was only acquired ^ Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 30S.
by the Douglas family through the heiress of « Ibid. p. 310.
VOL. I.
202 SIR ARCHIBALD OF DOUGLAS, KNIGHT.
epithet applies to this Archibald. It is frequently, and perhaps with more
reason, applied to Archibald the fourth Earl. This Archibald, however,
displayed a rashness or impetuosity unfitting him for high commands, which
may be one reason why he is never named by Scottish- historians as con-
ducting any independent exploit during his brother's lifetime, though an
English writer records that while Sir James Douglas and Randolph executed
their brilKant foray into England in 1327, Archibald Douglas, with a band of
foragers, made a raid on the bishopric of Northumberland, and took great
booty, defeating at the same time a company of Englishmen whom ho
encountered near Darlington.^ But in the troublous times which followed
immediately on the death of King Eobert the Bruce, Archibald Douglas
was made liegent, yet not so much from his own merits, as because of
special circumstances.
After Bruce's death the government of the kingdom of Scotland, and the
charge of the young king, had been placed in the hands of Piaudolph, Earl
of Moray, as Begent, but within a year after the coronation of King David
the Second, he died suddenly at Musselburgh, on 19th July 1332. Sir
James Douglas, who had left Scotland for the Holy Land, had already met
his death in battle with the Moors in Spain. There was now no Scottish
noble influential enough to overawe those barons, the Comyns and others
of the English faction, who complained that they had been unjustly
deprived of their estates in Scotland, and who therefore supported Edward
Baliol in his designs upon tliat country.- The Estates, however, elected
as Piegent, Donald, Earl of ]\Iar, and he took connnand of the army which
had been gathered to oppose Edward Baliol. The latter, a few weeks
after the death of Randolph, appeared with a fleet in the Firth of Forth, and
landing at Kinghorn, marched to meet the forces of the Earl of ]\Iar, which
were encamped on Dupplin 'Moot, near Perth. As Edward Baliol had but a
1 Scalacronica, p. l.")4. * Fordun, a Goodal], vol. ii. p. 303.
FIGHTING AGAINST BALIOL AT PERTH, 1332. 203
small force compared with that arrayed against him, his apparent rashness
can only be explained by the statement of Bower, that lie had made a vow
to attack Perth, and tlien be crowned at Scone ; and that lie expected
assistance would be given to him by certain magnates of the kingdom.''
In this last particuhir he w"as not mistaken, for partly owing to treachery
and partly to carelessness on the part of the ricgent, Baliol surprised the
Scottish army early in the morning, and gained a complete victory. In
the terrible rout and slaughter which followed the attack, the Eegcnt
himself perished, and with him many other nobles and barons. This sad
event took place on 11th August 1332.
While the army of the Eegent ]\Iar was thus defeated at Dupplin Mour,
another large body of Scots, numbering about 30,000, mustered from the south
of Scotland, under the command of Patrick, Earl of ^larch, was lying not far
from Perth.- On receiving news of the defeat, the Earl moved his furces
towards Perth, whither Baliol's army had gone after the battle. Tlie Scottish
historians record that instead of at once besieging the town, he halted his
troops within sight of the defenders, which caused one of them. Sir Henry
Beaumont, an English knight, to exclaim that there were friends in the
Scottish army.3 After a short delay the Earl of March withdrew his forces
and raised the blockade, though a determined siege might have put an end to
the war in favour of the Scots,
In narrating these events, the Scottish historians make no allusion to
the position of Archibald Douglas, but English historians state that he was
among the leaders under the Earl of March.*
An explanation of the raising of the blockade of Perth is found in the
proceedings of Sir Eustace Maxwell, who had joined the party of Edward
' Fordun, d Coodall, vol. ii. p. .304. 2 jm^
^ Ibid. p. 306 ; Wyntown, B. viii. c. xxvi. 1. 240.
* Hemingbiirgli, vol. ii. p. 30d ; Walsingham, 1574 edition, p. 113.
204 SIR ARCHIBALD OF DOUGLAS, KNIGHT.
Baliol. At the head of a band of the men of Galloway, who acknowledged
Baliol as their feudal lord, Sir Eustace made an attack upon the lands of
the southern Scots, who formed tlie greater part of the force under the Earl
of March, in order to compel the latter to raise the siege/ This had the
intended effect, for March and Archibald Douglas, with Sir Andrew ]\Ioray
and John liandolph, now Earl of ]\Ioray, at once retired from Perth, invaded
Galloway, burned the country, and carried off cattle and goods, " but killed
few men because they found few men."^
In the interval caused by this diversion, Baliol had been crowned at Scone
on 27th September 1332, and after fortifying Perth and placing it in
charge of Duncan, Earl of Eife, he, without delay, passed southward through
Cunningham to Irvine, where he received homage from a few who held lands
in Ayrshire." He then went to Galloway, where he was joined by some of
the natives. Erom Galloway he passed by Crawford Moor towards Eoxburgh,
while Archibald Douglas and the newly appointed llegent, Sir Andrew
Moray, hung upon his rear and harassed his march. Xear Jedburgh Baliol's
party was waylaid and attacked by an ambush uuder the command of
Archibald Douglas, which, however, was discovered and routed, while Baliol
reached Kelso in safety. In this skirmish, it is said, Pobert of Lawder the
younger was taken, with others.^ Baliol, on reaching lioxburgh, quartered his
followers in the town, but he himself for greater quiet took up his residence
with the Abbot of Kelso. Here, according to all the English historians, he
was attacked by the liegent, who was taken prisoner ; but this event probably
took place at a later period when Baliol was again at lioxburgh.*
Baliol, after a short sojourn at Boxburgh, departed thence with a
small force, and progressed towards Annan, with the intention of a])iding
' Chronicon de Lanercost, p. "269. ^ Scalacronica, j>. l(jl.
* ForJiin, a (loodall, j»p. .30'J, 310 ; Wyn-
- Wyntown, B. viii. c. xxvi. 1. .315. town, B. viu. c. xxvi. 1. 394.
DEFEAT OF BALIOL AT AXXAN, 1332. 20i
there until Christmas. This intention, lio-u-ever, was rudely interrupted.
Archibald Douglas, who had so perseveringly dogged the steps of the new
monarch, now lay at Moffat in company with John Randolph, Earl of :\Ioray,
and Sir Simon Fraser, at the head of a tliousand picked men, " wyclit men
and hardy." These Scottish leaders, hearing from their spies of Ijaliol's
imprudent march from the fortress of Roxburgh to the comparatively
defenceless town of Annan, resolved on a surprise, which was boldly
conceived and promptly executed. Marching overnight, the Scots arrived
at Annan in the early morning, and finding the hapless Baliol and his
followers in their beds, slew about a hundred of them. Baliol liimself
escaped, but in such haste that with one limb clothed and the otlier naked
he threw himself on a bare-backed steed, and thus fled to Carlisle. His
flight was assisted by the valiant resistance made by his Ijrother, Sir Henry
Baliol, who, with a stout staff, slew many of the attacking party, but was
at last, with several other knights, overpowered and slain.^
Some English historians account for the success of this exploit by alleging
that Edward I'.aliol had, on the faith of a truce negotiated by Archibald
Douglas and the Earl of :\rarch to last till 2d February 1333, dismissed most
of his followers to their own homes, and was then, while thus unprepared,
attacked by the Scots.^ This account, however, is inconsistent with the true
order of events narrated by the English writers themselves, and as the
statement regarding a truce is not made by those wlio had most accurate
means of information, it may be rejected as erroneous, or as referring to a
later period, after Douglas was made Ptegent. It is said to have been made
after the capture of Sir Andrew Moray at Ptoxburgh, an event which is
antedated by all the English historians. The chroniclers of Lanercost and
Sir Thomas Grey, author of the Scalacrunica, say nothing of any truce.
1 Chronicon de Lanercost, p. 271 ; Fonlun, a Goodall, vul. ii. p. .jOS.
- Chronicon de Hemingburgh, ed. 1S49, vol. ii. p. 300 ; Walsingham. od. 1574, p. 114.
206 Slli ARCHIBALD OF DOUGLAS, KNIGUT.
Sir Thomas Grey, however, refers to negotiations with England, and liis
statement is supported by the fact that, on 2Gth October 1332, a safe-conduct
was granted by King Edward the Third to certain ambassadors from the
liegent of Scotland, then lately appointed, to come to England to treat of
matters affecting the kingdoms.^ Further, on 14th December 1332, only two
days before the battle of Annan, the same monarch appointed two commis-
sioners to treat with the Eegent and magnates of Scotland,- a fact which
discredits the date assigned to the capture of Moray, which the Scottish
historians assign to a later date. They state that the party Avho attacked
Baliol at Annan were detached for that service by the Piegent himself, and
that the latter was only taken in March or April of the following year, when
Baliol lay at Eoxburgh awaiting the King of England.^
These statements go far to disprove the charge of treachery made against
Archibald Douglas and his associates, while the success of the surprise at
Annan is further accounted for by a contemporary chronicler on very simple
grounds. Baliol and his followers, it is said, were found asleep, as men too
secure of their own safety, because of various former victories,* a statement
which, coming from an English writer who says nothing of a truce, may be
accepted as expressing the real facts.
Edward Baliol, after his flight from Annan, went to Carlisle, where he
was well received by the Governor, Lord Dacrc,^ and was lodged in the
monastery of the Franciscans. On the 9th ]\Iarch following, he, with some
English nobles, again entered Scotland with fire and sword.^ In retaliation
Archibald Douglas, a fortnight afterwards, led a force of three thousand men
into Northumberland, and laid wasLe tlie territory of Gilsland, burning antl
' Rymer's Fcedera, vul. ii. p. 847. * Chronicon de Lanercost, p. 271.
2 Ihkl. p. S49.
, . , . T. , ^ H. Knv-hton, '2.302.
- \\ yntuwu, L). viii. c. xxvi. 1. 3j>5 ; rorduu,
a GooJall, vol. ii. pp. 308, ."iO'J. ' l^Jid. ; Hemiiij^burgh, vol. ii. p. oOG.
APPOINTED REGENT OF SCOTLAND, 1333. 207
ravaging for the distance of over thirty miles. He returned to Scotland,
unopposed, bringing with him much booty and many captives.^ A recent
writer, having reference only to the fact that Gilsland belonged to Lord
iJacre, alleges that this foray was made because of Lord Dacre's hospitality
to Baliol,- but he has overlooked the fact that it was more probably in
revenge for the latter's incursion into Scotland.
King Edward the Third by this time had resolved personally to lead
another army into Scotland, and began the campaign by laying siege to the
town of Berwick. There is considerable difliculty in fixing the true sequence
of events immediately preceding that siege. Accepting the chronology of the
Scottish historians as on the whole the more probable, Sir Andrew Moray fell
into the hands of his captors about the end of March 1333. Edward Ixiliol
re-entered Scotland on the 9th of that month. On the 21st, Archibald
Douglas entered England, and on the same day King Edward the Third
declared war and summoned his barons to meet him at Newcastle to march
against the Scots.^ The English king came to Durham on the 8th of April
1333, and there received in person the submission of Sir Andrew Moray,
who, "Wyntown and Bower agree in stating, refused to yield to any one,
until he was brought into the presence of the English monarch.* The
liegent was confined at Durham, which adds to the probability that he
met Edward the Third at that place.
Sir Archibald Douglas, therefore, was appointed Eegent of Scotland about
the end of ^larch or beginning of April 1333, The chroniclers of Lanercost
state that he owed the high office conferred upon him to liis share in the
exploit at Annan. It is narrated that after tlie defeat of Baliol, and his
expulsion from the kingdom, the Scots assembled, and because Sir Archibald
^ Hemingburgh, vul. ii. p. 306. ^ Fcedera, vol. ii. p. So.i.
- Tytler's Plistory of Scotland, tLinl edi- * \Vyutown, B. viir. c. xxvii. 1, 10; For-
tiun, vol. i. p. 39S. dun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 310.
20S Sm ARCHIBALD OF DOUGLAS, KNIGHT.
of Douglas had been tlic principal adviser iu bringing about and following up
the king's defeat, although the expulsion should be ascribed to the Earl of
Moray as liigher in rank and more powerful, they made Douglas PiCgent of
Scotland.^ It is also stated that before doing so, they treasonably took and
imprisoned the Earl of Eife because he was faithful to Baliol. But the
capture of Perth by the patriotic party and the imprisonment of the Earl of
Fife took place about the Ttli October 1332, and could have no relation
whatever to the choice of a Piegeut. It is added that Sir Archibald Douglas
released the Earl of Fife, and granted to him certain lands beyond the Firth
of Fortli.- There is no other evidence of tliis, but it is certain that the Earl
was in the Scottish army with the licgent at the battle of Halidon Hill.
The circumstances wliicli led to that battle, so disastrous to the Scots, may
be briefly stated. King Edward the Third of England, though bound by the
treaty of Northampton iu 1328, and by the marriage of his sister Joanna to
King David the Second, to preserve peace between Scotland and England,
took advantage of the death of King Eobert Bruce to disregard the conditions
of the treaty. This he did in obedience to the promptings uf his own ambition,
as well as iu accordance with the feelings of his people, to whom the treaty
was highly distasteful. At first, however, the English king committed no overt
violation of the treaty, although, by the countenance he showed to Baliol in
permitting his barons to assist the latter, it is evident he hoped to force the
Scots to take up arms, and thus to make them appear the transgressors.
The patriotic party in Scotland, however, though defending themselves
against lialiol, and driving him from the kingdom, did nothing which could
be construed into a breach of the truce with England. It cannot be doubted,
therefore, that the English king was truly the first aggressor, when, after the
parliament held at York in the beginning of 1333, he allowed some of the
English barons there assembled openly to join with Baliol, and to invade
1 Chrouicon ile Lanercost, pp. 271, 272. - Ihld.
SIEGE OF BERWICK, 1333. 209
Scotland with fire and sword, on 9tli March 1333.^ It is true that the Scots,
in retaliation, entered Xorthumberland on the :31st of the same month,
but Edward's summons to his barons to march against the Scots is also
dated on that same day,- and therefore before he could know of the Scottish
raid, so that his hostile intentions could not have arisen from this act of
retaliation on the part of the Scots.
From this time Edward's preparations for war advanced rapidly. His
first summons to his barons was dated at Pontefract, and he immediately
began a progress northward towards Xewcastle, which was appointetl as a
rendezvous on Trinity Sunday [30th ]\Iay]. On 30th March the king issued
a further summons, appointing the time of meeting as a month "at the
latest" after Easter-day, which fell in that year on 4th April.^ This would
make the date of assembling about the first of May, and accordingly Edward
himself reached Xewcastle on the 2 2d of April, and advanced in person to
Berwick on the 15th May at the head of the English force.'* Baliol, liowever,
had already begun the siege, and the town had been invested since the 23d
of April.^ On 20t]i ]\Iay a rigorous blockade was begun, both kings being
now with the army. The citizens were reduced to great straits, and agreed
to capitulate if not relieved by a Scottish army by a certain date. Before
the time expired, a large force headed by Sir Archibald Douglas, then
Eegent of Scotland, crossed the Tweed at Yare ford, and a detachment under
Sir William Keith and others succeeded in gaining entrance to the town
of Berwick.'''
A Scottish historian says, that when the conditions of the agreement
between the citizens of Berwick and the besiegers became known, the Eegent,
^ H. Knyghton, 2562 ; Chroiiicon de Laiier- ^ Eotidi Scotia', vol. i. p. 238.
cost, p. 272.
„ ^ , ,..„.. ° Hemingburgh, vol. ii. p. 307.
- Foeaera, vol. u. p. Soo.
2 Ih'td. p. 857. * Scalacronica, pp. 162, 163.
VOL. I. 2 I»
210 SIR ARCHIBALD OF DOUGLAS, KXIGllT.
being warlike and of a high courage, immediately gathered tlie whole number
of the Scots who favoured King David, to tlie number of sixty thousand
warriors.^ This army, after a halt of a day and a night, marched southward,
burning and destroying the country. In tlie meantime the English king
demanded the surrender of Berwick, the term of treaty having expired. This
was refused, and finally a new condition was imposed, that the town should
be at once given up unless, within fifteen days, tlie Scots should throw two
hundred men into the place, or should gain a pitched Ijattle in the tield.-
The inhabitants of Berwick, afraid for the lives of their children, who had
been given as hostages, and acting under the impression that the Scottish
army was superior to the English, sent messengers to the Scottish army
imploring the IJegent to risk a battle;^ The IiCgent and the rest of the
Scottish leaders unhappily consented, although to do so was directly in face
of the dying instructions of Bruce, never to risk a battle when they could
protract a war and lay waste the country.* Had such policy been followed
on this occasion, the result, owing to elements of disintegration at work in the
English army, might have been far otherwise than it was. It is probable
that the English king, finding his army diminished by desertions, would
have been compelled to raise the siege of Berwick, or to fight the Scots with
a much inferior force. Desertions from his army were already taking place,
and dissensions had arisen in London during his absence, while the men of
the northern shires had objected to join his army.-''
Yielding, however, to the representations of Sir William Keith, Sir
Archibald Douglas led back his forces towards Berwick, crossed the Tweed,
and encamped at Duns Park on the evening of the 18th July 1333.*^ The
' Fordun, a. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 310. ^ Verses called "Brace's Testaiuent " in
., ,-, , . , ,„ Fordun, ;i Hearne, vol. iv. p. 1002.
^ bcalacronica, p. 163.
^ Rotuli Scotiae, pp. 234, 235, 244.
^ Ibid. ; Fordun, ii Goodall, vol. ii. p. 310. " Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 310.
DEATH AT HA LIDO X HILL, 1333. 21
English forces were drawn up on the slope of Halidou Hill, to the west of
Berwick, and in full view of that town. The Scottish leaders arranged their
troops on a rising ground facing the English position, from which they were
separated by a marsh. In addition to this the Scots had a considerable
descent and ascent to overcome ere they could meet their enemies at close
quarters. The divisions of the Scottish army were four in number, the first
under the connnand of the Earl of Moray, the second under the Steward of
Scotland, the third led by the liegent in person, and the fourth commanded
by Hugh, Earl of lioss. The position occupied by the English was unassail-
able by cavalry, and the Scottish nobles and knights therefore fought on
foot.
Notwithstanding the great disadvantages offered to an attacking force by
the marsh and other inequalities of the ground, the Scots rashly determined
to reach their adversaries. To do this it was necessary to cross the morass,
which could only be done slowly, and under exposure to the arrows of the
English archers. These fell thickly and with deadly effect upon the advancing
Scots, yet they did not waver. The fourth division, under the Earl of lioss,
made a bold rush upon the wing of the English army commanded by Baliol,
but was repulsed with loss. The main body of the Scots, weakened by their
passage through the marsh, and breathless because of the ascent, still advanced
with impetuosity, but were compelled to give way after great slaughter.^ In
illustration of the obstinate courage of the Scots, and also of the great carnage,
an incident narrated by an English contemporaiy writer may be quoted.
Among those taken prisoner was one who had that day been dubbed a
knight, and he said that of two hundred and three knights newly made by
the Scots before the battle, none had escaped death save himself and four
others.- Seven Earls of Scotland, it is said, fell in this disastrous battle, and
the Eegent, Sir Archibald Douglas, as well as liis young nephew and chief,
^ Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 311. ^ Chronicoa de Lanercost, p. 274.
212 ^7A' ARCHIBALD OF DOUGLAS, KXIGHT.
William of Douglas, were fatally wouuded aud captive. The same chronicler
blames the Ilegent as the principal agent in leading the Scots army to such a
fate,-^ and all the historians, both Scotcli and English, who record the battle,
join in reprehending the pride and obstinacy of the Scots in attempting to
attack their adversaries in the face of so many and great disadvantages.
Sir Archibald Douglas having been raised to the Eegency, must have
been considered the fittest man for that important post. But in this case
his natural impetuosity led him to yield only too readily to the repre-
sentations made to him in the name of the citizens of Berwick, and to
underrate his opponents, and the strength of their position.
The defeat at Halidon was a terrible blow to Scotland. Berwick fell
immediately into the hands of the English king, and Baliol overran the
whole kingdom with an army which found nothing to oppose it. The
patriotic party, however, were not subdued. Eollowing out their traditional
tactics, they simply retired to the less accessible parts of the kingdom, or to
the few castles vrhich still held out for King David. From these they issued
at the first opportunities afforded, gained battles on every hand, and a year
or two after his victory at Halidon, Baliol was again a fugitive. The war
went on with varying success until 1337, when, on engaging in war with
France, the kin" of England was oljliued to draw otf his attention from
Scotland. The evil results of the defeat at Halidon were therefore not so
lasting as might have been feared, though for a time the prosperity <if
Scotland was wholly retarded.
Sir Archibald Douglas is said by the family historian, Godscroft, to have
maiTied Dornagilla Comyn, daughter of John Comyn who was slain by Bruce
at Dumfries, and it is alleged that through her Douglas became Lord of
Galloway. Sir Archibald Douglas never held the lordship of Galloway, and
his wife was not Dornagilla Comyn, who indeed seems to be a personage
^ Chronicon de Lanercost, p. 274.
HIS WIFU A.YD CIIILDREX.
21;
wholly mythical. Sir Archibald Douglas inarricHl BeaUico Lindsay, daughter
of Sir Alexander Lindsay of Crawford,^ who survived her husband. During
the troublous times which followed the battle of llalidon, the widow of
the Regent, with several other ladies, took refuge in the fortress of Cumber-
nauld. ]n the summer of 1335, King Edward the Third and Baliol
entered Scotland with a large army. They advanced to Perth without
meeting an enemy, but one historian records that on their way north, on the
Sunday after St. ]\Iagdalen's Day (23d July), John of Warrenne and Iniliol
laid siege to Cumbernauld. The castle was too strong to be taken, and the
siege might have been abandoned but for an unfortunate fire within the
castle, which compelled the defenders to surrender themselves with tlieir
goods. Among those who thus became prisoners were the w"idow of Sir
Archibald Douglas, Sir David Marischal and his wife, and the wife of Sir
Philip ]\Iowbray.- The fate of the captives is not recorded, but Beatrice
Lindsay afterwards married Sir Pobert Erskine of Erskine, and became the
ancestress of the Erskines, Earls of INIar.^
Sir Archibald Douglas and Beatrice Lindsay had three cluldren, two sons
and a daughter : —
L John of Douglas, of whom the little that is known may be summed up
in the words of AVyntown, who says that William, afterwards Earl
of Douglas, had an elder brother John, who died beyond the sea.'
John Douglas, with his mother, ])eatrice, had a charter, dated
between L335 and 1338, from Duncan, Earl of Eife, of the lands of
West Calder, to Dame Beatrice of Douglas in liferent, and to John,
her son and heir, in fee.^ Wvntown's statement that this John
' Wyntown, B. viii. c. xli ; Lives of the Charter-chest. Mar Peerage Evidence, p.
Lindsays, vol. i. p. 54. 515. * Wyntowu, B. viii. c. xli. 1. 37.
- Knyghtoa aimd Twysden, 2560. ^ Original ptius Lord Torphichen, printed
3 Old Genealogy of Earls of Mar in Mar in .Spalding Club Miscellany, vol. v. p. 24.3.
214 ,S7A^ ARCHIBALD OF DOUGLAS, KXIGIIT.
died beyond sea is corrobonited by the fact that among thost-
named as in the househohl of King David the Second during his
residence at Chateau GaiUard in Normandy, in the year 13-tO,
is a John of Douglas, and he must have been a person of some
importance, as his expenses are first reckoned among those of the
king's household and then deducted, and amount to the sum of
£10 for a year, or less.^ Further, when in 1342 Hugh of Douglas,
brother of the Good Sir James, resigned tlie Douglas estates, the
king's charter of regrant makes no mention of John of Douglas, but
only of "William, who, according to Wyntown, was the younger
brother. It is therefore probable that John of Douglas died in
France before 1342, and unmarried.
2. William of Douglas, the second born, but the only surviving son of
Sir Archibald Douglas. In terms of the resignation of his uncle,
Hugh, Lord of Douglas, in 1342, "William Douglas succeeded to
the lordship of Douglas. He was by King David the Second
created Earl of Douglas on 26th January 1358. Of him a memoir
follows.
3. Eleanor. Little is known of this lady save that she was five times
married. Her first husband, to whom she must have been married
very young, was Sir iVlexander Bruce, a son of Edward Bruce,
brother of King Eobert, who inherited his father's title of Earl of
Carrick. He was killed at Halidon on 19th July 1333,- without
issue. His Countess, who retained the title of Countess of Carrick
during life, married, secondly. Sir James Sandilands of Sandilands,
a distinguished vassal of her brother William, Lord of Douglas.
About 1349 the Lord of Douglas bestowed upon his sister. Lady
Eleanor of Bruce, and James Sandilands, in free marriage, the lands
1 Exchequer Rolls, vol. i. p. 4G6. - Fonlnn, a Goodall. vol. ii. p. .311.
Ills DAUGHTER ELEANOR AXD HER HUSBANDS.
of "West Cakler.i Of this marriage there was issue, and tlie present
Lord Torphichcn i'^ now the representative, and still holds thesi;
lands. Sir James Sandilands died before 1358, and his widow
made a journey into England to the shrine of Canterbury.- The
third reputed husband of Eleanor was Sir William Tours of Dairy.
This has been doubted, but in 1361 she received from Exchequer a
sum of £2G, 13s. 4d, as comjiensation for growing corn destroyed at
Dairy .3 Since she thus had an interest in the lands, the marriage
may have taken place. Previous to 13G8 Eleanor, Countess of
Carrick, mamed, fourthly, Sir Duncan Wallace of Sundrum, who
received various charters to himself and his wife.* In April and
December 1373 the Countess was again in England, and in April
137-f she had licence to import corn for her own use.^ In 1376
a dispensation was issued from Piome for a marriage between
Eleanor Bruce, Countess of Carrick, and her fifth husband. Sir
Patrick Hepburn of Hailes.*^
1 Vol. iii. of this work, p. 15 ; Acts of the 102. Of. Registrum Episcopatus Glasguensis,
Parliaments of Scotlaud, vol, xii. p. 9. vol. i. p. 279.
- Rotuli Scotia?, vol. i. p. 824. » Rotuli Seotia>, vol. i. pp. 957, 960, 90:5.
•^ Exchequer Rolls, vol. ii. p. 105. " Andrew Stuart's Genealogy of the
* Registrum Magni Sigilli, vol. i. pp. 75, Stewarts, p. 440.
216
VI.— 2. SIK WILLIAM DOUGLAS, KNIGHT, LOP.D OF DOUGLAS.
CREATED EAP.L OF DOUGLAS, AXD FILST EAIIL OF
DOUGL.VS AND :\IA1{.
LADY MARGARET OF MAR, his CoUxXTEss.
1342—1384.
OIR WILLIAM DOUGLAS was the younger son of Sir Archibald
^^ Douglas, the Regent of Scotland. As already stated in the pre^■iou.s
memoir, his elder Lrother, John, died unmarried before the resignation of the
Douglas estates by their uncle, Hugh Douglas. Sir William was therefore the
nearest heir to these estates, and on 29th ^lay 1342, King David the Second,
in terms of that resignation, regranted them to a series of heirs, the first
being William of Douglas, son and heir of the deceased Sir Archibald of
Douglas, brother of Sir James, Lord of DougLis.^
The date of the birth of William of Douglas has not been ascertained,
but in 1342 he was still a minor, and a ward of his godfather, Sir "\Mlliam
Douglas, the Knight of Liddesdale." It is stated by historians that he
was educated in France, and bred to arms in the wars of that country, and
there seems to be no doubt that his earlier years were spent there. He
returned to Scotland about 1348," probably on his coming of age. Scotland
1 Vol. iii. of this work. Godscroft (p. SO), following Boece, states that
VViUiam of Douglas fought at Durham in
2 Registrum Honoris de Morton, vol. ii.
pp. 46, 47.
1346, aud was made Earl before the battle.
It is also stated that he was made prisoner
^ Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 346 ; Wyn- but was quickly rausomed. This, however,
town, B. Mil. c. xli. 11. 34-30. Hume of is erroneous.
RETURXS FROM FRAXCE TO SCOTLAND, 1348.
was tlien in a critical condition, greatly weakened as it had been by tlie
recent defeat at Durham. King David the Second was a prisoner in the
Tower, and many of tlie nobles and barons of Scotland, including the Knight
of Liddesdale and the Earls of Fife and Sutherland, had been taken with the
king, and were captives in England. The Steward of Scotland, who, with the
Earl of ]March and the division of the Scottish army under their command,
had made good his retreat from the field of battle, was acting as Regent oi
Scotland, but was unal)le to make head against the invaders, who overran
the greater part of the south of Scotland.
During the year 1347, Edward Baliol, at the head of the men of Gallo-
way, with the aid of Henry Percy and Ealph Xeville and their men, laid
waste the Lothians, passed to Glasgow, and returned to England through
Cunningham and Xithsdale, destroying the country traversed by them.^ In
that or the following year Douglas returned to Scotland. His first act was
to proceed to his own territory of Douglasdale, whence he drove out the
Englisli. He then went to Edinburgh, and was cordially received by his
maternal uncle. Sir David Lindsay of Crawford, then Governor of Edinburgh
Castle. After remaining there for a time, Douglas bestirred himself for the
deliverance of his country. The well-known bravery of his family enabled
him to gather, of burgesses and others, what Wyntown describes as a "gret
cumpany," with whom he marched soutliward. He found a lurking-place
in Ettrick or Jedburgh Forest, where he and his men were welcomed by the
country people, who daily came in to him to renew their fidelity to their
own government.2 The Castle of Eoxburgh, which dominated the Forest,
was at this time held for King Edward by Sir John Copland, who mustered
1 Fcedera, vol. iii, p. 104 ; Fordiin, a Ettrick Forest. Wyntown says simply that
Goodall, vol ii. p. 346. he went to "the forest," suggesting from the
'^ Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 346 ; Wyn- context that it was the forest of Jedburgh,
town, B. viii. c. xli. Bower says that in which Douglas had his resort. Lord Hailes
Douglas drew to himself all [the men of] [Annals, vol. ii. p. 243] follows Bower.
VOL. I. 2 K
218 WILLIAM, FIRST EARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAR.
a considerable force, and sallied out into Teviotdale against JJoiiglas. Uut
the Scots in the district joined themselves to Douglas and put Copland and
his men to Higlit, some of them turning their backs witliout striking a blow.^
Of this success Douglas took advantage to contirni the Scots of- that district
in their allegiance.
Owing to the scantiness of Scottish record nothing is known of Douglas for
the next two years. His tirst recorded appearance in political life is in 1351,
as a Commissioner for Scotland in company with the Earl of March and
others to treat with the envoys of England for the liberation of King David
Bruce.2 The meeting was at Xewcastle-on-Tyne. Various negotiations had
already been carried on between the two countries with the same object,
but without practical result. On this occasion, however, it was arranged
that David should visit his kingdom upon parole, seven youths from the
noblest families in Scotland being accepted as hostages in his place. At a
later date William, Lord of Douglas, was one of those who carried through
the exchange of the hostages for the king, and accompanied the latter to
Scotland.^
The mention of the name of the Lord of Douglas in connection with these
negotiations has led the usually accurate Lord Ilailes into a misstatement.^
His Lordship M'rites : " Erom an instrument preserved in Foidcra Anglia: it
appears that the Ejiglish were engaged in some mysterious negotiations with
the King of Scots and Lord Douglas." After narrating the terms of the
document in question, which is described as containing a secret instruction,-^
Lord Hailes adds, " The negotiations, whatever might have been their
tendency, proved unsuccessful, and the King of Scots was remanded to
prison." Lord Hailes is right in saying that secret negotiations were carried
1 Wyntown, ut supra. ^ Fcedera, vol. iii. pp. -2.30, 231.
- Fcedera, vol. iii. p. 225, 28tli June * Annals, vol. ii. p. 240.
1-^51. i Fcedera, val. iii. p. 242.
TREACHERY OF THE KNIGHT OF LIDDESDALE. 219
ou for liberating the Scotch king, and that they proved abortive, but he is
wrong in making AVilliam, Lord of Douglas, a party to them. The person
named in the document referred to is not the Lord of Douglas, but is
distinctly stated to be " Monsieur William Douglas," which was the usual
appellation of the Knight of Liddesdale.^
Further proof that the Knight of Liddesdale was the person indicated
in the secret instructions may be found in the following facts : — David the
Second was liberated in September 1351, and the order for his reception
again as a prisoner is dated 28th March 1352. Between these two dates
the Knight of Liddesdale was also set free to go to Scotland, permission
to that effect being given on 20th January 1352, to endure till the following
Easter.^ A few days later the English king issued letters to the Anglicised
Scots (" Scotis Anglicatis "), informing them that a treaty was in progress f(jr
the liberation of King David Bruce, and that Douglas had gone to Scotland
to assure it. They were, by counsel and otherwise, to assist William Douglas
in fostering the treaty on behalf of the Scots king, in case of opposition in
Scotland, and to continue their assistance until Easter, when the Knight of
Liddesdale's safe-conduct expired.
On the eve of the King of Scots again surrendering himself, the secret
instructions were issued to several English commissioners, to the effect that
if the treaty then in progress failed, and it were thought, after conference
with King David Bruce and Sir William Douglas, that the work (" exploit ")
might be otherwise accomplished, and if they had ascertained the favourable
disposition of their friends, they were to permit the King of Scots to remain
in the north of England, to prolong his liberty, or otherwise, as they saw
necessary for the furtherance of the business. It is quite evident, therefore,
that as the Knight of Liddesdale was permitted his liberty at the same time
1 Fcedera, voL iii. p. 246.
- Kotuli Scotin?, vol. i. \>. 74G. Easter ia that year fell on Sth April.
220 II7ZZ/JJ/, FU?ST EARL OF DOf'CLAS AND J/AJi.
with the King of Scots, and was to receive assistance from the English party
in Scotland, the secret instructions refer to him, and the result of his efforts
to further the treaty, and not to the Lord of Douglas, who from first to last
was a consistent patriot.^
These negotiations, whatever they were, came to nought, and both the
King of Scots and the Knight of Liddesdale returned to captivity in the
Tower. But in the month of July the Knight of Liddesdale entered into a
solemn agreement with the King of England to be his servant, and to permit
the P^nglish to pass through his lands at all times without hindrance, in
return for which he was set at liberty, with a grant of the lands of Liddesdale
and Hermitage Castle, etc., to be held of the English king."^ This document,
which was a virtual betrayal of all the south of Scotland into the hands of
the English monarch, probably embodied some of the proposals contained in
the secret instructions already referred to.
William, Lord of Douglas, appears to have visited England on some
errand in the early part of the year 1353, when he had a safe-conduct from
King Edward the Third.^ In the summer of the same year he resumed
hostilities with the view of reducing the Anglicised Scots to their proper
allegiance. Gathering a large force, he made a descent upon Cialloway, the
country of Edward Baliol. Eor some time Baliol had been residing within
his own territory, but in the previous year he was summoned to England,
the English monarch taking the Galwegians and others under his own
protection during their lord's absence.'* Douglas, however, overawed the
Galloway chiefs, and so successfully treated with them that they took the
^ A recent liistorian [Tytler, vol. ii. pp. 20, - Foedera, vol. iii. p. 246
21] has repeated Lord Hailes's error, and has
enlarged upon the subject, thouirh admitting
that the Lord of Douglas did not fall in with
the English designs. He never had anything
to do with them. * Jbid. pp. 753, 754
•^ Rotuli Scotis, vol. i. p. 75G. To en-
dure from IGth January to 25th March
1353.
SUBJECTION OF THE CHIEFS OF GALLOWAY, 13.53. i'2l
oath of fealty to the Guardian of Scotland. One who is named as the
principal among these chiefs, Duncan or Dougal ^Macdowell, took the oath in
the church of Cumnock.^ He had fought among the Scots at the battli^ of
Durham, and lu-en taken prisoner, but the next year was liberated on bail,
and swore fealty to Edward the Third. To punish him for his new change of
party the P^nglisli king issued letters, dated in August 1353, ordering the
confiscation of his goods and chattels.- These letters fix the date of the
invasion of Galloway.
To the same year, 1353, may with probability be assigned the taking
of the castles of Dalswynton and Carhiverock, and the winning back the
allegiance of Xithsdale to the Scottish crown, achieved by Eoger Kirkpatrick.
Tlie Earl of Carrick also, son of the Steward, afterwards King Ilobert the
Third, entered Annandale with a considerable force, and remained there till
it was brought into subjection. Wyntown and Bower both refer these events
to a later date, the latter to 135G, while Fordun takes no notice of them.-'
An PvUglish chronicle, on the other Iiand, states that while King David was
a prisoner, the Lords of Scotland, by little and little, won ])ack all they had
lost at the battle of Durham, and that Lords Percy and Xeville, then wardens
on the English ^Marches, made truce witli William Lord of Douglas when he
had re-conr|uered the lands that the English had takt-n from the Scots.^ It
is certain that towards the end of 1353 tlie Scots mustered so strongly on the
1 Wyutown, B. viii. c. xlii. 11. lGl-174; of Sootlaiul by the Scots to the years before
Fordiiii, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 3oG. 13o5. This statement in reference to Percy
- Rotuli Scotia', vol. i. p. 701. and Xeville, taken in connection witli Doii-
^ Fordun, edition 1871; Wyntown, nt glas's association with the Earl of March in
siiprn ; Fordun, a Goodall, iit Aupra. 1:J5.5, and a truce with the Englisli warden
^ English version of Scalacronica. Leland's in 1356, shows that the Lord of Douc^las was
Collections, vol. i. pp. .504, 565. Without so early as 1.S53 a warden of the Scottish
giving a precise date, the author of Scalacronica Marches, though he is not named as such
certainlyassi^'ns the winning back of the South until 1.357. — [Fcpdera, vol. iii. p. 354.]
222 WILLIAM, FIRST EARL OF DOVGLAS AND MAR.
Borders that King Edward the Third, in anticipation uf an invasion as soon
as the truce between the two countries expired, ordered light horsemen and
archers to be kept in readiness to march northward if required.^ It was even
reported that Scottish spies were searching out tlie weak phices in the Malls
of Carlisle, and orders were issued for the arrest of all suspected persons, lest
they should give information to the enemy.- There is, therefore, good reason
for assigning the re-conquest of Galloway, Nithsdale, and Annandale to this
period instead of a later date.
But the occupation of these territories by the patriotic party in Scotland
had an important bearing on the fortunes of the Knight of Liddesdale. It
rendered his plans inoperative, as the Anglicised Scots in these quarters were
the chief supports on whom he could reckon in any treasonable scheme lu-
might cherish. He himself met an untimely but not undeserved fate. In
the month of August 13o3, little more than a year after his release from
captivity, he was Inniting in Ettrick Eorest, when he was slain by his godson,
the Lord of Douglas, then probably returning victorious from his raid on
Galloway. Fordun states that he was killed in revenge for his share m the
deaths of Sir Alexander Bamsay and Sir David Berkley, and also because of
other enmities stirred up between the two Douglases, by their ambition.-^
It does not appear that the Knight's secret negotiations had become knov\-n
to the Scottish leaders, as the eulogium passed u])on him by a contemporav}
historian ■* forbids the supposition that his treason was made public. The
slaughter was committed, it is said, at a place called Galsewood,"" which
1 Pvotuli Sooti;v, vol. i. p. 702. SOtli Octo- brave in battle, had suflFered for his country,
ber 1353. was skilful in war, and faithful to his promises '
- Fcedera, vol. iii. p. 273. 4th March 1354. — words inconsistent with knowledge of his
^ Fordun, edition 1871, vol. i. p. 370. treason. — Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 34S.
* Ibid. John of Fordun speaks of Sir Wil- ^ Now called Williamhope. — Sir Walter
liam Douglas as "a wise and very prudent Scott's Tales of a Grandfather, Edition
man." Bower says of SirWilliani that "he wa^ 1850, p. 52.
DEATH OF THE KXIGIIT OF LIDDEtiDALE, 1:).53. JU.}
Godscroft states was iu Miiichmoor, and he adds that a cross erected on
the spot was called until his own time William's Cross. ^ The body of the
slain Knight was carried to Lindean Church, near Selkirk, and tinally
deposited in ]\[elrose Abbey, while at a later date the Earl of Douglas
granted lands to the Abbey on behalf of his kinsman's soul.-
Another and more romantic reason for tlie slaughter by William, Lord of
Douglas, of his kinsman of Liddesdale, is asserted l)y Hume of Godscroft,
and gravely repeated by a recent historian, namely, jealousy on account of
undue partiality shown by the "Countess of Douglas" to the Knight of
Liddesdale.^ The sole basis for this statement of Hume's seems to be the
anonymous Border ballad, part of which he quotes, to which he adds the
tradition that the lady wrote to her lover to dissuade him from that hunting.
Apart from the fact that this tradition is opposed to contemporary history,
which states that Sir William was wholly unsuspicious of danger, tlie story
told by Godscroft is otherwise erroneous. He assumes that Douglas was
made Earl in 1346, and that he was married to a daughter of the Earl of
March, neither of which assumptions is true. Douglas was not createil
Earl until 26th January 1357-8, and there was therefore no "Countess of
Douglas " to weep for the Knight of Liddesdale. Douglas's only wife was
Lady Margaret of Mar, who survived him. The exact date of their marriage
has not been ascertained, but it is certain that Douglas had no Countess
1 Godscroft's MS. History, \>. 153. It is for the Lord of Liddesdale,
- VoL iii. of this work, ])p. 19, 20 ; Lil^er '^''^^ ^ ^^t all tlie.e teares doiine fall."
(le Melros, vol. ii. p. 463. More recent historians have added to this
"^ Hume's History of Douglas and Angus, romantic tale by describing William of Don-
It. 77. Tytler, vol. ii. pp. 22, 23, note. The glas as "the faithless husband of a faitble^'s
ballad, quoted as evidence for the storj^, wife." She was believed to have had a
states that paramour in Sir William Douglas of Lit Ides-
" The Couutesse of Douglas, out of her boure she <^^^^- "^'^ J^^^*^"" husband slew that •• flower
came o^ chivalry." — [Dr. Josejth Robertson iti
And lou<lIy there that she did call ; Chambers's Encyclopaedia, vol. iii. p. 64S.]
224 WILLIAM, FJIIST KARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAR.
of the family of March in 13.33, while it is doubtful if at that date he
was married at all. Popular tradition is therefore at fault in assign inu
matrimonial jealousy as a motive for killiuL; the Knight uf Liddesdale.
The subject of his marriage will be afterwards discussed.
In slaying his kinsman, Douglas may have been stirred up to revenge the
cruel deaths of Sir Alexander Eamsay and Sir David Berkley. It is said
King David Bruce never forgave the murder of the former. But John
of Fordun further assigns as the cause of the Knight's death " enmities
and diverse disputes and hatreds, which the desire of power raised up
betwixt them," and the probability is that the true cause of the deed
was that both men laid claim to the same lands, and that Douglas,
meeting his rival hunting and trespassing on his territory, challenged him,
and the Knight was killed in the encounter. That both Douglas and
his kinsman laid claim to the same territory has never hitherto been
clearly understood by the historians who have referred to this subject.
As the fact is of some interest, and as it is corroborated by the family
charters, and has a direct bearing on Douglas's personal history, the circum-
stances may be related.
In a previous memoir reference has already been made to the large
grants made by Hugh, Lord of Douglas and Jedworth Forest, to the Knight
of Liddesdale, of the lauds of Westerkirk, Stablegorton, and Polbuthy. These
lands undoubtedly belonged to the Douglas territory, but Liddesdale also was
claimed and held as an appanage by that powerful family. The A'alley of
Liddel, from which the Knight of Liddesdale took his distinctive title, was
not inherited by him, but was granted to him by King David Bruce, under
somewhat special circumstances. (Jn 14th February 1342, in a Parliament
held at Aberdeen, Eobert, the Steward of Scotland (afterwards King Eobert
the Second), appeared before the King and Council, requiring sasijie and
possession of the lands of Liddesdale to be given to him. in terms of a
THE LORDSHIP OF LIDDKSDALE. 225
Crown grant made to him on his receiving knighthood.^ This application
was opposed Ijy Sir William Douglas, who declared that the territory
belonged to him by reason of ward of the son and heir of Sir Archibald
Douglas, and he showed a charter of infeftment in favour of Sir Archibald.
After discussion, the King and Council decided that the charter was void,
because at the date of it Sir Archibald Douglas was Guardian of the
kingdom, and had no right to bestow the Crown lands on any one, much less
on himself. The king then, in presence of his Council, delivered to the
Steward full sasine and possession of the lands of Liddesdale."
The Steward's actual ownership, however, was very short. Two days after
the Guardian's charter was declared null, the king bestowed the lands of the
Valley of Liddel on Sir William Douglas, who, from that time, was publicly
called the Lord of Liddesdale.^ One peculiarity of this grant is, that it makes
no mention of any resignation by the Steward, nor of any previous possessor
of the lands, except Sir William Soulis, and the lands are to be held as he
held them. One is almost tempted to believe that in this case the Steward,
wdio heads the list of witnesses to the new charter, was made the tool of Sir
William Douglas, who thus procured, in an apparently legal manner, the
removal of an impediment in the way of annexing his ward's lands. A
more probable explanation, however, of the Steward's conduct is found in the
fact that on the same day that Sir William Douglas received Liddesdale, he
made over to the Steward the earldom of Athole, of which he had been owner
since the previous July."* The Knight of Liddesdale held his new possessions
^ The lands of the Valley of Liddel had Steward must have been made after that
belonged to Sir "William Soulis, and were date.
forfeited by him in 1320, when he was ^ Eegistrum Honoris de Morton, voh ii.
executed for high treason. They were then pp. 4G, 47.
bestowed on Sir Robert Bruce, a natural ^ Und. pp. 47, 48.
son of King Robert First. He was killed "* Robertson's Index, p. 48, No. 29 ; Regis-
at Dupplin, in 13.32, and the grant to the trum Honoris de i\Iorton, vol. ii. p. 40.
VOL. r. 2 F
226 WILLIAM, FIRST EARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAR.
and skilfully defended the Scottish Border, until the battle of Durham in
1346, when he was taken prisoner.
After that date, until tlie Knight's final liberation in July 1352, he visited
Scotland only twice on parole for a few months. He then treasonably accepted
from the English king these very lands of Liddesdale and castle of Hermit-
age. Meanwhile William, the young Lord of Douglas, returned from France,
and found his hereditary possessions overrun by the English; and if, as is pro-
bable, he felt a jealousy on discovering that considerable portions of the estates
of his uncle, the Good Sir James, had been conveyed away by his uncle Hugh,
he would be yet more chagrined at finding the widespread territory of Liddes-
dale gifted away from his father's inheritance. If, with such feelings rank-
ling in his mind, Douglas unexpectedly met his kinsman, between two such
spirits a quarrel would speedily arise, wdiich would c^uickly pass from words
to blows, and be ended only by the death of one of the combatants.
This view is materially strengthened by the fact that very shortly after
the death of the Knight of Liddesdale, the lands of Liddesdale were con-
ferred upon William, Lord of Douglas, by King David the Second. The
grant is contained in what is virtually a new charter of the Douglas estates.^
By this writ King David the Second bestowed on William, Lord of Douglas,
the whole lands, rents, and possessions in which the late Sir James, Lord of
Douglas, his uncle, and Sir Archibald of Douglas, his father, died possessed.
Of these the principal were : The lands of Douglasdale, Lauderdale, the
valley of Esk, the forests of Ettrick, Selkirk, Yarrow, and Tweed, the town,
castle, and forest of Jedburgh, the barony of Buittle in Gallow\ay, and the
lands of Polbuthy in Moffatdale, with a few minor baronies, all lately held
^ Vol. iii. of this ■work. This charter, so the register from which it was extracted
important for the Douglas hiatory, is only seems to have been lost, as it is not named
known by two transumpts, cue in the Douglas in Robertson's Index.
Charter-chest, and the other at Cavers. Even
REGRAXT OF THE DOUGLAS ESTATES, 1354.
by Sir James, the grantee's uncle ; and the lands of the A'alley of Liddel,
with the castle, the barony of Kirkandrows in Dumfriesshire, certain lands
in Aberdeenshire, the baronies of Cavers, Drumlanrig, Terregles, and Wesl-
calder, and some other lands lately held by the grantee's father, Sir Archi-
bald. These were to be held for services due and wont, and to the lands
was added the leadership (ducatu) of the men of the sherifltloms of Eoxburgh,
Selkirk, and Peebles, and of the Upper Ward of Clyde.
In this charter it is implied that the lands of Liddesdale belonged to the
grantee's father. Sir Archibald Douglas, and that they descended to the son.
Ko notice is taken of the nullity of title decided in 1342, nor is reference
made to the possession by the Knight of Liddesdale. It is somewhat
striking that the decision of the Council was thus ignored, which, if it were
valid, necessitated a new grant of the lands to any future possessor. The
omission suggests that Douglas looked upon Liddesdale as his inheritance,
needing no new charter to make his title complete.
The charter now under review has another peculiarity, and one of some
historical interest. It is dated at Edinburgh, on the 12th day of February,
in the twenty-fourth year of the king's reign, which, according to the ordintiry
computation from the date of his accession, would be February 1353. But
he was not in Scotland in that year, nor was he in his Council a year later at
Inverkeithing, when the great seal was affixed to certain charters in his
name.^ The date of that Council is 1st April 1354, and it is said to be the
twenty-fourth year of King David's reign, though properly the twenty-fifth.-
This fact seems to fix the date of this charter, the witnesses to which are
^ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. ii. are stated one year short of the truth.
xiL Supp. pp. S-11. These charters show that this discrepancy be-
2 In regard to certain charters produced at tweentheyearsof his reign and the years of our
this Council, a recent ■WTiter says, "It is now Lord, existed also some time bf/ort his return
well known that in all documents a/ttr his from captivity."— Mr. Cosmo Innes in Regis-
return from England, the regnal years of DaWd trum Cartarum de Kelso, Preface, p. xxvi, note.
228
VILLI AM, FIRST EARL OF DOUGLAS A.\U MAR.
precisely similar, as 12tli February 1354, a tew luonths after the Knight ot
Liddesdale's death. "Were it possible to accept the date as it appears, in
1353, the time of granting it would coincide with the visit paid ]>y Douglas to
England, already noticed, and if he obtained the imprisoned king's consent
to such a charter, his quarrel with the Knight of Liddesdale would be clearly
accounted for. But it is more probable that the Knight of Liddesdale's
death preceded the charter, though the haste with which Douglas completed
his title to his kinsman's territory bespeaks the eagerness of his desire to
possess it. Thus the words of Fordun, representing contemporary opinion,
are justified by the facts.
From this period William, Lord of Douglas, became still more prominent
in Scottish history as an active and skilful leader of hostilities against the
English. No open warfare, however, took place for some time, and during
the lull negotiations were continued for the liberation of King David. A
treaty was at last all but completed, by which the King of Scots was to be
set free, a sum of 90,000 merks sterling being paid as his ransom, while
twenty young barons were to become hostages in England, and the Lord
of Douglas and three other magnates were to give security for payment
of the ransom. But ere this treaty was finally ratified. Sir Eugene de
Garencieres arrived from France with the special mission of preventing its
ratification, as it was deemed prejudicial to France. He was accompanied by
sixty knights, and also brought with him a nund)er of golden arguments,^
which speedily wrought conviction among the Scots.^
The French emissary landed in Scotland about Easter 1355, and it was
resolved to invade England as soon as the term of truce expired. Prepara-
tions for war, however, had been in progress on the part of the English from
' 40,000 moutoivi (/'<;»• = £24,000 modern of the Agnua Dei, hence the name of inoulon
coio, Macpherson's Xotes to Wyntown, vol. given to it in vulgar speech.
ii. p. 512. This gold coin had the impression - Fordun, edition 1S71, vol. i. p. 371.
/.■.v-cor.v7'i7M wirii the Exaiim, 1.355,
ti.e vevy besnmiug of tl,« yea,-,, as they were always afaid of the pat.ioth.
party m .Scotland who were opposed to the treaty. Levies were frequently
cal ed out .,y the English king, and the English were the first a™!vssors
making an inroad on the territories of the Earl of Jlareh.^ To aveLe this'
U.e Earl, wnh the Lord of iJouglas and a strong foree, accompanied^- Sir
Eugene de tiarencieres and the French men-at-arms, n.arched towards
Aorhan..3 Wyntown relates that Douglas practised a stratagem on Sir
Thomas Grey, then warden of that castle, ,,y sending forward Sir Willian,
Umsay of Dalwolsy with a party of foragers to scour the country round
Nor am. .S,r Thomas Grey, with eighty men-at-a„ns (some accotfnts say
htty), .ssued out to arrest the plunderers, who drove their prey northward
under the very walls of the castle. After a short resistance Kamsay and
I..S party iied tn the direction of Nisbet, where Douglas had established an
ambush, and brought to the Scots "good news of the advent of the English "
Ihe latter were greatly astonished, as they turned the shoulder of the hill
by the une-xpected sight of the well-known banner of Douglas; but it was'
00 late for retreat, and " taking their lives in their hand.,," Sir Thomas
■rey and his men rushed on the Scots. In the fight he and his party ,vere
.lefcatcd, and Sir Thomas, his son whom he had knighted on the field and
<jthers, were made captive.s.^
Sonie time afterwards the Scots, under the Earls of March and An-us
sczed the town of Berwick, but it was found i„,possible to keep the plLe'
winch was soon besieged by the English monarch himself at the head of a
large army. The small force of Scots who had been appointed to ren.ain in
Ber^k surren.lered ou their lives being spared, and abandoned the town to
the Enghsh. Tins was on 13th .January 13.56.' (In the 2.5th Kin^ Edward
\ f"'"'"'' Scoti.v, vol. i. ,,. 7;5_ ,, j,.^
• Fordim, edition 1S71, vol. i. p .371
' Fordun, edition ISil, vol. i. p. 370.
■' Walsingham, Ypodigin,, Xeustri:e, edition
1574, p. 123.
!30 WILLIAM, FIRST EARL OF DOUGLAS AXD MAR.
the Third received from the unfortunate Baliol a formal resignation of all
his pretensions to the Crown of Scotland, and once more deeming the country
his own, he prepared to overrun it. After the surrender of Berwick the
southern counties lay very much at his mercy, as the Scots had no force
whicli with any hope of success they could oppose to his large army.^
The Scottish leaders, however, remembered the advice given l)y Jvini;
Eobert Bruce to his captains, and as they could not meet the enemy in the
field, they hoped by stratagem to defeat his purposes. As the English king
resumed his march from lioxburgh, he was met by the Lord of Douglas, who
came ostensibly as a negotiator from the Steward of Scotland. An English
historian states that the anny of Edward presented a splendid appearance.
Before the king, who commanded in person, w^as borne prominently, among
other banners and pennons, the royal standard of Scotland. It is also said
that when on the arrival of Douglas the army halted and encamped, it
covered an extent of twenty leagues.^ Douglas succeeded in arranging a
truce for ten days, during which time he pretended to communicate with the
Steward of Scotland and other noltles, and amused Edward with hopes that
his pretensions to the throne would be recognised." The real designs of the
Scottish leaders were, however, only to gain time, and Douglas's mission was
so completely successful that when the English army resumed its march, the
whole country was found to be laid bare of provision. Cattle had been
driven off, fodder destroyed, houses emptied of goods and inhabitants, the
latter having fled to places inaccessible to the enemy, from which, however,
they were ready at all times to harass the English, and cut off stragglers.
The result was that, between the diplomacy of Douglas, and the activity
^ The numbers of Edward's army have been - Robert of Avesbury, p. 23G, quoted hy
variously stated, one English writer giving Tytler, vol. ii. p. 31. Allies are probaljly
33,000 men as the total, while the Scottish meant,
historians estimate the total at SO,OUU. "' Tytler s History of Scotland, vol. ii. p. ."I.
RETREAT OF EDWARD THE THIRD FROM SCOTLAND, 135(3. 231
with which the Scots had removed their goods, the Englisli king found liini-
self marching through a comparative desert. In addition to this, while
waiting at Haddington for his fleet, which was to bring food to the soldiers, a
tempest from the north sank a number of tlie ships, and scattered the rest.
Edward and liis army were thus left destitute, and compelled to retire. In
doing so they burned and destroyed abbeys, churches, and towns, and com-
mitted such ravages that this invasion was long known in popular tradition
as the " Burnt Candlemas."^
The retreat of the English was made in great disorder, which was
increased by constant attacks from the Scots, who had harassed the army
all along, but now hung upon its rear, and embarrassed the march in
every way. King Edward himself nearly fell a victim to one of these
attacks, his portion of the army having been led into an ambuscade, laid by
Douglas, near Melrose, and many of the English soldiers slain.-
On arriving in his own kiniidom, and realising that Scotland was further
than ever from being subdued, the English king now expressed his willing-
ness to treat for peace. He reached London about the loth of ]\Iarch 13.5G,
and ten days afterwards appointed commissioners to treat with the Scots.^
The Lord of Douglas, to whom this satisfactory result may, in a great
measure, be ascribed, during the cessation of hostilities, set out, it is said, on
pilgrimage, but to what place does not appear.'* In the month of April, at liox-
burgh, he concluded with the Earl of Northampton, the English warden, a
truce to endure for six months, binding himself not to molest the English so
long as they abstained from hostilities against his lands, or those of the Earl
of March, his felluw-warden.^ In the following June he passed into England
* Forilun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 354. * Scalacronica, p. 1 75.
- Fordun, edition 1871, vol. i. p. .374;
Hailes' Annals, vol. ii. p. 261. ■' Foedera, vol. iii. p. 327. Dated ISth
•' Rotiili Scotia;, vol. i. p. 791. April, to endure to Michaelmas 1356.
WILL I A J/, Fin ST EARL OF DOUGLAS AXD MAF.
with the purpose of conferring with the King of Scots, and also of treating
with the English Council as to his liberation.^ From England he went to
France and offered his services to the French king, who was mustering forces
against the Black Prince, then at Bordeaux. He was received with great
honour by King John of France, who accepted his services, and conferred
upon him the belt and order of knighthood. With many other Scots, who
at tliis time had taken service in France, Douglas was present at the battle
of Poitiers. There the French, chietly owing to their own impetuosity and
lack of generalship, were defeated, and their king was made captive. Many
Scots fell, or became prisoners, and Sir AVilliam Douglas would probably
have shared their fate, but his followers, seeing how the battle would go,
dragged their lord out of the midst of the fray, greatly against his will, and
took him a^\■ay with them. He shortly afterwards returned to Scotland.-
The negotiations for peace had progressed but slowly. The commission
to the Scottish ambassadors was only granted in January 13-57, and the
truce was not completed till the following May. The battle of Poitiers,
and the capture of the French King, enabled the area comprehended in
the truce to be made more extensive than usual — a cessation of hostilities
being proclaimed between the subjects of the King of Scots and those of the
English King in England, Ireland, Gascony, Brittany, "Wales, and the Isle of
Man. Special conditions were made in regard to ships stranding on the coast
of either England or Scotland — the shipwrecked persons were to be cared for,
and when restored, allowed to go forth free with their goods and chattels.
The last clause of the treaty provided, quaintly enough, that all the people,
' Eotuli Scotire, vol. i. p. ~\)3. Safe-con- clxi., Lord Berners' translation) says that
duct, dated 3d June 1.35(3, to endure till the Sir William Douglas " fought a season right
15th August following. valiantly, but whan he sawethe dysconfyture
he departed and saued hymselfe, for in no
2 Fordun, edition 1871, vol. i. p. 37G ; wyse he wolde be takenne of the Englyssh-
Scalacronica, [>. 175; Froissart (vol. i. cap. men, he had rather ben there slajue.''
CREATIOX OF EARL OF DOUGLAS, 1357-8. 233
on the one part and on the other, should abide peaceably in the possession of
their rents and other profits, which they have at present, during the tnicc
To enforce this last regulation, wardens were appointed on the Marches of
England and Scotland respectively. The Earl of March was associated with
the Lord of Douglas in guarding the East March, wliile John, Lord of Kyle,
afterwards King Eobert the Third, was keeper of the Western Border.'
About this time, or a little later, Douglas seized the Castle of Hermitage in
Liddesdale, which had been in the possession of the English. No particulars
of this exploit have been preserved, but it formed the subject of arbitration
at a later date.-
William, Lord of Douglas, was present at that important Parliament in
September 1357, which appointed the Earls of March, Angus, and Sutherland,
with others, as Commissioners to appear at Berwick, and treat finally with
the English as to the liberation and ransom of the King of Scots, and a truce
between the two nations.^ The treaty was concluded at Berwick on 3d
October 1357, and in accordance with its conditions, King David the Second
was set free after a captivity of eleven years ; the Scots binding themselves
to pay a ransom of 100,000 merks sterling, by yearly payments of 10,000
merks. Twenty young men of the highest rank were to become hostages,
and, for furtlier security, three out of six great lords, of whom the Lord of
Douglas was one, were to place themselves in tlie hands of the English.'*
In the following January, Sir William Douglas was raised to the rank of
Earl. The date of his creation may be fixed as the 2Gth January 1357-b,
* FcBclera. vol. iii. p. 354. devastations was addressed by Douglas to
- Rotuli ScotuB, vol. i. p. S26. The Her- King Edward iii. [Original in Public Record
mitage was probably seized in consequence of Office, London.] The King's reply is not re-
a raid by Sir Robert TwyllyoU and a large corded, but the seizure of the Hermitage was
company of English borderers, who on 7th referred to arbitration in the following June.
October 1.357, ravaged Eskdale, carrying off ^ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland,
a large number of cattle and much household vol. i. pp. 516, 517.
stuff. A complaint as to this and other ^ Ibid. vol. i. pp. 518-521.
VOL. I. 2 r;
234
WILLIAM, FIRST EARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAR.
or between the 25th aud 2 7th days ul' that month. On the 25th he appears
as a witness to a charter by King David the Second in favour of Jolm of
Menteith and Marjory Stirling, liis spouse, and is described as William, Lord
of Douglas, knight;^ and on the 27th January he bears the title of Earl of
Douglas in a charter granted to the monks of Melrose.- The date of his
creation has been stated to be -1th February 1357-8,^ but is now proved to be
about ten days earlier, and the dignity must have been conferred during the
sitting of the Parliament or General Council, held at Edinbmgh from tlie
20th to the 28th of January 135 7-8,'* The Earl's new dignity is not acknow-
ledged in the English records until a few months later. Shortly after his
creation he seems to have travelled into England, under a safe-conduct, which
was to endure till midsummer/ though he was still in xScotland,at Edinburgh
and Perth, with the king during February and March.*^ Between March and
May, the Earl passed into England, his servants also going and coming on his
business, and about the end of May lie was again on his wny north. lie was
again in England about October 1358, returning to Scotland in December.'^
The Earl's journeys into England were frequent between January 1358 and
the year 1361, among his companions Ijeing the Steward of Scotland and
Patrick, PZarl of ]\Iarch. The Countess of Douglas also passed into England
more than once between 1358 and the end of 13G2, though her visits to the
south were ostensibly of a religious character, to the shrine of Canterbury.^
The Earl's duties as a hostage and surety for the payment of Xing David's
ransom were probably the cause of his journeys to, and partial residence
^ The Stirling3 of Keir, by William Fraser,
1858, p. 199.
- Acts of Parliaments, vol. i. p. 522.
^ Robertson's Index, p. 31, No. 42.
^ Acts of Parliaments, vol. i. pp. 522, 523.
* Rotnli Scotiit, vol. i. p. 819. Safe-con-
duct dated 27th January 1358.
'' Cartulary of Xeubotle, p. 29G ; The
Lennox, by William Fraser, vol. ii. p. 411.
^ Rotuli Scotiae, voL i. pp. 821, 825, 831 :
Charters of St. Gile.s, p. 6.
^ Fcedera, vol. iii. pp. 394, 409, 439, 554,
680.
SURETY FOR KING DAY ID'S RAXSOM, 135D. 235
in England. He was doubtless also engaged in the negotiations for peace,
which were at this time constantly going on betwixt the two countries.
He was present in a council at Edinburgh in August 1358, when the monks
of Melrose received a charter erecting their lands into a regality, and also,
what was of considerable importance at that time, obtained a remission of
custom on the wool sold or exported by them.'^ After a short sojourn in
England, he was in attendance on the King of Scots at Edinburgh in ]\Iarch
1350.- In September of the same year, he was on a visit to his brother-in-law,
Thomas, Earl of Mar, at Kildrummy Castle,^ and two mouths later, was
with the king at Perth.'* In their account to Exchequer for the same
year, the Sheriffs of Peebles state that no rent had been received from the
king's meadow (near Peebles), because, as they allege, the Earl of Douglas
had dealt with these lands, tliough without any known title. The auditors
of Exchequer decided to consult tlie king on the subject. He, however,
appears to have been satisfied, as about the same time, Douglas received
from the king a remission of £13, and also of the custom on thirty sacks
of wool, amounting to £20.^
During the greater part, or the whole of the following year, the Earl
remained in Scotland. His movements are traceable by the charters to which
he was a witness, but these have no special political or historical interest. In
the end of 1359 or beginning of 1360, the Earl himself granted some
important charters to the monks of Melrose. These grants aftected his
lordship of Cavers, and the advowson of the church of that parish. The first
charter related to the lands of Pin^wood, or Piinirwoodfield, a name not now
in use, but which, from the boundaries, seem to have included the modern
^ Liber de Melros, pp. 400-402; Acts of ^ Antiquities of Aberdeen and BanflF, voL iv.
Parliaments, vol. i. p. 523. p. 718.
2 loth March 1359. The Book of Carla- * Ibid. p. 156.
verock, voL ii. p. 410. ^ Exchequer Rolls, vol. i. pp. 5G7-5G9.
236 WILLIAM, FIRST EARL OF DOUGLAS AS J) MAR.
farms of Northliouse, Skelfhill, and riiesthaugh. Tlie lands in (question had
belonged to the Abbey of Melrose from the time of King ]\Ialcolm the Fourth,
when Osulf, son of Uchtred, granted the territory for the benefit of his own
soul, and those of King David the First and Prince Henry .^ The gift was
confirmed by various successive kings, ^Malcolm the Fourth, William the Lion,
and Alexander the Second, and now the Earl of Douglas, as Lord of the
barony of Cavers, in which tlie lands lay, regranteil them according to the
boundaries laid down in Osulf s charter. The gram was so ample that the
Earl and his heirs were to exact from the monks nothing at all for ever, save
their prayers.^ The charter contains the usual warrandice, but for some
reason, probably the English encroachments on Teviotdale, the Earl executed
a separate and special warrant in favour of the monks. By this writ he
directed his bailie in that neighbourhood, Sir William of Gledstanes, to
defend and protect the rights of the abbot and convent in the privileges and
easements which pertained to them as owners of the lands of Ringwood.^
This document is dated 24th April 1360, and may have been gi-anted at the
personal solicitation of the abbot, as it is given under the Earl's seal at the
Abbey of Melrose.
To the lands of Ring wood the Earl added, by a charter which is not dated,
but which probably was granted about this time, the neighbouring lands of
Penangushope and Lower Caldcleuch. These lands lay adjacent to, and further
south than the lands called Ringwood, and formed, it is believed, the most
southerly portion of the territories of the rich Abbey of Melrose. This new
grant was made for the special purpose of providing masses for the soul of Sir
William Douglas of Lothian, the " Knight of Liddesdale," whose death at the
hands of the Lord of Douglas has already been narrated. The Knight's body
was buried in the Abbey of ]Melrose, in front of the altar of Saint Bridget,-*
^ Liber de Melroa, vol i. pp. 9, 10. - Ibid. vol. ii. p. 428. ^ Vol. iii. of this work, pp. 21, 22.
* Registrum de Neubotle, pp. 100, 101 ; Liber de Melros, vol. ii. p. 463.
(rRANT OF CAVERS TO MELROSE ABBEY, 13G0. 237
and the monks of ^Melrose, and their successors lor ever, were to provide one
of their number regularly to celebrate mass before that altar for the soul oi
the Knight of Liddesdale and others.
About this time also the Earl of Douglas granted further alms to the
Abbey of Melrose, by l)esto\ving upon them, for the benefit of his own soul
and the souls of his ancestors and successors, the whole right of patronage
and advowson of the church of Great Cavers, in the shire of Eoxburgh. The
Earl in tliis grant describes himself as Lord of Liddesdale, but it does not
appear that Cavers was a part of that territoiy. In a duplicate of the
charter the P^arl designs himself lord of the barony of Cavers, and the gift
was ratified by his brother-in-law, Thomas, Earl of ]\Iar, who had an interest
in the barony. It was duly confirmed by King David the Second, Douglas
himself witnessing the royal charter,^ while the Bishop of Glasgow also
added his confirmation of the church to the monks for their own use, after
tlie death or demission of the then rector, reserving the canonical obedience
of the Abbot and his successors as rectors, with other conditions.'- For
some time afterwards the Earl continued to interest himself on behalf of the
monks, and made repeated requests to the Bishop of Glasgow to give them
immediate possession of the benefice, and reserve the rector's rights, which the
Bishop granted, both on account of his own confirmation and also because, as
he himself asserted, '" according to law it is of little use to any one to have
anything adjudged to him unless he enjoy corporal possession of it." He
accordingly issued his mandate for the induction of the Abbot of Melrose
into possession of the church of Cavers.'^ It would appear, however, that
notwithstanding these and other grants in their favour by kings, bishops, and
earls, the monk^ obtained no actual or peacealjle jtossession of Great Cavers
I Liber <le Melros, vol. ii. pp. 429-433. burgh, 10th January 13G0.
The charters by the Earls of Mar and Douglas - Liber de Melros, vol. ii. j.p. 433, 434.
are not dated. The king's is <lated at Edin- ^ Ihid. p. 435.
238 WILLIAM, FIILST KARL OF DOUGLAS ASD MAR.
for a considerable time, and it was not until more than one application had
been made to the Papal See that, in 1406, they obtained full possession. In
one petition to the Pope tlie monks assign an occupation by the English as
one reason why Cavers was of no use to the Abbey.^
In this year also (13G0) the Earl of Douglas seems to have held a
Justiciary Court at Edinburgh. At a later date, after the accession of King
Piobert the Second to the throne, the Earl held the appointment of Justiciary
of Scotland south of the Forth.- Whether he occupied this important otiice
under David the Second is not clear, but in the account rendered to
Exchequer by the Chamberlain of Scotland for the year ending June 13G1,
is an entry of the sum of £8, 10s. as part payment to the Earl of Douglas of
the expenses of his Justiciary Court held at Edinburgh, probably during
1360, but no date is recorded. Another judicial appointment which the
Earl of Douglas received, and which was bestowed on him by David the
Second, was the sheriffship of Lanark.^ He held this office under a separate
commission, as it was not included in the charter of 1354, which con-
ferred the leadership of the men of the Upper Ward of Clyde. Besides
the charters granted by the Earl of Douglas to the Abbey of ISIelrose and his
Justiciary Court, his movements during the remainder of 1360 can be traced
only by the royal charters to which he was a witness. These show that he
was with the king at Stirling in ^March, in Edinburgh during May and
August, and at Perth in October.'* While in Edinburgh in ]\Iav the Earl
also witnessed a charter by Thomas (Stewart), Earl of Angus, who was then
in Scotland, though in the previous ]March he had been summoned by the
EnsHsh king to fulfil his engagement as hostage for the King of Scots.
'©"•o^
^ Liber de Metros, vol. ii. pp. 48 1, 527-330. vol. i p. 16; Antiquities of Aberdeen and
- Exchequer Kolls, vol. ii. pp. 394, 402. BanfiF, vol. iii. p. 293 ; Liber de Calchou,
2 Robertson's Index, p. 63, No. 45. p. 399 ; Registrum Honoris de Morton, vol. ii.
* Registrum Episcopatus Brechinensis, pp. 50, 57.
EMBASSAGE TO ENGL AX D, 13G1. 239
Angus, however, delayed or refused to surrender himself, and some time later,
being implicated in the murder of Catherine ]\lortimer, a damsel who lived
in a questionable relation with King David the Second, was imprisoned in
Dumbarton Castle, whore he died.^
In January of the following year, the Earl of Douglas was witli the king
at Linlithgow and Edinburgh. That same month he received a safe-conduct
to pass into England, and on the same day similar writs were issued to the
15ishops of St. Andrews and Brechin, the Earl of March, Walter "Wardlaw,
arclideacon of Lothian, Sir Robert Erskine, and others,- who were apparently
the companions of Douglas on his journey southward. Douglas and March
may have been fulfilling their engagements as hostages, but the bishops and
Sir Iiobert Erskine were sent on a special mission of negotiation. The Scottish
nation found the payment of their king's ransom-money a serious burden,
and had applied to Erance for help, but any hope of aid from that quarter
was frustrated by the treaty of Bretigny. In that treaty between England
and Erance it was agreed that the French should retire from every alliance
they had with Scotland, while the English renounced their alliances with
Flanders.^ Erom the Chamberlain's account already quoted, it would appear
that the Bishop of St. Andrews and the other envoys were engaged at Loudon
and York endeavouring to effect a treaty with England, and a considerable
sum was disbursed for their expenses.'* The sum of £80 was also paid to
the Earl of Douglas by the king's command, but no cause is assigned for the
payment. He may have taken part in the negotiations, though there is no
evidence of the fact, and he was again in Scotland by the 1 7th of April, being
with the king at Perth at that date, and also in the beginning of May.^
1 Memorials of the Montgomeriea, by Wil- ^ Sth May 1360. Fcedera, vol. iii. pp. 4S7-
liam Fraser, vol. ii. p. 4 ; Exchequer Rolls, 493. * Exchequer Rolls, vol. ii. p. 77.
vol. ii. pp. xh-ii, IGS. * Registrum de Dunfermelyn, p. 2(39 ; Car-
- Rotuli Scotise, vol. i. p. 8.53. tularium de Levenax, p. 4.
240 WILLIAM, FIRST EARL OF DOUGLAS ASD MAR.
lu April of the following year, 1361, the Earl of Douglas appears at
Edinburgh as a witness to various charters granted by the king and others.
Oue of these charters was intended to benefit the Earl himself. A loyal and
pious burgess of Edinburgh, John of Allyncruni (or Ancrum), founded a
chaplainry in the parish church of St. Giles, and bestowed his lands of Craig-
crook, near Edinburgh, for its maintenance. This chaplainry was for the
spiritual weal, not only of the granter himself and his spouse and their kin
to the remotest generation, but the chaplain was to pray for the dead King
Eobert Bruce and his wife Elizabeth, and also for the living King David, for
William, Earl of Douglas, his spouse ^Margaret, and Sir Archil)ald of Douglas
(Lord of Galloway), as long as they remained in the fle.sh, and for their souls
when they died. This charter was confirmed by King David the Second on
1st May 1361, and was, with other documents of an earlier date affecting
the same lands, witnessed by Douglas.^ The only other reference to the
Earl at this time is an entry in the Exchequer accounts for 1362, to the
effect that he purchased certain armour for the use of the king. For this he
was repaid £24, which sum was certified by the royal chamberlain.-
Between the date of the charters above referred to and the spring of 1363,
the Earl of Douglas raised his banner in insurrection against his sovereign.
A contemporary chronicler states that an immediate cause of offence was
a quarrel which arose between King David tlie Second and Thomas, Earl
of Mar, the brother-in-law of Douglas. The king seized Mar's castle of
Kildrummy, and placed it in the custody of Sir Walter of Moigne. Thi^
probably roused the ire of Douglas, but it would appear that the true cause
of insurrection was not the injury done to his brother-in-law, but the king's
misgovernment. Douglas seized the castle of Dirleton, then in the king's
hands, placed a garrison there, and from that stronghold entered into a bond
1 Charters of St. Giles, jip. S-13. See also Registrum Episcopatus Glasgiien-sis, vol. i.
p. tZC). " Exchequer Rolls, vol. ii. p. 90.
REBELLIOX OF THE STEWARD AND DOUGLAS. 136:5. L'41
with the Steward of Scotland and Patrick, Earl of jMarcli. They forwarded
to the king a petition bearing their seals, complaining that he had vicjlatud
the conditions to which they were sworn to the king of England in regard
to paying tlie ransom of their sovereign ; that the money was levied from
the commons, and expended by bad advisers ; and the complainers demanded
amends to be made by a better government.^
Fordun describes this petition as unjust, and states that the magnates
had formed the design of bending the king to their will, or banishing him.
They took arms to gain their ends through force or fear, imprisoned the
king's adherents, and fell upon towns, burghs, and the whole country in a
hostile manner, dividing the spoils, in order that the king might compas-
sionate the woes of the people, and so incline to their wishes.- This is
probably a somewhat prejudiced view, as, according to a recent writer, the
Exchequer EoUs still preserved show that there were substantial grounds
for the complaint that the sums collected for the king's ransom were
mainly absorbed by his private and personal expenses,"'
King David the Second, however, was by no means disposed to accede to
the petition, and as the complainers had actually taken up arms, he assembled
his adherents and marched against them. One skirmish took place at Inver-
keithing, in which the Earl of Douglas was the leader, as at a later date the
bailies of that burgh, in their accounts with the Exchequer, were allowed the
sum of twelve shillings taken from them, with other goods, by the followers
of the Earl of Douglas, when he invaded that town by night.'* The author
of Scalacronica states that this attack was made on a party of troops
^ Scalacronica, pp. 202, 203. time already under the influence of Margaret
- Fordun, edition 1871, vol. i. p. 381. Logic, whom he afterwards married, and to
^ Exchequer Rolls, vol. ii. preface, p. xlix. whom the Steward and the Earl of Douglas
There is evidence in existence which seems to were greatly opposed.
prove that King David Second was at this * Exchequer Rolls, vol. ii. p. 154.
VOL. I. 2 H
242 WILLIAM, FIRST EARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAR.
advancing to join the king under the Eaii of Angus ; ^ but it is doubtful
whetlier at this time he was not a prisoner in Dumbarton Castle. The Earl
of Douglas, however, was himself surprised by a night attack, led by the
king in person, who, mustering his forces at Edinburgli, advanced to Lanark,
where Douglas was, so rapidly and unexpectedly, that the Earl escaped with
difficulty, some of his adherents being taken. The king's promptitude thus
brought the insurrection to a close ; the Steward and his two sons renewed
their oath of fealty at Inchmurdoch, on 14:th May 1363; and the Earls of
DouL,das and March also made their submission,- From that date onward
during the year 1363 Douglas is found in attendance on the king, with the
Steward and Earl of March.^
In the end of the same year the Earl of Douglas set out on a visit to the
tomb of Thomas a Becket at Canterbury,* and was absent from a very
important meeting of the Scottish Parliament at Scone, on 4th March 1364.
At that assembly King David the Second laid before the Estates a proposal
which had been the subject of conference between himself and tlie English
king and Council at London in the preceding November.^ This treaty, for
the proposal was drawn up in that form, stipulated that failing heirs-male of
King Da\id, after his decease the English king should succeed him as King
of Scotland. It is said that David proposed to the Estates as their future
king, not Edward the Third himself, but one of his sons, Lionel. The
suggestion was gilded by a provision that the ransom would be remitted,
in the hope, no doubt, that relief from a heavy tax might make the new
treaty more pleasing to the Scots. But the scheme was indignantly rejected
1 Scalacronica, p. 203. 270, 271.
- Ih'id. ; Fordun, a, Goodall, voL ii. p. 369. "* Rotuli Scotite, voL L p. S79. Safe-conduct
•^ Charters of Holyrood, p. 95 ; Memorials dated 13th December 1363.
of the Montgomeries, by William Fraser, ^ Acts of Parliaments, vol. i. pp. 492-495 ;
vol. iL p. 3 ; Registnim de Dunfermelyn, pp. Fcedera. vol. iii. pp. 715, 716.
PROPOSAL OF AX ENGLISH KING FOP SCOTLAND, 13G4. 243
by the Scottisli Parliament, who declared that no Englishman's son should
rule over them, when the lawful heirs were brave men and fit to reign.^
Though the Earl of Douglas was not present in this Parliament, hi-; name
was mentioned in the scheme proposed by the king, one clause providing
that he should be restored to the estates in England to which his father or
uncle had right, according to any charters in his possession, or that he should
receive an equivalent in a suitable place. This stipulation does not infer
that Douglas was privy to the treaty. There is no evidence that he was in
England while it was drawn up at "Westminster, and the clause affecting the
Earl was probably inserted either for the purpose of procuring his assent
to the treaty, or as a balance against certain provisions for compensation
to the Earl of Athole (David of Strathbogie) and other disinherited Scoto-
English barons who had been deprived of their lands in Scotland.
According to Bower, who is followed by Lord Hailes and later historians,
the insurrection already referred to was the result of the unpatriotic pro-
posals made by King David to this Parliament. But this is a mistake.
Through the discovery of records which were unknown to Lord Hailes, it is
proved that the insurrection preceded the Parliament by some months, and
had not therefore its origin in resentment at the king's proposals. Indeed, it
seems probable that the treaty was suddenly concluded by King David in
his anger against the rebellion of the Steward and his sons, who were the
heirs-apparent to the throne.
Although the Scottish Parliament thus firmly refused to alter the desti-
nation of the succession to the Crown, yet, in the interests of peace,
concessions were proposed. Ambassadors were despatched southwards to
carry on negotiations, who entered England in July 136-1,^ and in the
following January the Parliament again assembled at Perth to hear their
1 Wyntown's CronykU, B. viir. c. xlv. 11. 13o-150; Fordun. a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 36G.
2 Rotuli Scotis, vol. I p. 884.
244
WILLIAM, FIRST EARL OF DOUGLAS ASD MAR.
report. It was then agreed to restore the disinherited lords, and to settle
the Isle of Man and lands of a thousand pounds yearly rental in Clalloway,
the inheritance of the Baliols, on a younger son of the English king. These
conditions were to be met by a total remission of the ransom due to England,
but if these conditions were not accepted, the Estates avowed their determi-
nation to pay the ransom, if proper intervals of payment were allowed.
These concessions were made from a sincere desire to continue the peace
between the two kingdoms ; and the proceedings of the l*arliament concluded
by the assembled prelates, nobles, and burgesses swearing on the gospels that
they would with their wliole power put down any one who should contravene
in any way the resolutions thus expressed by the community.-^ To this Act
the seals of those present were attached, and though the Earl of Douglas was
not w^th them, he, a few weeks later, gave his full consent to the proceedings,
took the oath and afl&xed his seal to the Act in presence of the king himself
at Edinburgh. Xo date is given, but it was probably towards the end of the
following month, when the king confirmed certain grants of land to which
the Earl of Douglas was a witness.-
Tlie Earl remained in Scotland during the next few mouths, and was in
liis place in a Council held at Perth in July of the same year, when the same
important subject was discussed. In conformity with their instructions, the
Scottish ambassadors again sought the English Court, and the result was a
treaty proposing a truce of twenty-five years, and the payment of £100,000
sterling into the English Exchequer in full of all ransom. A short pro-
bationary truce of four years' duration was meanwhile to take efiect,
terminable upon six months' notice by either party. The treaty was ratified
by King David the Second at Edinburgh on 12th June, and by the English
on 20th June 136.5.^ The Scottish Parliament met a month later to consider
1 Acts of Parliaments, vol. i. ]>p. 495, 49G. - Ibid. pp. 526, 527.
3 IhhI. .Supp. vol. xii. pp. 12, 13; Fcedera, vol. iii. \\ 770.
TERMS OF PEACE WITH ENGLAND, 13(35. 240
the subject of a long-continued peace. The record of its proceedings lias not
heen fully preserved, but from the fragment still extant, it would appear that,
as one of the bases of a final peace between the two countries, the English
king had stipulated for military assistance from Scotland. He required that
in the event of England being invaded by foreigners, the Scots should furnish
fiMy men-at-arms and six hundred archers, to be paid by England. As an
alternative, it was proposed that the King of Scots should assist the English
king in his wars against Ireland with a body of troops, for three months
yearly during five years. In return, England was bound to aid Scotland with
an auxiliary force if necessary. These concessions the Scottish nobles con-
sented to make for the sake of peace, unless their commissioners succeeded
in obtaining better terms.^ This hope, however, was not realised, as the
English monarch increased his demands in proportion as the Scots appeared
willing to make concessions.
Another meeting of Parliament was held at Holyrood on the 8th of ]\Iay
13(36, in which it was declared that the English king's proposals as to the
homage, succession, and other matters, could not possibly be entertained, and
that rather than sul)mit to terms so degrading, the Scots would make the
utmost sacrifices to raise the ransom-money within the four years of the
truce,^ The fragmentary condition of the Kecords of Parliament renders it
impossible to state whether the Earl of Douglas was present on this occasion.
He was present, however, at a later Parliament, which met at Scone in the
month of July,^ as he witnessed at that place and date a charter by King
David the Second to John of Logic.'*
The proceedings of this Parliament were of the utmost importance. The
extravagant habits of David the Second and his new queen, the expenses of
negotiations with England, and the unpaid balance of the king's ransom
' Acts of Parliameuts, vol. i. p. 497. - Ibid. ■' Ibid. pp. 4!>S-5()].
< The Re<l Bo..k of Grandtully, by William Fraser, vol. i. pj.. 1.31, 1.3*2.
24G
WILLIAM, FIRST EARL OF DOUGLAS A.\B MAR.
money, entailed a load of debt upon the nation which bore very heavily upon
all ranks. Yet though bankruptcy and the probability of renewed war with
England were imminent, the Scottish prelates, nobles, and burgesses met
their difficulties bravely, and planned new sacrifices. The whole- lands in the
kingdom, including the Church lands, were appointed to be valued, and a
contribution of 8000 merks was to be levied on the gross rental, to i)ay the
royal debts and expenses, and also the charges of negotiation. It was
ordained that, until the return of the commissioners, the £4000 annually duo
as ransom-money should be paid out of the great customs. After their
return, that sum was to be provided out of the general tax on the whole
kingdom, and from the same fund 2000 merks were to be given for relieving
the king and paying the commissioners' expenses. This last sum, however,
was required at once, and it was immediately borrowed from the three Estates
as follows: Erom the barons, 1000 merks; from the clergy, GOO merks; and
from the burgesses, 400 merks.
On the other hand, to compensate in some measure for the heavy burdens
and sacrifices thus exacted from the community, it was expressly proclaimed
that justice was to be administered impartially to every subject ; that the
sums to be paid for ransom-money and other expenses named should be put
to no other use ; that the Church should be protected, especially in regard
to tithes ; that nothing was to be taken from the commonalty for the
use of the king without prompt payment ; while regulations for the conduct
of sheriffs, barons, and others travelling, the number of their retinue,
and other similar enactments were made, all tending to promote the
comfort of the lieges. These measures show how anxious all parties
in the kingdom were to secure peace with England without sacrificing the
national independence.
The Earl of Douglas remained in Scotland for some time after this Parlia-
ment. In October of the same year he received a safe-conduct to proceed into
ABSEyX'ES FROM PAllLIAMEXTS. i>47
England,^ but lie seeuis to have returned thence or to have postponed liis
journey, as he was with the king at Edinburgh in December,- and at Perth in
the following January.^ A recent historian, referring to this and other safe-
conducts granted about the same time and in similar terms, permitting the
bearers to pass through England or beyond sea, takes occasion to condemn
the Earl of Douglas for deserting his country at this juncture.^ It is true
that at a later date, as will appear, the Earl absented himself from Parliament,
but the charge made against him can scarcely be sustained. It does not
appear that he used the safe-conduct, and if he did, he must have returned
to Scotland some time before it expired, as he was present at an important
conference held on the Borders in September 1307.
At this meeting Douglas was one of those specially commissioned to act
on behalf of the Scots, and confer with the commissioners of the English
king as to the state of affairs on the Marches. The English were represented
by Thomas Beauchamp, Earl uf AVarwick, the Lord of Gower, :\Iarshal of
England, the Lord of Percy, and Sir Henry Percy, his eldest son, while the
Bishops of St. Andrews and Glasgow, the Earls of March and Douglas, witli
Sir Robert Erskine, Sir Walter Lesley, Sir Walter Haliburton, and Sir Hugh
Eglinton, re[)resented the Scots. -^ The meeting is said to have been con-
ducted with many altercations and debates ("pluseurs altercations, disi)utees,
ea et la"), but an agi-eement was at last come to. The first article was that
the conditions of the grand truce made at the liberation of the Kin^ of
Scots should in all points be firmly maintained, while the second clause
provided that the enclosed lands, of which mention was made, should be left
in the state they were on the day of meeting, without depriving the princes
' Foe.lera, vol. iii. p. SOS. 1.3th October "■ Kegistrum MagniSigilli, vol. i. pp. .30, 51,
13i>G, to eiiilure for a year. Nos. 150, 152.
- Registnim Honoris de Morton, vol. ii. ■* Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 8(3.
!'■ 63. ■' Fcedera, vol. iii. p. 831.
248 WILLIAM, FIRST EARL OF DOCGLAS AXl) MAR.
of their claims, or the owners of their possessions, as well those now
inhabited as those then inhabited, the profits being shared according to
agreement; so that no one should fix himself in a new possession on one
side or the other until Candlemas next, when the King of Scots or the
Scottish Wardens should be certified of the King of England's pleasure.
Then follows the appointment of wardens on both sides for the East and
"West Marches of both countries, succeeded by minute regulations for the
apprehension and punishment of offenders, and other details immediately
afiecting the Borders alone. The conference lasted four days, beginning at
Moorhouselaw on the 1st, and ending at Roxburgh on the 4th of September
1367.1
Though the Earl of Douglas was a special commissioner at the conference
just narrated, in the records of a Parliament held at Scone about three weeks
later, he and the Earls of ]\Iarcli and Pioss are expressly declared to be
contumaciously absent,- and it is certain that a month afterwards he had a
safe-conduct to pass through England.^ The Earl's behaviour, however, does
not indicate any desire on his part to desert his country, as has been alleged,
for he was present in Parliament at Scone in February 1368.^ It rather
shows his continued dissatisfaction with the conduct of the king and his
queen, Margaret of Logie, who, notwithstanding the sacrifices made l)y the
Scottish nation to pay the king's debts, maintained an imdue extravagance,
for which the Estates were now met to devise remedial measures.
It is possible that Douglas objected to the measures proposed, but the
immediate cause of his absence from the Parliament was his partisanship
with the Earl of March, who had a special grie\'ance. As formerly stated,
the Steward of Scotland, and the Earls of March and Douglas headed a party
1 Fcedera, vol. iii. p. 831 ; Acts of the '^ Fcedera, vol. iii. p. 833.
Parliaments of Scotland, vol. xii. pp. 14, 15.
- Ih'id. vol. i. p. 501. 27th September 13G7. ■* Acts of Parliaments, vol. xii. p. 10.
GIFT OF ANNAN DALE TO JOHN OF LOG IE, 13GC. 249
which Avas strongly opposed to tlie queen and her faction. The Steward,
from his position, coukl not well absent himself from Parliament, but the
other complainants did so, their chief reason probably being the grant of
Annandale made in the previous year to John of Logic, the king's step-son.
The document narrating the bestowal of Annandale is somewhat
remarkable. It is a letter by various Scottish dignitaries and nobles,
including the Steward and the Earls of ]\Iarch and Douglas, in which the}-
consent to the king's charter to John of Logic, and promise for themselves
and their heirs to do notliing in contravention of the deed.^ The lordship of
Annandale thus granted was then wholly, or almost wholly, in the hands of
the English,- but it is described as the same lands which King Eobert Bruce
bestowed on his nephew, Sir Thomas Eandolph, Earl of ]\Ioray. Annandale,
therefore, as well as the earldom of Moray, was claimed by Patrick, Earl of
March and Moray, who had married Piandolph's daughter, and his right to
the lands would have revived on the expulsion of the enemy .^ The gift of
this territory to John of Logic was therefore an act of great injustice. It is
true that the Earl of ]^Iarch outwardly consented to the grant, but though he
restrained his resentment at the time, he could not but feel deeply indignant,
and this sentiment was evidently shared by the Earl of Douglas.
The Earl of Douglas was in Scotland in Eebruary 13G8, and witnessed a
charter to the Abbey of Cambuskenneth.'* He was at Cavers on the 19th
of May,^ while he is not named as present in the Parliament which met at
Scone from the 12th to the 22d of June following, though on the 4th of July
1 Red Book of Grandtully, by William of Annandale to Logic never had any real
Fraaer, vol. L pp. 132*, 133*. This writ is effect. After the accession of King Eobert
said to be executed in presence of the king, the Second, the Earl of March is again
in full Parliament at Scone, on 2Gth July l;3GG. described as Lord of Annandale, though tlie
- Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, territory was long under English rule,
vol L p. 499. ■* Acts of Parliaments, vol. xii. p. 16.
' It may be stated in passing that the gift ^ Liber de Metros, p. 430.
VOL. I. 2 I
250
WILLIAM, FIRST KARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAR.
he was with the king at Stirling.^ In the Parliament referred to, the principal
topics were the dissensions among the nobility, the rebellious state of the
Highlands and Islands, and depredations on the Marches. The Steward of
Scotland, as Lord of Strathern, his sons, the Lords of Kyle and ]Menteith,
and the Earl of Mar, were expressly enjoined to protect the lieges against
marauders from their domains, one of the chief offenders being John of Lorn,
the Steward's son-in-law. As to disorders on the ]\Iarches, the king was
advised to hold counsel with the Earls of March and Douglas, as Wardens on
the East ^larch, although, it is significantly added, they may not presently be
well disposed to the labour. By their advice wardens were to be speedily
and prudently appointed.- Shortly after this Parliament the Steward was
imprisoned in Lochleven Castle, apparently at the instance of Queen
Margaret.^ It has been suggested that the parliamentaiy proceedings at
this time indicate a disposition on the part of King David the Second to
throw the blame of complicity in the disorders of the kingdom upon the
Steward and the Earls of I\L\rch and Douglas, the leaders of the party opposed
to the Queen.* If this suggestion be well founded, and there is much to
warrant it, the fact so stated w^ould satisfactorily account for the continued
absence from Parliament of the Earls of March and Douglas, and certainly
their hostility would not be lessened by the incarceration of the Steward.
That incarceration, however, was not of long duration, and after the
Steward was set at liberty, the Earl of Douglas seems to have still
attended at Court, though absent from meetings of the Estates. A month
after the meeting of Parliament, the Earl and the Steward were witnesses
together of a royal charter granted at Edinburgh.^ Towards the end of the
year the Earl's attendances on the king were more constant, as he is found
1 Acta of the Parliaments of Scotland,
vol. L pp. 503-506, 531, 532.
2 Ibid. pp. 503, 504.
' Fordun, a GoodaU, vol. ii. p. 3S0.
^ Exchequer Rolls, vol. ii. preface, p. Ixii.
•' Red Book of Graudtully, vol. i. p. 135.*
REPRESENTED IN PARLIAMENT BY A PROCURATOR. 2:^1
witnessing several charters at Dundee in the end of November 13G8/ at
Tertli in December,- and at Edinburgh in January and February of tlie
foUowing year.^ This continued attendance on King David may be attri-
buted to tlie fact that Queen Margaret's influence was, from various causes,
beginning to wane,^ and that the Steward was again in favour, as he appears
as a witness along with Douglas.
But though the Earl attended at Court, he was not in his place in the
Parliament which assembled at Perth on the 6th of jMarcli following. He
was, however, numbered among those who were excused for legitimate reasons,
and was represented by a procurator. The latter, in the Earl's stead, was
appointed one of a committee set apart to treat of general business, the
members being chosen from each of the three Estates, while permission was
given to the remainder of the assemblage to return home.^ The I'arliament
thus constituted had under its consideration, not only the troublous state of
the Highlands and Isles, but also the continuation of the truce with England,
whicli was now drawino; to a close. It was determined to make an efibrt to
obtain an extension of the truce, and ambassadors were despatched to
England with instructions to that end.
Happily for Scotland, the course of political events in tlie south had
changed. King Edward the Third had become embroiled with France, and
was now as anxious to treat favourably with the Scotch envoys, as he had
previously been to make insolent demands. The result was the arrangement
of a fourteen years' peace between the two countries. On 20th July 1369,
the King of Scots and his Council, at the castle of Edinburgh, ratified the
* Registrum Honoris de Morton, vol. ii. ^ Registrura Honoris de Morton, pp. 70,
pp. 06, G7. 71 ; vol. iii. of this work, p. 22.
* She was divorced in March of that year,
- The Scotts of Buccleuch, by William 1369. Exchequer Eolls, vol. ii. p. ."UG.
Fraser, vol. ii p. 6. ^ Acts of Parliaments, vol. i. pp. 506, 507.
•252 WILLI A2r, FJIIST EAIiL OF DOUGLAS AND MAR.
treaty of peace on behalf of Scotlaud, while the Earl of Douglas and other
nobles, on their part, swore solemnly to adhere to and preserve it inviolate.
By the treaty thus concluded, tlie sum of 56,000 merks was fixed as the
amount of ransom still unpaid, which was to be liquidated by yearly instal-
ments of 4000 merks, while the provisions of the treaty of 13G5 were declared
null and void.^
The Earl of Douglas had apparently about this time projected a journey
into England, probably with his Countess, as they both received safe-conducts
in the month of June, when the truce was first proclaimed.- There is no
evidence, however, that the journey was made, at least by the Earl, who, as
already stated, was present at the signing of the treaty. In the month of
September also, the Earl was in Edinburgh and a witness to charters thcre.-^
At a later date, King David the Second set out on his northern expedition,
directed against John of the Isles, who submitted at Inverness on 15th
November.* It would appear that the Earl of Douglas accompanied the king
to the north, as he witnessed royal charters at Montrose in the end of October,
and again at Montrose and Perth in the beginning and middle of December
of the same year,^ and at Edinburgh in the succeeding January.'^
Parliament assembled at Perth in February, and again the Earl of Douglas
was represented only by a procurator, but as the proceedings, though
important, do not bear on his personal history, they need not be referred
to here. A month or two later, in April 1370, at Edinburgh, the Earl was
a principal party in a transaction affecting the Douglases of Lothian or
' Fcedera, vol. iii. pp. S77-S70. The ^ Acts of Parliaments, vol. xiL p. 16.
treaty was ratified on the part of England at " Registrum Honoris de Morton, vol. ii. p.
Westminster, on 2-lth August 1 369. 75; The Scotts of Buccleuch, by William
„-,,,.-, . , . „„, ^ Fraser, vol. ii. p. 9; History of the Earls of
2 Rotuh Scotiffi, vol. 1. pp. 931, 932. ^ ^
Southesk, by William Fraser, p. 4S9.
•^ Liber de Melros, p. 407 ; The Scotts of ^ The Lennox, by William Fraser, vol. ii.
Buccleuch, by William Fraser, vol. ii. p. S. p. 37.
BAROXY AND CASTLE OF DALKEITH, 1370. 253
Dalkeith.^ This was a t'oriual resiguation by liiin of all lands which he huld
by any right in the barony of Dalkeith. This resignation is a soniewlial
important document, as, although there is no evidence of actual possession of
the lands of Dalkeith by the Earl of Douglas, this writ shows that he either
held or claimed to hold certain rights over tliat barony. The territor\'
in question had belonged to the Knight of Liddesdale, and as he had no lieirs-
male, he, in 1351, entailed the baronies of Dalkeith, Xewlands, and others,
upon James, William, John, Henry, and Thomas, the sons of his elder bruthei ,
John Douglas.'- The Knight of Liddesdale at his death in 1353, left only one
child, a daughter and heiress, Mary Douglas, who died before 30th Juni;
1367, when her coiLsin, Sir James Douglas, the eldest nephew of the Knight,
was served heir to her in certain lands in the sheriffdom uf Dumfries.^
The history of the barony of Dalkeith between 1353 and 1369 is obscure,
though at the latter date Sir James Douglas seems to have l)een in possession,
as he resigned the lands into the king's hands, and received a charter in
favour of himself and his heirs.^ A few months previously, he had receiveil
the royal licence to build and repair the castle.^ The lands themselves had
shortly before formed tlie subject of a keen dispute, in which a nice question
of law was raised, under the following circumstances : — ^lary Douglas, heiress
of the Knight of Liddesdale, was twice married, first to Reginald More, son
and heir of Sir AVilliam ^fore of Abercorn, who divorced her ; atid secondly,
to Sir Thomas Erskine, son and heir of Sir Eobert Erskine.^ By her second
husband she became pregnant, and died immediately after giving birth to a
' Kegistrum Honoris de Morton, vol. ii. Douglas, while ou 30th November 13G1,
P- ' — ' Ifji'l. p. 7)o. '■' Ibid. p. 64. a further sum was paid for the delivery uf
* Ibi'f.y.'Jo. 9th December 13(30. the lady's person. [Original receipts in Public
^ fljhl. p. 69. 5th January 1369. Record OflBee.] The Papal Dispensation for
" On30th June 1360, Sir William More paid the marriage of Thomas Erskiue and Mary
to the Mayor of Newcastle i-250, part of 67. 3 Douglas is dated 29th November 136.").
marks to be paid for the marriage of Mary de [Theiner's Vetera Monumenta, p. 330.]
254: WILLIAM, FIA'^'T EARL OF DOUGLAS AM) MAR.
child, whose survival was disputed. Sir Tliomas Erskine claimed a liferent
right to the lands of the Knight of Liddesdale, according to the courtesy of
Scotland, on the plea that the child of his marriage with j\Iary Douglas had
been born alive. James Douglas, the nephew of the Knight, contradicted
this assertion and opposed the claim, declaring that the lands ought to be his
by hereditary right. Instead of trying the question in the courts of law, it
was arranged to be decided by a duel between the two claimants, to take place
at Edinburgh in presence of King David the Second. By the intervention of
friends and the special mediation of the king, the duel was stopped. Sir
Thomas Erskine consented to receive a sum of money in lieu of his claims,
and the whole lands of the Knight of Liddesdale thus remained in the
possession of Sir James Douglas by hej'editary right.^
Although this narrative does not throw any light on the claims of the
Earl of Douglas to the barony of Dalkeith, it seems to show that Sir James
Douglas's right to the lauds was admitted to be hereditary, and forbids tlie
supposition of an arbitrary invasion by the Earl. The Earl's resignation is
in favour not of Sir James Douglas, but of the deceased heiress of the Knight
of Liddesdale, and may have been deemed necessary to secure the right of Sir
James to the barony, at whose instance it was immediately followed by a
ratification from the king.- The Earl of Douglas may have exercised rights
of tutory over the young heiress, or e\'en over Sir James Douglas himself, as
he was still unmarried.
If, as the deed of resignation seems to imply, William, Earl of Douglas,
had certain rights over the barony of Dalkeith, he may have resided there
for a time, and his doing so would afford the explanation of a passage in
Froissart which has always perplexed historians.
In his account of the battle of Otterburn, Froissart twice states that
in the early part of his life he made an expedition through Scotland, and
' Fordun, edition 1S71, vol. i. p. 370, note. - Registrum Honoris de Morton, vol. ii. p. 7-.
FllOISSART THE HISTORIAS AT DALKEITH. 2oo
remained lifteen days at the seat uf William, Eaii of Douglas, at a castle live
Icagnies (miles) from Edinburgh, called " Alquest " (Dalkeith), where he
saw Karl James — of whom Froissart is speaking — a boy, a " faire yong
chyldc," and a sister of his called the Lady Blanche.^ It has often been
alleged that Froissart confuses the Douglases of Dalkeith with the family
of William, Farl of Douglas, but here he may not be doing so. In another
jrassage where James, second Earl of Douglas, is described as giving a
rendezvous to certain French knights at his castle of Alquest or Dalkeith
ill 138.3, there is an apparent confusion. But Froissart is then speaking
from hearsay, not of his own knowledge.-
It may be noted that Sir James Douglas is nowhere designed Lord of
Dalkeith until after the date of this resignation. Two and a half years
later, the Earl of Douglas and the Lord of Dalkeith entered into a bond,
whereby the latter bound himself to attend for life on the former with a
retinue of eight men at arms and sixteen archers, the Earl paying a sum
of GOO merks sterling.^ But whether this agreement rose out of feudal or
personal considerations cannot be clearly proved.
A month after his resignation of the lands of Dalkeith, the Earl of
Douglas witnessed a grant by the king in favour of Sir James Douglas, of the
lands of Lathis, in the barony of Buittle, which the Earl had bestowed on
the monks of Sweetheart Abbey or Xew Abbey, in Galloway. This donation,
however, being made without the royal licence, the lands were now given
to Sir James Douglas.'* In October of the same year the Earl was present
' Frois.sart, Lord pM^rners' edition, vol. ii. horseback with his portmanteau behind him,
caps, cxlii, cxlvii. and followed by a greyhound. — [Memoir pre-
- Ihiil. vol. i. cap. ccccxlv. Froissart was in fixed to .Johnes' edition of Froissart, 1S4S,
the service of Queen Philippa of England from p. xx.]
I.'jGI to 1.S6S, but between April 1366 and '' Registrum Honoris de Morton, vol. li.
136S he was much in France. Pie was six p. 101. 10th November 1372.
inunths in Scotland, and travelled thither on ^ Ihhl. \\ 73. 6th May 1370.
256
WILLIAM, FinsT EARL OF DOUGLAS ASlJ MAU.
in the last rarliament of King David's reigu. Of tlie proceedings of thai
Parliament no record remains, save a grant to William, Earl of Eoss, of the
whole earldom of Eoss and lordship of Skye, which the Earl had resigned
in full Parliament at Perth, on 23d October 1370, in presence of the
Earl of Douglas and others.^
King David the Second died on 22d February 1371, and was succeeded
by his nephew, Eobert, High Steward of Scotland, who by the Parliament of
1318 had been declared next heir to the throne, failing male heii's of King
Eobert Bruce.- Shortly after the accession of King Eobert the Second, the
Earl of Douglas figured in an episode which, if it took place, has never l)een
clearly explained. The historian John of Fordun, who was a contemporary,
narrates nothing in his annals but the death of King David the Second and
the accession and coronation of the Steward. AVyntown, however, writing
somewhat later, states that the Steward was made kiiig chiefly through the
aid of Sir Eobert Erskine, then Keeper of the castles of Edinburgh, Dum-
barton, and Stirling. Erskine, it is said, in vindication of the king's right to
the throne, marched to Linlithgow, where the Earl of Douglas was preparing
to hinder or dispute the accession. It is further stated that the Earl of
March and his brother John also advanced against Douglas, wlio was
astonished at the number of his opponents. Sir Eobert Erskine and the
others then treated with Douglas, and arranged for a marriage between his
son and one of the king's daughters, a marriage which soon afterwards took
place. " Thus," writes Wyntown, " eftere a royd harsk begynnyng happynnyt
a soft and gud endyng." ^
This storv, in the hands of later writers, receives additions and assumes
* Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, In 1373 a payment of £500 was made to the
vol. L p. 537. Earl because of the contract matrimonial
- Ih'id. p. 465. between his son and the Princess Isabel.
3 Wyntown's Cronykil, B. ix. c. i. 11. 1-2S. [Exchequer Eolls. vol. ii. p. 433.]
ALLEGED CLAIM TO THE CliOWX, 1371.
257
an entirely nnw form. Bower asserts that the three Estates, meethig ;it
Linlithgow, began to treat as to their future king, when the vote of the
assembly was given for the Steward. This decision was opposed by the Earl
of Douglas, wlio alleged that through the Comyns or Baliols he himself had a
claim to the throne. This claim was combated by the Earl of March and
others, and Douglas perceiving that resistance was vain, by the counsel of the
other noldes present, ceased his unadvised pretensions. A treaty was then
made for the marriage, and Douglas submitted freely to the new monarcli.^
This is Bower's tale, and Hume of Godscroft enlarges upon it by givin'^ the
supposed steps of the alleged descent from the Comyns through Dornagilla,
daughter of John Comyn, who is stated, but erroneously, to be the mother of
the Earl of Douglas.-
There may have been some foundation for the story as told by Wyntown :
he was born about the middle of the reign of King David the Second, and
may therefore be supposed to know something of events whicli occurred
during his own lifetime. Yet only a month elapsed between King David's
death and the Steward's coronation, both which events took place in early
spring, and thus there could barely have been time for mustering and
marching bodies of troops to Linlithgow as described. Bower's statement
that the Parliament met at Linlithgow to elect a king is absurd, in the
face of the fact that the settlement of 1318 was well known, and rendered
sucli a proceeding unnecessary. Moreover, the alleged descent from the
Cijmyns or Baliols is now known to be mythical, there being no such person
as Dornagilla Comyn known to history, while the mother of the Earl
of Douglas was Beatrice Lindsay, daughter of Sir Alexander Lindsay of
Crawford. The fact also that Douglas, up to this time, had been a warm
friend and supporter of the Steward, while no abatement seems to have taken
1 Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 382.
° History of the Houses of Douglas aud Angus, p. S().
VOL. I.
•1 K
258 WILLIAM, FIRST EARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAR.
place in their friendship, verniers the episode related by Wyntmvn all the
niore unaccountable.
The story of the Corny n descent has been again and again refuted, thougli
frequently revived or founded on, even by recent historians, one of whom
endeavours to show that the connection between Douglas and the Baliols was
not wholly unfounded. He states that the Earl's wife, Margaret of j\Iar,
was the daughter of Donald, Earl of Mar, and his wife Isobel Baliol,
daughter of Alexander Baliol of Cavers, and niece of King John Baliol.
It is then asserted that the titles of the Baliol family had at this time
devolved on the Earl of Douglas.^ This, however, is erroneous, as his
brother-in-law, Thomas, Earl of Mar, the brother of Margaret, Countess of
Douglas, and a comparatively young man, was still alive. He was the
heir-male and representative of the long descended Earls of IMar, in full
possession of their extensive territories, and of gTeat power and influence.
Any claim which could have been made on behalf of the Earl of Douglas
could not have availed him in the lifetime of his brother-in-law, and no
historian refers to any right in the children of Douglas. Adopting the
narrative of Wyntown, Mr. Tytler endeavours to give it a greater air of
probability by stating that "the promptitude of Sir Uobert Erskine was
rewarded by the gift of three hundred and thirty-three pounds, an immense
present for that time ; whilst the services of ^March and Moray and of Sir
Thomas Erskine, were proportionally acknowledged and requited."- The
Chamberlain Piolls quoted in proof of this do not bear out the statement.
Sir Robert Erskine certainly received the sum named and more, but not
until three years later, and evidently in return for giving up the custody
1 Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. ii. v.;x3 Isabel Stewart. Vide Fo?dera, vol. ii.
p. 536. Notes, Letter M. The statement p. 1U19.
that the wife of Donald, Karl of Mar, was - Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. li.
Isobel of Baliol is erroneous. Her name p. .323, and note.
THE ALL EG FA) COMYN DESCENT. 259
of Stirling Castle to Kobert, Earl of Meiiteitli. Any payments made to
the others arc of insignificant amount, and have no relation to the aflair
of Douglas.^
It is possible, indeed, to say, as is done by a still more recent historian
who also favours the narrative of the Comyn descent, that " for such a tradi-
tion holding influence, it is not necessary to suppose that the genealogy on
which it rested was true — it suffices that it was believed." - But while this
may be true of the house of Douglas in later days — that such a tradition
might feed their ambition, — it could not apply to the first Earl of Douglas,
who nmst have known who his own mother was. Wyntown, on whose
narrative all this is based, knew that Sir David Lindsay of Crawford was the
Earl's uncle,^ and no one could remind Douglas of his parentage better than
liis own stepfather. Sir Eobert Erskine, who married the Earl's mother
after the decease of her husband the Eegent."* The conduct of Douglas at
Linlithgow, therefore, if it be correctly reported, must have had some other
motive, or it may be that AVyntown has mistaken the order of events. Boece,
who follows Bower's version rather than Wyntown's, differs from both in
making the negotiations for the marriage after instead of before the corona-
tion, and this may be the more accurate sequence of events, as the marriage
appears not to have taken place until nearly two years later.
Whatever it was, the affair was so transient as to leave no impression
upon the records of the time, and made no change in the Earl's friendship
for King Eobert the Second, who was crowned at Scone on 26th ]\Larch 1371.
On the following day he sat, according to custom, enthroned on the hill of
Scone, and among the throng of prelates and nobles who then pressed forwanl
^ Exchequer EoUs, vol. ii. pp. Ixxxi, Lxxxii, ^ Wyntown's Croaykil, B. viii. c. xli.
Preface, and pp. 364, 394, 433, b^o, 604. * Old Genealogical History of the Eiskiues,
- Historyof Scotland, by .John Hill Burton, Earla of Mar, in Mar Charter-chest; Mar
vol. ii. p. 4 IS. Peerage Evidence, p. .^lo.
260
WILLIAM, FIRST EARL OF DOUGLAS AXIJ MAR.
to swear fealty to the new sovereign came the Earl of Douglas, who paid his
homage and took the oath of allegiance with the rest. This ceremony over,
later in the same day he joined in the unanimous vote which secured the
succession to John, Earl of Carrick, the eldest son of the king.^ A few
weeks later, Douglas formed one of the Privy Council who met to consider
as to the state and manner of living of the king and queen, the ordering
and government of their households, and the maintenance of their castles.-
He also witnessed various charters at Edinburgh. In this year also tlie
Earl was appointed Justiciary of Scotland south of the Forth, at an annual
salary of £200. ^
There is little information as to the movements of the Earl of Douglas
during the following year. He was with the king at Perth in June, and at
Edinburgh towards the close of the year.* He was present in the Parliament
which met at Scone on 2d March 1372, and he witnessed the confirmation
of a charter by the Earl of Ptoss, confirmed by King Piobert in full
Parliament.^ Another incident of this year was the entering by Douglas
along with the Earl of March, as Wardens of the East Marches, into an
indenture with the Bishop of Durham and Henry, Lord of Percy, at Lyliot
Cross, on the 18th October.^ The terms of this indenture are not preserved,
but they appear to have referred to informalities in the receipts given by
Kin<.r Edward the Third for the instalments of the late King David's ransom.
The English king refused to bestow the royal title upon King Piobert the
Second, which caused much annoyance in Scotland, and although the Scotch
Commissioners who paid the money remonstrated, it was to no effect.^
i ...
The English Border wardens were at this time instructed to keep their
^ Acta of the Parliaments of Scotland, pp. 104, 105.
vol. i. pp. 545, 546. ^ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland,
2 Ibid. p. 547. 3d May 1371. vol. xii. p. 18.
•* Exchequer Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 394, 462. ^ Robertson's Index, p. 109.
' Kegistrum Houoris de Morton, vol. ii. " Ihi<I. ; Rotuli Scotia-, vol. i. p. 953.
BAA'OXY OF XOUrn BERWICK AND TANTALLON CASTLK. 2fil
men ut home, armed uud in readiness to resist invaders/ the knowledge
of which irritated the Scots, and quarrels and debates arose between the Ea^rl
of Douglas and IFenry Percy. Commissioners were appointed on botli sides
with a view to pacification and securing the integrity of the truce, but the
result of their labours is not known.
In April of the following year the third Parliament of King Pobert the
Second's reign met at Scone. The record of the proceedings is very meagre ;
but one important Act has been preserved, that by which the right to the
throne of Scotland was entailed upon John, Earl of Carrick, and his four
brothers, the surviving sons of the king, and their heirs-male respectively.'^
To this document the Earl of Douglas appended his seal, while he swore U-
observe its provisions.
On the 24th of the same month of April, the Earl of Douglas was one of
several arbiters who decided a dispute of long standing between the Abbey of
Paisley and Sir William More of Abercorn. Two days after the settlement
of this dispute, the Earl of Douglas granted a document in favour of King
Pobert the Second, which is of considerable interest as the first known
document which connects the Douglases with the barony of North Berwick.
There is no clear evidence as to when or how the Douglases entered
upon the possession of that barony and its great stronghold of Tantallon,
^vith which their name was afterwards so closely associated in song and
story. The history of the barony itself is obscure. The Earls of Fife
were the founders and patrons of the Nunnery at North Berwick, which
^vas in existence before the year 11 77,^ and it is probable they were
the lords of the barony if not the builders of the castle. In the third
' Instructions by King Edward iii., 6th 3 Carte de North Berwic, Bannatyne Chxb
August 1.72. Kotuli Scoti., vol. i. p. 951. 1847, pp. 4, 5. Maioris Historia, Ed. 174o'
- Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, p. 146. .John Major was born an Xorth
^"'- ■• P ^-^^^ Berwick.
262
WILLIAM, FIRST EARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAR.
year of his reigu, King Eobert the Second coufirmed a grant by Isabella,
some time Countess of Fife, affecting the lands of Sydserf, in the barony
of North Berwick.^ The Countess, Avho was apparently still alive, had
two years previously resigned the earldom of Fife in favour of Ilobert
Stewart, Earl of Menteith, a son of the king, who shortly afterwards was
created Earl of Fife, in addition to his title of Menteith.- In 1388,
after the death of James, second Earl of Douglas, liobert. Earl of Fife
and Menteith, represented in Parliament that the lands of Xorth Berwick
and castle of Tantallon were held of him in tenandry by the deceased Earl.^
There seems, therefore, good reason to believe that the Earl of Fife and ^len-
teitli acquired the castle and territory as part of the ancient earldom of Fife.
At what date the Douglases obtained possession has not been ascertained.
It is not improbable that the Earl of Douglas may, by the king's favour, have
become castellan of Tantallon after the earldom of Fife came into the hands
of Eobert, Earl of ]\Ienteith, or the lands and castle may have been held from
Isabella, Countess of Fife. On 26th April 13 73, King Eobert of his own will
granted to the Earl of Douglas a free port at Xorth Berwick for ships
touching with merchandise and lading goods, so that custumars, a tronar, and
tron for weighing wool may be there by the king's authority, as they
have in other ports and burghs of the kingdom.^ This does not imply that
there was no port or harbour at North Berwick previously, for a harbour is
referred to so early as 1177 as the southern port of the sea passage, of which
Earlsferry formed the northern terminus. But King Eobert the Second
seems to have granted the customs of the port to the Earl of Dougbs, who
in return promises that if the concession made to him of the port and custom
^ Registnim Magni Sigilli, vol. i. p. 99, Fraser, vol. ii. p. 251.
No. ^6. 30th June 1373. '^ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland,
-'Resignation, dated 30th May 1371, printed voL i. p. 555.
in the Red Book of Menteith, by William •* Carte de North Berwic, pp. 27, 28.
THE PATRONAGE OF THE CHURCH OF CAVERS, 1371. 2(J3
should be foimd to be iiijurioiis to the king or the coiniiiuuity, he will freely
resign the same again in the hands of his sovereign. The Exchequer
accounts record regular payments during the next few years, by the custumars
of North Berwick to the king's chamberlain, but no mention is made of any
concession to the Earl of Douglas, and it is probable that only his own
imports and exports passed free.^
It was doubtless from North Berwick that the Earl made two sea voyages
to which he refers pathetically in a graphic letter to the monks of jMelrose,
dated in June of the following year. As already stated, Douglas in 13G3
bestowed the advowson of the church of Cavers upon the Abbey of Melrose,
and the monks now accused the Earl of interfering with their right of
patronage. From this charge he defends himself at some length, and with
considerable warmth.
The Earl begins his defence by stating that because it is a pious and
meritorious thing to bear witness to the truth, he declares that tin-
Abbot and Convent of Melrose are the true patrons of the parish church of
(ireat Cavers, both de facto and de jure, according to his own charter. They
had already, he says, twice exercised their right of presenting, and no one of
sane mind could say that he had interfered with their last presentation. At
his request Mr. x\Jexander Caron,- the presentee of the monks, yielded his
right and accepted another benefice, although of less value, which at the
Earl's instance the Bishop of St. Andrews had conferred upon him, so that
Mr. ]\ratthew, the Earl's clerk, obtained the benefice of Cavers ; but the Earl
^ Exchequer Rolls, vul. ii. pp. 455, 408,
5S3, 019. In the same year the Constable
of Linlithgow, James Douglas of Strabrok,
in his accounts with Exchequer, stated that
the freeholders and servants on the lands of
the Earl of Douglas declared that they were
not bound to furnish a contribution from
their goods, but the ground of their refusal
is not stated. The amount was 343. od.
Ibid. p. 422.
- Alexander of Caron, Clerk of Scotland,
had, on 10th November 1373, a safe-conduct
from Flanders through England to Scotland.
— Rotuli ScotiiB, vol. i. p. 960.
2G4
WILLIAM, FIRST EARL OF DOUGLAS AXD MAR.
had not done this in prejudice of the monks' presentation. Xor, as the
Bishop had otherwise nothing to do with the matter, had the Earl cared to
attempt, without necessity, such labour as travelling twice from Tantallon to
St Andrews in no small peril of sea, if he had not done it for the sake of
peace — Alexander Caron being a relation of the Bishop's — and with no
desire to annul the monks' presentation. The Earl further protests that
neither at the first vacancy of the church had he presented any one, though
in his power, nor had he on the second occasion molested the presentee of
the Abbey -while he lived ; he repudiated such interference, either by word
or deed, as a grave scandal, contrary not only to the right of the monks,
but to the terms of his own grant, which would be absurd. He concludes
by an allegation in presence of his Council and faithful witnesses, that
he and his heirs will never molest nor disturb the abbot and convent, nor
permit them to be disturbed in their right of patronage of the benefice in
question,^
Tliis spirited and somewhat indignant epistle, in which the Earl is styled
Earl of Douglas and Mar, was written on 21st June 1374 at Tantallon, where
the roar of the sea and the remembrance of its perils evidently influenced the
Earl's remonstrance. At a later date, in 1402, at the request of the then
Abbot of Melrose, who exhibited the Earl's letter of obligation before Kinf:
Eobert the Third and his Council, it was inspected, transcribed, and certified
by the king under his privy seal.^
The next few years, from 1373 to 1377, in the history of Scotland were
comparatively uneventful, and but few public events are recorded in which
1 Liber de Melros, vol. ii. pp. 478-4S0.
- Ibid. In the writ of confirmation tlie king
describes the Earl of Douglas and Mar as his
brother, but it is possible the word " fratris ''
may here be used in the sense of "consan-
guinei." King Robert the Third and James,
second Earl of Douglas and Mar, were
brothers-in-law, but no near relationship
existed between the king and Earl William.
DISQUIETUDE OX THE BORDERS, 1377.
205
the Earl of Douglas had a share. He continued in attendance at Court, as
is shown by his witnessing various royal charters during the period, and in
one document he is referred to in such a way as to imply a special friendshij)
betwixt him and the King's son, Eobert, Earl of Fife and Menteith, after-
wards Duke of Albany.^ The Earl's chief recorded public acts during
the four years in question were connected with his office of Warden of
the East Marches of Scotland. Eeference has already been made to disputes
between the Scottish and the English Wardens in the early months of the
year 1373, and in August of the following year questions again rose betwixt
Douglas and Percy, which required special settlement. The subject of
debate was the Forest of Jedburgh and the profits arising therefrom. The
merits of the dispute are not stated, but it probably arose out of a stipulation
in the treaty of 1369, that during the truce half of the rents and profits of
the lands and possessions occupied by those who remained liege subjects of
the English king in the county of Eoxburgli should be paid to the Scots, who
claimed a right of heritage in these lands.'-
The working of this arrangement during tlie fourteen years' truce is
illustrated by the case of the son and heir of the Earl of Douglas himself.
On the marriage of James Douglas with the Princess Isabella, he was
provided by the king in an annuity of £100, payable from the rents of
E<.lnam, then occupied by the English ; but as half the rents were appro-
priated by the English, in terms of the truce, the king granted him a yearly
sum to supply the deficiency, until the termination of the truce." There were,
no doubt, many cases similar to this, and disputes must have arisen between
rival claimants of particular territories, making the Borders the scene of
chronic petty warfare, which at last broke out in open war. The wardens
1 The Red Book of Meuteith, by William Fraser, vol. ii. p. 260.
- Eotuli Scotia', vol. i. pp. 934, 939.
^ Exchequer Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 434, 460, 5U1 ; vol iii. pp. 79, 92, 006.
VOL. I. 2 L
266
WILLIAM, FIRST EARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAR.
wore no longer able to control their men nor agree with each other, and hence
such arrangements as the commission of 29th August 1374, by the English
king to the Bishop of Carlisle and others, to meet with commissioners
from Scotland to settle the contention between Douglas and Percy.^
These commissioners were appointed with a special view to the pre-
servation of the peace betwixt the two countries, but it cannot be said that
this result was attained ; and a few years later matters became more serious.
This is shown by the terms of a commission granted three years later, in the
first year of King llicliard the Second. The death of King Edward the
Third, while it removed from the Scots the immediate fear of a renewal of
the question as to supremacy, also encouraged them to greater activity in
troubling the peace of their neighbours. This provoked retaliation, and it
w^as deemed expedient by both parties that some magnate on either side
should attend the day of meeting appointed by Henry Percy, Earl of
Xorthumberland, the Earl of Douglas and Mar, Archibald Douglas, Lord
of Galloway, and Mr. John Pebles, chancellor of Scotland. The famous
John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, uncle of the young King of England, was
appointed to meet with John, Earl of Carrick, the Steward of Scotland, and
until the interview took place, the Wardens of both kingdoms bound them-
selves, in name of their princes, to keep the truce of 1369. They also pledged
themselves personally to preserve peace and order in their own bounds.'- The
English king, in his letter on the subject, proclaims special penalties against
all breakers of the treaty on his own side of the Border, showing that the
English Government was at that time sincerely desirous of peace, though it
1 Rotuli Scotire, vol i. p. 965.
2 Hid. vol. ii. p. 3. 27th September 1377.
The rendezvous was to be at Liliotcross, but
in the Exchequer Rolls of 1377-1378 appears
a notice of a " day of the marches," held by
the Earl of Carrick at Melrose, which pro-
bably refers to this occasion. The expenses
were £100, besides £1S for wine, and 31s.
for lampreys — sums which betoken a con-
siderable assemblage. — [Exchequer Rolls,
vol. ii. pp. 554, 5S7.]
NEGOTIATIONS WITH KISG EDWARD THE THIRD.
■l(j\
is evident from tiie frequent documents of a similar nature issued during
the next few years, that tlie Borders were in a state of ferment.
Breaches of the truce, however, were not confined to the Borderers,
nor were the Scots alone the aggressors. In the previous year, 137G, John
Mercer, a burgess of Perth, and one of the wealthiest merchants in Scotland,
had been shipwrecked on the coast of Northumberland. He was seized by
tlie country people, and confined in Scarborough Castle, but was soon
afterwards released, to the great disappointment of the English historian
who relates the circumstances. His opinion was that the release of Mercer
was a great loss to the king and realm, for had he been held to ransom,
he would have brouglit " inestimable riches " into the royal treasury.^ The
cause of ]\Iercer's comparatively speedy release was doubtless a letter
addressed to King Edward the Third by the Earl of Douglas and Mar, dated
IGth November 1376.- In this letter the Earl claims Mercer as his vassal,
and represents that he was in pursuit of his lawful calling, when he was
wrecked, and captured, and that his detention was in violation of the truce.
He therefore requests that Mercer may be at once set at liberty without
further troubling him.^ With this request King Edward complied. He must
have known Mercer as the chief agent of Scotland in the payment of King
David's ransom, and the prisoner was soon after liberated, as he M'as an
auditor of the Exchequer in January of the following year.^
The Earl of Douglas and Mar was not so speedily successful in regard to
another request which he made in the same letter, as to his clerk, Mr. Thomas
1 Walsingham, edition 1574, p. 212.
'-' Vol.-iv. of this work, pp. 57-59.
2 It woulfl appear that Mercer held the
lauds of " Pettland in Strathurd " from the
Earl of Douglas. [Robertson's Index, p. 63,
No. 43.]
* Exchequer Rolls, vol. ii. p. 510. [It may
be noted that Mercer, to reimburse himself
and his companions for their losses in Eng-
land, made a counterclaim against the ransom
money due on St. John's Day 1377 to the
extent of 2000 mcrks, which after some
delay was admitted — Ihkl. p. 582 ; Rotuli
Scotire, vol. ii. p. 13]
268
WILLIAM, FIRST EARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAR.
Mercer. It would appear that this person had been taken by the English
some time previously, as the Earl states he had formerly written to the king-
concerning him. The Earl represents the annoyance endured by his clerk, who
seems to have been Archdeacon of Glasgow, and the expenses incurred by the
imfortunate captive, amounting to 200 merks sterling. On behalf of the
prisoner the Earl demands redress, or that a formal accusation should be
made by the parties who arrested his clerk. It does not appear whether any
immediate result followed this letter. Nearly three years later a warrant was
issued by King Eichard the Second to one of the Sheriffs of London, to detain
Thomas Mercer of Scotland, described as one seized for adhesion to the kind's
enemies, as a prisoner without chains.^ A few months later, in October 1379,
a safe-conduct is gi-anted, permitting Mr. Thomas ]\Iercer, Archdeacon of
Glasgow, then abiding in England, to travel between that country and Scotland
until the ensuing 30th i^ovember.^ On the other hand, in the Exchequer
account of payments from the custom of Dundee during the year 1377, a sum
of £20 is entered as paid to Mr. Thomas Mercer by gift from the king,^ which
seems to imply Mercer's residence in Scotland some time during that year.
Certain private transactions of the Earl of Douglas and ;Mar between the
years 1373 and 1379 suggest an impoverished state of Scotland at this time.
This may have arisen partly from the drain on the resources of the kin--'doni
caused by the efforts made to meet the yearly instalments of the late king's
ransom-money, and partly from a famine which overspread the country. The
duration of this famine has been fixed at two years, during which importations
of corn were made from England.* Bower, in narrating the accession of Kin^^
Kobert the Second, states that in his time there was very great abundance of
victual, crops, and animals.^ This statement is probably exaggerated, while
^ Rotuli Scotiae, vol. ii. p. 16.
1379.
2 IbhL p. 18.
20th June ^ Exchequer Rolls, vol. ii. p. 565.
* Ibid. Preface, p. Ixxxiii.
^ Fonlun, i Goodall, vol. ii. p. .SS3.
PROCURES FOOD SUPPLIES FROM EXGLAXD. -Jfiy
on the other hand tlie assertion of a recent historian that " the whole nobility
of Scotland appear to have been supported by grain imported from England
and Ireland," ^ from which he infers great destitution among the lower classes,
is somewhat too sweeping. Between the years 1373 and 1375, there were
indeed considerable quantities of grain imported from England, and several of
the greater nobles received permission to make purchases there, but the larger
(juantity was imported by merchants evidently for sale to the general public.
The Earl of Douglas was one of those nobles who purchased corn in England,
and his name occurs more frequently than that of any other Scottish magnate,
only one or two others of high rank being referred to. In April 1374, lie
received licence to purchase 80 quarters of wdieat, the same quantity of malt,
and 12 tuns of wine."- In February and June of the next year, the Earl, by
his agents, obtained in each month ."300 quarters of malt from the counties of
Lincoln, Norfolk, and Suffolk, the Countess of Douglas purchasing 200 quarters
additional.^ It is not clear, however, that these transactions denote a scarcity
in Scotland. If so, it must have lasted a long time, or the years from 1379
to the conclusion of the fourteen years' truce in 1383 must also have been
famine years, as the imports of victual and malt from England were tlien very
frequent, the Earl of Douglas also buying quantities of malt, but not so
extensively.* In April 13 78 also, the Earl, conjointly with the Earl of Fife,
imported from England goods of a miscellaneous character, consisting of
vessels of pewter, worsteds, saddles, caskets, flagons, and leather bottles.
These were for the Earl's own use, and were to be bought and shipped at
London, by special permission of the English king.^
^ Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. iL or as a pilgrim to the shrine of St. James.
P- -"^^G. 3 Rotuli Scotia, vol. i. pp. 9GS-070 ; vol. iv.
- Rotuli Scotia?, vol. i. p. 963. On the of this work, p. 8.
same date a safe-conduct was granted at the * Rotuli Scotiie, vol. ii. pp. 30 to .5."^,
Earl's request to James or Jacob Ponche, passim.
a Florentine, permitting him to go to Rome, ^ Ibhl. p. 7.
270
WILLIAM, FIIi>^2' EARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAR.
About this time William, Earl of Douglas, came into possession of the
extensive estates of the earldom of Mar, and also received the dignity of
Earl of Mar, and Avas thereafter Earl of Douglas and Mar. For a proper
understanding of those important acquisitions, it is necessary to explain the
state of the Mar and Douglas families at the time of the death, in or about the
year 1374, of Thomas, the last of the male line of the ancient Earls of Mar.
By overlooking the facts mistakes have been made even by recent writers,
in reference to the succession of the Douglas Earls of Mar. It has been
asserted that William, Earl of Douglas, assumed the title of Earl of ]\Iar in
right of his wife, who survived him, and that upon her death her son James
succeeded to her in the lands and dignity, which again passed, on his death
at Otterburu, to his sister Isabella. But, as will be shown, Margaret,
Countess of Douglas and Mar, survived not only her husband, the Earl of
Douglas, but her son, the second Earl, who, therefore, did not succeed to his
mother, but held the title of Mar in direct succession to his father.
Thomas, thirteenth Earl of ^lar, was the only son of Donald, the twelfth
Earl, who was Eegent of Scotland after the death of Eandolph, Earl of
Moray, and fell at the battle of Dupplin. Earl Thomas married, first,
Margaret, Countess of Menteith, but having no issue by her, procured a
divorce, and married Margaret Stewart, Countess of Angus.^ His divorce
from the first Countess, and speedy marriage with his second, shows the
desire of the last of the Earls of Mar to continue the race in his own line.
But he was again disappointed of children, his second Countess having
borne liini no issue.
The Earl of ]\Iar having thus no children, and no surviving male
relatives, and only one sister, Margaret of i\Iar, Countess of Douglas, the
subject of the succession to his vast territorial estates and his ancient
dignity, which was one of the oldest in Scotland, must have frequently
1 The Red Book of Menteith, by William Fraser, vol. i. pp. 121-124.
SUCCESSIOX TO THE EARLDOM OF MAR, 1374. i>7l
engrossed tlie attention of the cliildless Earl of Mar. No patent or instru-
ment of creation of his dignity was known to exist, and it may have been a
doubt whether, if left to the operation of law, his estates would descend to
his sister, and his title of dignity become extinct, as in the long line of
thirteen Earls there was no case of female succession.
The ancient Mar muniments liave shared the fate of the earlier charters
of tlie Douglas family, as Kildrummy Castle, the principal residence of the
Earls of Mar, like the castle of Douglas, frequently underwent the perils of
war and conflagration, when their older title-deeds perished.
To guard against the contingency of the lapse of the title, the facts and
circumstances show that an arrangement was entered into between the two
brothers-in-law, Mar and Douglas, whereby in the event of the death of the
Earl of Mar without issue, his estates and title would be inherited by his
brother-in-law Douglas and his issue, with a regrant of the title of Earl to
Douglas, who would thus become Earl of Douglas and Mar, the latter dignity
dating from the new and not the original creation.
The family arrangement as to the succession of the Earl of Douglas to
the Mar estates, would be followed on the part of Earl Thomas by a formal
resignation of his earldom and dignity in the hands of King Robert the
Second, and by a regrant in terms of the aiTangement.
The exact date of the accession of the Earl of Douglas to this earldom
and dignity of Mar has not been clearly ascertained, but may be stated
approximately. The last mention of Earl Thomas, as alive, occurs in a safe-
conduct to England which he received on 22d October 1373, to endure for
three months.^ If Earl Thomas undertook the journey to England he did
not long survive it. The protest by the Earl of Douglas in regard to the
patronage of the church of Great Cavers was made by him, as Earl of
Douglas and Mar and Lord of the barony of Cavers, on 2 1st June 1374.
^ Rotuli Scotioe, vol. i. p. 9G0.
272 WILLIAM, FIRST EARL OF DOUGLAS AXD MAR.
It is thus implied that Eaii Thomas was then deceased. After that date
AVilliam, Earl of Douglas, in formal legal instruments, is styled Earl of
Douglas and ]\Iar, and as such exercised the right of sole and absolute
owner of the earldom of Mar.
In his baron's Court, held near his castle of Kildrummy, he received,
on 26th July 1377, formal resignation of the lands of Easter Fowlis, within
his earldom of ]\Iar, and shortly afterwards bestowed them on James ]\Iowat.^
The charter was granted by the Earl alone in his own name as Earl of Douglas
and Mar, and the grantee was to hold the lands to himself and his heirs of
the Earl and his heir, and to do suit at the Earl's courts to be holden for Mar.
On the lOtli of the following month the Earl, as Earl of Douglas and Mar,
confirmed a grant which had been made in 1356 by his brother-in-law,
Thomas, Earl of :\Iar, to William Chambers, of lands within the earldom of
Mar, the grantee doing suit and service at the Earl's court at Migvie, witliin
the earldom.- The Earl of Douglas and Mar confirmed this grant for himself
and his heirs, and made it at his castle of Kildrummy.
Again, ]\Iargaret Stewart, widow of Thomas, Earl of Mar, in 1377, had
certain terce lands judicially assigned to her by the Sheriff of Aberdeenshire.
from her husband's estates of Mar and Garioch. At a later date she leased
her whole terce lands to her brother-in-law William, Earl of Douglas and
Mar, who, on 11th May 1381, granted to her letters of obligation acknow-
ledging the lease, and containing certain conditions to be fulfilled in the
evejit of any term's rent remaining unpaid beyond a specified time. This
document throughout is the act and deed of the Earl alone. He speaks of
himself in the plural number, and recites the formal destination of the lease
as granted " to us, to Margaret our spouse, and to the survivor of us and to
our heirs." The Earl's warrandice is by himself alone, and his own heirs.
1 Antiquities of Aberdeen and Banff', vol. i. p. 594 ; vol. iv. p. 158 ; Original Charter in
Torrance Charter-chest. '- Antiquities of Aberdeen and Banff, vol. iv. p. 723.
EARL OF MAR IX HIS OWX RIGHT, 1374-1384. 273
The Earl's wife is no party to the letter of obligation; her consent to it is not
stated, nor was her seal affixed to it.
If reference be made to documents granted by Margaret, Countess of
Douglas and ]\Iar, after the death of her husband, WiUiam, Earl of
Douglas and ^Mar, and when she had married as her second husband Sir
John Swinton of Swintou, a distinction will at once be marked. Previous
to the year 1388 the Countess's son, James, second Earl of Doughas and
iMar, granted tlie lands of Drumlanrig to his son William.^ After that Earl's
deatli at Otterburn in 1388, the Countess of Douglas and Mar and her second
liusV)and, as superiors of Drumlanrig, granted an obligation binding themselves
tluat WiUiam Douglas should suffer no molestation in his possession of the
lands. In that obligation the granters are " John of Swyuton, lord of Mar, and
i\fargaret, his spouse, Countess of Douglas and Mar ;" the obligation is in their
joint names throughout, and the seals of both husband and wife were appended
to the original.- Swinton during his wife's lifetime had only the jus mariti
over lier possessions, and she joins with liim in writs affecting her property.
A precisely similar case occurs at a later period, when the ]\Iar estates
were in the possession of an heiress, Isabel Douglas, who succeeded to the
lands in question. She married Malcolm Drummond, brother of Annabella
I >rummond, Queen of Scotland, and he, in 1 400, granted, in terms of a family
arrangement, tlie lands of Liddesdale to George Douglas, Earl of Angus, the
lialf-brother of Isabel Douglas. In his charter Malcolm Drummond merel}-
designs himself Lord of ^lar and of Garioch, declares that the grant is made
with consent of liis spouse, Isabel of Douglas, Lady of Mar, Garioch, and
Liddesdale ; that his right to Liddesdale was through his spouse ; that George
of Douglas was to hold the lands of Malcolm and Isabel, and the heirs to be
begotten betwixt them, and to render to tliem and their heirs, whom failino,
' Original Charter in Drumlanrig Charter-chest, 1385-1388.
- 01(1 Copy Charter, dated 5th December 13S9, in Drumlanrig Charter-chest.
VOL. I. 2 jj
274 WILLIAM, FIRST EABL OF DOUGLAS AXD MAIL
to the heirs of Isabel, a red rose yearly. The charter was sealed with the
seal of Isabel as well as that of jMalcolm Drummond.i
The earldom of Mar, as possessed by Thomas, Earl of ^l^v, was in the time
of King Kobert the Second the premier earldom of Scotland. The dignity of
Earl of Douglas was then the most modern dignity with the rank of Earl,
and William, Earl of Douglas, was the first Earl of his family, having been'
created on 2Gth January 13.^7-8. Wlien he received the conjoined titles of
Douglas and Mar on the death of Thomas, Earl of .Alar, he had only
been sixteen years Earl of Douglas, yet on every occasion his title Jf
Douglas is invariably placed before that of Mar. He styles himself Earl
of Douglas and Mar ; his widow also after his death placed the title of
Mar after that of Douglas, styling herself Countess of Douglas and Mar,'^
and the same course was followed in Crown charters by the king. The
dignity of Earl of Douglas could not have been placed before that of
Earl of Mar, if Earl William had been entitled in right of his wife to l^e
ranked as, and to bear the style of, the first Earl of the kingdom.
Both of the Earls of Douglas and Mar, William and James, father and
son, sealed the legal deeds granted by them with their armorial seals, having
Douglas in the first and fourth quarters, and .Alar in the subsidiary second
and third, thus again plainly showing tliat the title of .Alar, as possessed by
William, Earl of Douglas, was junior to his recently created dignity of
Douglas.
Between the years 1378 and 1380, the Earl of Douglas and Mar seems to
have engaged in frequent conflicts with the English, as though the fourteen
years' truce had not expired, it was, latterly at least, very badly kept on both
sides of the Borders. It is impossible, however, from the conflicting accounts
of historians, to follow the true sequence of events. In one of the desultory
1 Vol. iii. of this work, pp. 44-4().
- Antiquities of Aberdeen and Banff, vol, iv. pp. 7-24-727.
BORDEU QONFLWTH—THE CAPTURE OF BERWICK.
expeditions of the time, the Castle of Lerwick was seized and ht4d tor
nine days by a small party of Scots, who attacked the place by night,
killed tlic governor, and put the garrison to tlie sword. The English his-
torian who narrates the event most fully gives, in one account, the name of
Thomas Hog as the leader of the adventurous company, numbering, it is said,
about iifty men. The historian adds that Henry Percy, Earl of Northum-
berland, the English warden, sent to the Earl of ]\Iarch on the Scottish
Border, to know if he were privy to this infringement of the truce. ^Nlarch
responded to the call by joining Percy in sumnnjuing the invading partv
to surrender the castle, but their leader replied he would yield it neither
to the king of England nor of Scotland, but would keep it for the King
of France.^
Froissart gives a graphic account of the taking and retaking of the Castle
of Berwick, similar in detail to that of Walsinglutm, but assigns the leadership
of the Scots to a squire named Alexander Piamsay, and omits all mention
of the Earl of March. He adds that after the re-taking of Berwick,
the Earl of Northumberland, accompanied by the Earl of Nottingham, Sir
Thomas Musgrave and others, rode with a considerable force against the
Scottish leaders. The Earl of Douglas and Mar, with other nobles and knights,
including Sir Archibald Douglas, the Earl's cousin, had come to ])unliar to
succour the adventurers who had seized Berwick, but considering that the
object to be gained was not worth the probable loss of life which would
ensue, they ultimately abandoned their resolution.-
Froissart then relates that news of the re-taking of Berwick and the
fate of the adventurers, who were all put to death except Alexander Piamsay,
was carried to the Earl of Douglas and :\rar and the other Scottish leaders.
1 Walsingham's History of England, edition - Froissart, Lord Bernera' edition, vol. i.
1^74, p. 222; also Ypoiligma Neustria-, pp. 501-504.
p. 13G.
276 WJLLIAJf, FIRST EARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAR.
They were encamped near Haddington,^ bnt determined to make a rapid march
to surprise Sir Thomas Musgrave, who was in command of a small English
force at Melrose. They set ont purposing to reach ]\Ielrose about midnight,
but, says the historian, there fell such a rain and wind which so beat in
their faces that the proudest of them could scarce sit on their horses ; and
their pages, benumbed with cold and wet, could not carry their master's spears
but let them fall, while each man broke away from the other and lost his
way. In this plight, the leaders halted in the lee of a great wood, some
of the knights remarking that they rode but foolishly, for it was no
proper season then to ride; they might lose rather than gain. They
therefore waited, covering themselves and their horses as they best could,
while some made fires to warm them, though not without difficulty, as the
wood was green and wet. The storm continued till daybreak, when the wet
weather ceased, the sun shone, and the larks began to sing.
Foragers were sent out into the neighbouring villages, who encountered
a party of Englishmen on the same errand. The alarm being thus given to
Sir Thomas MusgTave and his company, the Scots could no longer practise a
surprise, so they made an ambuscade in the wood and sent out a few men to
reconnoitre the enemy. The Englishmen, on the other hand, on discovering
the near approach of the Scots, sallied out from :\Ielrosc, to the number of two
thousand seven hundred, and, after marching some distance, came suddenlv
upon Douglas and his men, who could not then retreat. A fierce enoaf'ement
took place, resulting in tlie defeat of the English and the capture of Sir Thomas
1 Froissart, Lord Berners' edition, vol i. It is possible Humbie may be the place indi-
p. 505. The place is called '-Hondbray," cated, as the ancient name of that parish
which in Johnes' edition is explained to mean was Hundehj, and it contains a hamlet
Haddington. This is doubtful The place is of some size, while the other geographical
said tobealargevilLige beyond the Lamnierlaw features stated correspond to that locality.
or Lammermuir, among the mountains, where Cf. Gazetteer of Scotland, vol. i. pp. Su9,
there were fair meadows and a good country. 810.
CAPTURE OF SIR THOMAS MUSGRAVE, 1377.
Musgrave and his son, with several other Englishmen of note. To avoid an
encounter with the larger body of the English, who, under tlie Earls of Northum-
berland and Nottingham, had been marching by another route in search of the
Scots, the Earl of Douglas withdrew his forces and retreated towards Edinburgh.^
Thus far Froissart, who relates the events as if he were an eye-witness.
Walsingham, who is usually accurate in his dates, fixes the date of the
cajtture of r)erwick as 25th November 137S.- If, as Froissart implies, the
military movements he describes followed shortly after the recapture, they
must have taken place in December or January, which scarcely accords witli
the indications he gives of the season of the year. On the other hand, it is
certain that the Earl of Douglas was near Dunbar in January 1379, as he
witnessed a charter on the second of that month at Tantallon, having
apparently come suddenly from Arbroath, where he was with the king on
the 2Gtli and 31st of the previous month.^
The Scottish historians, Wyntown and Bower, assign the taking of Sir
Thomas j\Iusgrave to an earlier date and another cause. A trivial quarrel
having taken place with an Englishman, in which a chamberlain of the
Earl of March was slain, that powerful nobleman, in revenge, took advantage
of a large concourse of Englishmen at St. James's Fair at Pioxburgh, to set
tire to the town and massacre a number of the Englishmen. This was
followed by a raid on the part of tlie English warden, which, according to
Walshigham, took place in 1377,'* probably in August or September, and
then it was that Musgrave, who had ridden out from Berwick with a small
i)arty, is said to have been made captive by a vassal of the Earl of IMarcli."'
' Froissart, Lord Berners' edition, vol. i. ^ Antiquities of Aberdeen and Banff, vol. ii.
pp. 5U5, 506. p. 67; vol. iv, pp. Hi, 724.
* Walsingham, p. 197.
- Walsingham, edition 1574, p. 222.
B<3wer also gives the same date as "shortly
before 8t. Andrew's day." — Fordim, a Good- ^ Wyutown's Cronykil, B. ix. c. ii
all, vol. ii. p. 301. 11. 75-90 ; Fordun, iv Ooo<lall, vol. ii. p. 38.").
278
WILLIAM, FIllST EARL OF DOrOLAS AXD MAR.
Tliis is corroborated so far by a warrant issued two years later, by KiiiL;
Eicliard the Second, to compel Sir Thomas Musgrave, who had been liberated
on parole, to re-enter himself in the custody of the Earl of ]\Iarch.^
It is possible, therefore, that Froissart may have confounded separate
events, but his description of the night march at least is so graphic that it
bears the marks of authenticity, and the episode may really have happened,
though not in connection with the capture of Berwick. The " warden raid "
of Percy in 1377, might quite well call forth such a demonstration on the
part of Douglas, as would lead to the night march in question. It may be
noted, also, that Proissart makes Douglas, before going into battle, confer
knicrhthood on his own son James, and on two sons of Kin'4 Eobert the
Second, Eobert and David. This is also inconsistent with facts. The Earl's
son James is described as a knight or chevalier so early as 1372, in which
year he had a safe-conduct into England,- while the sons of the king held
knightly rank before that date.^
During the summer months of 1379, the Earl of Douglas and Mar was
with the king at Methven and Kyndrocht, at a later date at Perth, and in
February following at Edinburgh.^
Between February and June 1380, the Earl engaged in a raid into England.
"VVyntowu and Bower both assert that Douglas was annoyed at an incursion
by the Earl of Xorthumbeiiand on the territory of the Earl of March, and
took this method of retaliation.'"' An invasion of Scotland by the Wardens
of the West Marches, however, is suggested by a reference, in a warrant
^ Rotuli Scotise, vol. ii. p. IG. 7tb June
1.379.
- Ihid. vol. i. p. 952.
^ Registnini Magni Sigilli, vol. i. pp. S4,
120.
* Registrum Honoris tie Morton, vol. li.
p. 142 ; Antiquities of Aberdeen and Banff,
vol. iiL pp. 141, 181 ; vol. iii. of this work,
p. 28 ; History of the Carnegies, p. 491.
•'' Wyntown's Cronykil, B. ix. c. iii. ; For-
dun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 391.
INVASIOX OF EXGLAyU, 1380.
•27!)
addvessed by the English king to them, to money paid to the Scuts I'ur
(himage done by the English.^
Wliatever the special cause of offence, Douglas mustered an army of his
(nvn vas.sals and those of his friends, numbering, it is said, about twenty
tliousand men. Dividing his army into three sections, the Earl invaded
( 'umberland and Westmoreland, spoiling and ravaging all around. Erom the
Forest of Inglewood the Scots drove off, it is said, 40,000 animals of various
kinds, besides other booty, and burned what they could not carry off. Not
content with this, by a night march the marauders surrounded and attacked
the town of Eenrith, where a fair was then being held. The town was full of
people, and the streets crowded with booths, in which were all sorts of wares,
s(» that Douglas and his men secured a large amount of booty. They then
set fire to the place, and returned homewards, some of their number, wlio had
become intoxicated, falling into the hands of the Englisli.-
The Scottish historians, in their account of this raid, merely add that the
Scots reached their own country without further loss. Walsingham, however,
relates that after their success at Penrith the Scots, returning by the way of
(.'arlisle, determined to attack that city, but were deterred by a report that on
the previous night, great numbers of the country people had flocked to the
•lefence of the place. They therefore decided to avoid Carlisle, lest, by
delaying there, they might meet with disaster, and be compelled to disgorge
their booty. As it was, passing near some archers from Cumljerland and
Westmoreland, the Scots lost some of their number, but they succeeded in
ciilcring Scotland witli their prey without furtlier loss.^
' KotuH Scotue, vol. ii. p. 21. At a later - Wyntown's Cronykil, B. ix. v. iii.
>UU also, in 1:581, the Earl of Northumber- Fordun, i GoocLiU, vol. ii. p. 391 ; Walking
lan.l waa ilirectcl to pay £02 to the Earl of ham, edition l.")7-l, p. 249.
Douglas for damage done in his wardenry.
— Ihl,l. p. .37. 3 ffyia.
280 WILLIAM, FIRST EARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAR.
Tills raid, thou'jh it inflicted 'n-eat damage on the Enulish, costinir the
Earl of Northumberland alone, it is said, upwards of one thousand marks,
had in the end disastrous consequences for the Scots. In the summer
of the previous year, England had been visited with a severe pestilence,
especially in the northern districts. The English historian who records it
describes very graphically the terrible effects of this plague, and condemns
the Scots in no measured terms, because while disease was depopulating
the country, they harassed the survivors by constant petty raids. He ridicules
the Scots as being very much afraid of the pestilence, and endeavouring
to fortify themselves against it, by dally blessing themselves, according ti»
a formula composed by them, — " Gode and S. ]\Iungo, Saint Romayu and
Saint Andrew, schield us this day fro Goddis grace and the foule death
that English men dien upon." ^ The chronicler concludes with a pious
%vish that the prayer (to be kept from God's grace) might be answered, and
that the cruel marauders might receive the reward of their doinfjs.
This wish received, it would appear, an unfortunate fulfilment after the
raid upon Penrith. The Earl of Xorthumljerland was eager to retaliate his
losses on the Scots, but was restrained by a special order from King Eicharil
the Second.- It would seem, however, that a force of fifteen thousand
English crossed the Solway into Scotland, and did what damage they could.
They were fiercely attacked by a small body of Scots, and a considerable
number taken prisoners, while many lost their lives by the rapid influx
of the Solway. It was not by this attack that the Scots suffered, but as
Bower mournfully says, after describing the riches gained at Penrith, "While
the Scots thirsted for booty, they came to incons(jlable grief, because from
their spoils arose a pestilence in the kingdom, by which almost a third
part of the population died that same year." Wyntown also records the
pestilence in this year (1380), though he says nothing of the cause.
* Walsingham, ut supra, p. 2;J4. " Ihid. p. 249.
NEaOriATIO^' OF TRUCES BY THE WARDENS. 281
It is stated to have been the third pestilence which had prevailed in
Scotland.'
In the summer of 1380, the Earl of Douglas and Mar was again with the
kin-T in the east and north of Scotland,- and attended a conference of
wardens, held at Berwick on the 1st November of that year. The mandate
issued by the English king restraining the Earl of Northumberland from
seeking revenge on the Scots for their attack on Penrith was followed by a
royal warrant appointing the Earl a commissioner for punishing violators
of the truce.^ The Duke of Lancaster was appointed to the same end, and
marched towards Scotland at the head of a powerful army, but his deputies,
the Earls of Warwick and Suffolk, had met with Commissioners from Scot-
land at Liliotcross, Maxton and Moorhouselaw, and a meeting with the
Duke of Lancaster was fixed for the last day of October, at Berwick. On the
representation of the Scots, however, the interview was deferred till the next
day, the 1st of November, when, it would appear, the Earl of Douglas was
present.* The other Scotch Commissioners were the Bishops of Glasgow and
Dunkeld, the Earl of March, and Sir Archibald Douglas, Lord of Galloway.
A truce was arranged to last until 30th November 1381, both parties
binding themselves to keep the peace for that time, and it was agreed that
if any attempts against the truce were made by subjects of either king-
dom, requisitions should be made by the wardens within one month, and
measures taken for securing satisfaction to the injured party. The places at
• Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 391 ; Wyn- ^ Rotuli Scotiae, vol. ii. p. 22. 8th May
town's Cronykil, B. ix. c. iii. 1380.
- At Dundee, on 16th June ; Inverness, on ^ Ihid. pp. 29, 30. The delay may have
11th August ; and " CJlempness " (Glaniis), on been for the sake of the Earl of Douglas,
31st October 13S0. — Registrum Honoris de who appears as a witness at Glamis on 31st
Morton, vol. ii. p. 143 ; Registrum Aberdon- October, though it seems barely possible that
ense, vol. i. p. 112 ; Antiquities of Aberdeen he could arrive at Berwick by the following
and Banff, vol. ii. p. 44. day.
VOL. I. 2 N
WILLIAM, FIUST EAHL OF DOUGLAS AXD MAIL
which these requisitions were to be made were as follows. At JJunse and
Berwick for matters affecting the bounds of the Earl of ^March's wardcnry ;
Melrose and Roxburgh for matters affecting the bounds in charge of the
Earl of Douglas, with Ardkane and the Priory of Canonbie on his western
limits ; while Lochmaben was assigned as the place of requisition for the
West Marches. The Duke of Lancaster on one side, and the Earls of
March and Douglas with Sir Archibald Douglas, on the other side, affirmed
this treaty by affixing their seals.^
In June of the following year a further conference took place between
John, Earl of Carrick, eldest son of the King of Scots, and the Duke of Lan-
caster, at Abchester, near Ayton.- It was agreed that the trace should be
renewed and endure until Candlemas 1384, while a separate clause provided
that the balance still due of the ransom of King David the Second should
remain unpaid until the same term. These articles were confirmed by the
English king in the succeeding July. Immediately following on this treaty
occurred an episode in which the Earl of Douglas figured prominently,
and which marks the chivalric character of the period.
While the Duke of Lancaster was absent in the north, the famous popular
insurrection, headed by Wat Tyler, had broken out in England. The Duke's
palace of the Savoy had been plundered, and a party formed against him. He
was much disturbed by the news of the outbreak, and, according to one
English historian, this was the cause of his haste in concluding a peace with
the Scots, lest they should take advantage of the popular disturbance and
invade England.-'^ The Duke, at least, considered it desirable to absent
himself from England for a time, and in an interview with the Earl of
' Rotuli Scotiae, vol. iL p. 30 ; Fcedera, ing is in the treaty called Abchester— in the
vol. vii. pp. 276-278. Exchequer Rolls, it is said to be Coldingham.
■^ Rotuli Scotia-, vol. ii. pp. 38, 39 ; Fcjedera, —Vol. iii. p. SI.
vol. vii. p. 312, et seq. The place of meet- ' Walsingham, edition 1574, p. 207-
DUKE OF LAXC ASTER IX SCOT LAX D, 1381. 283
Carrick, begged permission to make a temporary residence in ticotkincL
Tliis request was at once granted, and he was cordially received as a guest
of the nation. To do the Duke all honour, the Earl of Douglas, Sir
Archibald Douglas, Lord of Galloway, met him with a considerable company,
and conducted him to Haddington, where he slept the first night of his
sojourn in Scotland, after due feasting and entertainment. The next day
the noble guest was brought to Edinburgh, and apartments in Holyrood
Abbey were assigned to him. There, during his stay, the Duke received
much kindness, and many presents from all classes of society, but the Earl
of Douglas is said to have been specially attentive in his courtesies, and
in supplying provisions for the Duke's table. When the latter returned
to England, he was escorted to Berwick by an honorary retinue of eight
hundred spearmen.^
After Lancaster's departure, which seems to have been about the middle
of July 1381,- the Earl of Douglas and Mar visited the south of Scotland,
and was at Wigtown on 9th September, There, for the weal of his own soul
and those of his wife and son James, he granted to the prior and convent of
^^^lithorn an annual rent of twenty merks due to himself from the lands of
Mertoun or Myrtoun in Wigtownshire. This charter was witnessed by John,
Earl of Carrick, and other two sons of the king, three Lindsays, and the Earl'.s
son James, and was confirmed by the seal of Sir Archibald Douglas as Lord
of Galloway.^ In October of the same year, the Earl was in Edinburgh with
the king, and afterwards with him at Ardstanchell or Ardstinchar in Ayrshire,
and in the spring of the following year at Arnele.* From this date until the
^ Wyntown's Crouykil, B. ix. c. iv. ; ^ Registrum ^lagui Sigilli, vol. ii. p. 450,
Fonlun, ii Goodall, vol. ii. p. 3fl6. note. King Robert Second continued the
2 Orders for a bodyguard to protect the grant at Linlithi;u\v on 31st December 1381.
Dnke's person on his way to the English Court ^ Liber de Melros, vol. ii. pp. 444-462;
were issued on 5th July 1381. — [Fcedera, Memorials of the Montgomeries, vol. ii. p. IG ;
vol vii. p. 319.] Registrum de Morton, vol. ii. p. 141>.
284 WILLIAM, FIRST EARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAR
end of the truce with England no record of the Earl's doings has been found,
except that he witnessed various royal charters at Stirling and Dundee in
AprQ and July 1383, and at Edinburgh on 18th January 13R4.^ A somewhat
obscure entry in the Exchequer Eolls for 1383 makes it appear that the Earl
and his son shared with the king and others certain profits arising from the way
in which King David the Second's ransom-money was paid, but in what manner
cannot be ascertained, owing to defect of records.^ During the truce also the
Earl received two licences permitting him to import wine and malt from
England. In February 1 382 his imports were 1 2 tuns of wine and 400 quarters
of malt, and in March of the following year he imported 300 quarters of malt.^
On the expiration of the truce with Lancaster at Candlemas 1384, the
Scots were the first to assume the offensive against England. Before that
date, however, in August of the previous year, they had given clear indica-
tion of their warlike intentions, by entering into negotiations with France.
There was no formal treaty, but the French king had promised, in the
event of war with England, to furnish the Scots with forty thousand francs
of gold, one thousand men-at-arms, and a thousand suits of armour, bribes
sufficiently dazzling to the warlike Scottish nobles.'^ The three years' truce
had barely expired before the three Border wardens, the Earls of Douglas
and March, and Sir Archibald Douglas, besieged the castle of Lochmaben,
which had been in English hands since 134C. Sir Archibald Douglas, in
whose wardenry the fortress lay, was the prime mover in the attack, as
the castellans of the castle did much damage to the surrounding district.
The stronghold capitulated on 4th February 1384, two days after the
truce expired.^
1 Registrum Magni SigiUi, vol. i. p. 170; ^ Rotjiij Scotia, vol. ii. pp. 41, 49.
Charter in Drummond Charter-chest, 11th * Acts of the Parliaments of Scotkml, vol.
April 138.3 ; Charters of Holyrood, p. 100. xii. p. 19.
'" Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. .307 ; Wyn-
- Exchequer Rolls, vol. iii. pp. lix, 6C4. town's Cronykil, B. ix. c. v.
TEVIOTDALE RESTORED TO ITS PROPER ALLEGIANCE. 285
The English were not slow to retaliate this defeat, and another in-
flicted hy the Earl of Marcli on the Baron of Graystock, who was captured
on liis way to Pioxburgh Castle, and feasted by his captor olf his own gold
and silver plate.^ In the first week of April the Duke of Lancaster entered
Scotland with a large army, and advanced as far as Edinburgh, but, mindful
of the hospitality he had received, he did as little damage to the country as
possible, and soon re-crossed the Border.'^ Immediately on the retreat of the
English army, Douglas, with a large force, entered Teviotdale, of which a
considerable portion had been under the rule of England since the battle of
Durham. The Earl now determined to bring the wdiole of it under the sway
of the King of Scots. This he accomplished, partly by force and partly by
diplomacy, achieving his purpose so successfully that " nowthir fure na fute
(if land" was left under English rule, except the castles of lioxburgh anrl
Jedburgh.^ To confirm the recovery of this important district, and to secure
tlie king's rights over it, a special Act was passed by the Scottish Parliament
assembled at Edinburgh in April of the following year.
From this Act it would appear that Douglas held a special commission
from the king, which prescribed certain conditions to those in Teviotdale who
had transferred their allegiance from the King of p]ngland to the Scottish
monarch. It was further ordained that all such persons should, within eight
days, present to the Chancellor schedules or lists containing the names of
the lands, wherever situated within the kingdom, which they claimed by
hereditary right, with the names of the present possessors and the sheriff-
doms in which they lay. This was to facilitate the preparation of citations
which the Chancellor was to direct through the sheriffs, summoning all parties
who held or chiimed to hold lands, to produce their title-deeds before the
' Wyntown's Cronykil, B. ix. c. v.
- The Duke was at Durham on 23(1 Ajiril. — Rotuli Scotia?, vol. ii. p. 62.
^ Wyntown'3 Cronykil, B. TX. c. vi. ; Fordun, ^ Goodall, vol. ii. p. 400.
286 WILLIAM, FIRST EARL OF DOUGLAS AXD MAR.
King uud Council, who should make a final decision.^ From another Act
in a later year we learn that William, Earl of Douglas, by virtue of hi.-,
commission, received to allegiance of the King of Scots otliers besides the
inhabitants of Te%'iotdale, but when is not stated.-
The recover}' of Teviotdale to its obedience to the Scottish Crown was
the last public exploit of William, first Earl of Douglas and Mar, and it was
in keeping witli the steady patriotism of his whole career. Some doubt has
been expressed as to whether he did not take part in an invasion of England
wldch must have been made before tlie month of June 1384, but the testimony
of the earliest chroniclers seems decisive that in that raid the Earl's son James
was the leader. Wyntown is very precise in his statement that, shortly after
the recovery of Teviotdale from the English sway, the Earl of Douglas, while
on his way to Douglas, was suddenly seized with sickness or fever. He was
borne to his own ancestral castle, where he died after a brief illness, his body
being brought to ]Melrose and interred there with due ceremony.^ Bower
makes a similar statement,'* and comparison of dates shows that the Earl's
death and burial took place about the beginning of May 138-i.
Hume of Godscroft says that William, first Earl of Douglas and Mar,
was thrice married; first, to Margaret (or Agnes) of Dunbar, daughter of
Patrick, Earl of Dunbar and March, who was the mother of James, second
Earl of Douglas, and of Sir Archibald Douglas, Lord of Galloway ; secondly,
to Margaret of Mar, mother of Isobel Douglas, Lady of Mar ; and thirdly, to
Margaret Stewart, daughter of Thomas Stewart, Earl of Angus, who was the
mother of George Douglas.^ As these statements have been followed more
or less closely by later genealogists and recent writers, it is necessary to
enter into the subject more fully than otherwise might have sufficed.
' Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, * Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 400.
vol. i. p. 552. - Ibid. p. 553. ^ History of the Houses of Douglas and
^ Wyntown's Cronykil, B. ix. c. v. Angus, p. 79.
HI a MARRIAGE. oj^;
The tirst wile a.-ssigned by Godscroft to William, first Earl of Douglas —
Margaret (or Agnes ^) of Dunbar— is probably a case of mistaken identity,
Agnes of Dunbar, daughter of Patrick, Earl of March, having married, in
1372, Sir James Douglas, Lord of Dalkeith.-
The second wife named by Godscroft, Margaret of Mar, was the only wife
of the Earl, ^^^len the Earl returned to Scotland from France in 1348 he
was young, having been a ward so recently as 1342.-^ Xo mention is made
of his marriage until the year 1357. In that year King David the Second
confirmed to him all the lands in which his uncle, Sir James, Lord of Douglas,
and his father, Sir Archibald Douglas, were infeft at their deaths, and, in
addition to these, the barony of Drumlanrig, to be held in terms of a charter
by Thomas, Earl of Mar, to William, Lord of Douglas, and Margaret his
si)ouse.* After this date, the Earl of Mar styles the Earl of Douglas his
brother.^ Douglas was in England and on the Continent the greater part of the
preceding year, and the probability therefore is, that William, Lord of Douglas,
and Margaret of Mar were married in the year 1357, Drumlanrig, and perhaps
Cavers also, being a marriage portion from the Earl of :\Iar to his sister.
Margaret of Mar survived her husband William, Earl of Douglas and
Mar. In the August immediately following his death, in fulfilment of her
deceased husband's wish, she granted to the Chapel of the Virgin in Garioch,
cortaui lands which had been resigned in her husband's hands, though he
died before the transaction was completed/' In 1385 Margaret of Mar was
still a widow, but between that year and the 27th of July 1388 she married Sir
Jolin Swinton of Swinton. Sir John Swinton is designed by James, second
Earl of Douglas and ]\Iar, as his " very dear father " in a charter granted a few
' In the print of Godscroft's History, the •« Original Charter, dated 13th November
lady is called -Margaret ; in the lis. her name 1357, in Drumlanrig Charter-chest.
is said to be Agnes of Dnnbar. 5 Antiquities of Aberdeen and Banff, vol. i.
2 Regiatrum Honoris de Morton, vol. ii. p. 538.
pp. 100, 102. 3 ii^-^i pp 4g^ 47 c ^^^.^^ ^.^, j^. pp 724-727.
288 WILLIAM, FIRST EARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAR.
days before the battle of Otterburn.^ After Earl James's death, Swiuton
assumed the title of Lord of INIar, and conjointly with his wife, who survived
not only her first husband but her son, granted, on 5th December 1389, an
assurance to "William Douglas, son of Earl James, that they would not trouble
liim in his possession of Drumlanrig.- Margaret of Mar died some time
in the year 1390, when her daughter, as the survivor of the marriage of her
parents, succeeded her in the lands of ]\rar.
By his wife, Margaret of Mar, William, first Earl of Douglas and i\Iar,
had two children, a son and a daughter.
1. James, who succeeded to his father's titles and estates, and became
second Earl of Douglas and Mar. A memoir of him follows.
2. Isabella, who, after her brother's death in 1 388, and her mother's in 1 390,
inherited the estates of Mar and her father's unentailed lands of Cavers,
Jedburgh Forest, Liddesdale, the town of Selkirk, the superiority of
Buittle and Drumlanrig, with others ; the Douglas territory proper
being entailed on Sir Archibald Douglas, Lord of Galloway. Isabella
Douglas, some time before her brother's death, married Sir JMalcolm
Drummond, brother of Annabella Drummond, wife of King Eobert
the Third. Although Isabella Douglas succeeded to the full pos-
session of the landed earldom of Mar, yet her husband. Sir Malcolm
Drummond, never assumed, nor did he ever receive, the title of Earl
of Mar, but styled himself by the common baronial but not peerage
style of Lord of Mar.^ Sir Malcolm Drummond was killed in 1402,
and Isabella Douglas married, about two years later, Alexander
Stewart, son of Alexander Stewart, Earl of Buclian. On 1 2th August
1404, styling herself Countess of Maraud Garioch, she, for the sake
^ Liber de Melros, vol. ii. pp. 465, 466; ^ Origines Parochiales, vol. i. p. 527; Anti-
vol. iii. of this work, pp. 71-73. quities of Aberdeen and Banff, vol. iii. p. 45i),
2 Old copy in Drumlanrig Charter-chest. note ; vol. iv. pp. 1G4, 729.
ISABELLA DOUGLAS AXD HER HLSBAXDS. 28D
of a contract of lufirriage to be made between her and Alexander
Stewart, gi-anted the earldom of Mar, to be held by him and the heirs
to be begotten between him and her, whom failing, by his heirs.^
On 9th December in the same year, Isabella Douglas renewed the
grant of the earldom, and bestowed it on Alexander Stewart in free
marriage, to be contracted with Iierself The notary who records
the sasine, has left a vivid picture of the proceedings wliich took
place on this occasion, and wliich formed an interesting feudal
ceremony. He narrates that the widowed Countess appeared at
the gate of her castle of Kildrummy, attended by the Bishop of
Boss and several neighbouring barons, in the presence of many
persons congregated before the castle, in the fields. There Alex-
ander Stewart approached the lady, and summoning the hy-
standers to witness his act, he presented and delivered to her the
whole castle of Kildrummy, with all her charters and title-deeds,
silver vessels, and all other jewels in the castle, and thereupon
gave into the lady's hands all the keys of the castle, that she might
dispose of it as she pleased. The scene terminated by the Laily
Isabella, while still bearing the keys in her hand, declaring her
deliberate acceptance of Stewart as her husband, and bestowing
upon him in free marriage the earldom of j\Iar, to be held by him
and their joint heirs, whom failing, to revert to her own heirs,
reserving a liferent to each of the spouses.- Alexander Stewart,
however, did not immediately after this ceremony assume the title
of EarL A month later he, under the designation of Lord of ]\Iar,
granted a receipt for forty merks in favour of Sir John Forbes, ''
^ Registrum Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. p. 251.
- Copy of Charter and Instrumeut in Mar Cliarter-chest.
^ Antiquities of Aberdeen and Banff, vol. iv. p. 170.
VOL. I.
290 WILLIAM, FUiST EARL OF DOUGLAS AX D MAR.
and it was not until after King liobert the Third confirmed Lady
Isohel's charter that her husband was styled Earl of ]\Iar.^
Isobel DouLflas survived her second marriaue little more than
three years, dying before 2Gth October 1408.- Her
second husband, Alexander Stewart, possessed the
earldom of Mar, both the peerage title as well as the
lauds, till his death in the year 1435.^ During the
twenty-seven years of his possession of the Mar title
and estates, he made a resignation of both in the
hands of King James the First, who regranted them
to him and his heirs-male, whom failing, to return
to the king. Alexander, Earl of ^lar, having died without surviving
issue, the Mar title and estates reverted to tlie Crown, and were
held and dealt with as Crown property afterwards.
William, first Earl of Douglas, had also two illegitimate children. The
most prominent of these was George Douglas, afterwards first Earl of Angus,
of the Douglas line, whose mother was Margaret Stewart, widow of Thomas,
Earl of Mar, and Countess of Angus in her own right. She is the third wife
ascribed by Godscroft to the Earl of Douglas, but that she could not have
held that relationship is evident from the fact that the Earl's only wife
survived him. George Douglas was born probably about L379 or 1380, but
liis acquisition of the earldom of Angus will be more appnipriately related in
the history of the Angus Branch in the second volume of tliis work.
Another daughter of William, first Earl of Douglas and ]\Iar, is mentioned
in a charter by Isabella Douglas, Countess of Mar, in 1404. Isabella thereby
granted to Thomas Johnson, and to her dear sister ]\Iargaret of Douglas, his
^ Ancient copy Confirmation in Mar Charter- General Register House, Edinburgh, •2Gth
chest. October 1408 ; Exchequer Eolls, vol. iv. p. SG.
- Original Charter of Confirmation in ^ Forclun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. hOO.
HfS ARMORIAL SEALS.
291
spouse, the ^Maiiis of J5onejedwanL and twenty merks of land near it, lying in
the county of lloxburgh ; to be held by Thomas and Margaret in conjunct
fee, and after their decease by their son and the granter's nephew John of
Douglas, and his heirs, whom failing, by the heirs of the body of ^Margaret
of Douglas.^ The latter was thus apparently the ancestress of the family of
Douglas of JJonjedward, though Godscroft assigns to them a later origin.
' Antiquities of Abertleeo and Banff, vol. iv. p. 731. lOth Xovember 1404.
immmm
292
VII.— 1. JAMES, SECOND EARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAE.
THE PRINCESS ISABEL STEWAliT, iiis Countess.
1384—1388.
rpiIE memory of this Earl of Douglas has been embalmed in history by his
^ death on the chivalric lield of Otterburn. From a popular point of
view, his career may be said to have begim and ended on that fatal day,
as little else of his history has been recorded. As the "Hero of Otterburn"
he has been celebrated in many a Border ballad ; and the battle in which he
fell still remains the most prominent event in his history.
He was probably born in 1358. Froissart, in his gi-aphic account of the
raid which ended at Otterburn, says that the Earl of Douglas was youn^r
and strong. A\nien in Scotland he visited the first Earl of Douglas at
Dalkeith, and saw James, then " a fayre yong chylde, and a suster of his
called the Lady Blaunche." ^ The date of that visit must have been some
time before the year 1369, more probably before 1366. As William, Earl
of Douglas, and his wife, Margaret of Mar, were married about November
1357, James of Douglas would probably be eight or nine years of age when
Froissart was in Scotland, and about thirty years of age when he fell at
Otterburn. Godscroft states that he died young, " in the flower of his age,"
which, no doubt, was the tradition in the family in his time.^
^ Froissart.Lord Berners' translation, vol. ii. have already been noticed, anfea, pp. 254, 2oo.
p. 39G. The difficulties created by historians - History of the Houses of Douglas and
as to Froissart'a references to the Douglases Angus, edition 1644, p. 103.
MARRIAGE WITH THE FRIXCESS LSABEL, 1373. 293
Tlie first reference to this Earl in any pulilic record is in a Papal dispen-
sation for his marriage with Isabel, daughter of King liobert the Second.^
The rircumstances which led to this miion between the families of Stewart
and Douglas liave been narrated in the previous memoir.- The young
bridegroom was made a knight, apparently at tlie coronation of his royal
father-in-law, as during the year 1371, a payment was made to him in terms
of a gift from the king, and he is described as Sir James Douglas, son of
the Earl of Douglas.'-^ The Chamberlain's Accounts for 1373 mention a sum
of JC.")no, ]iaid by order of the king to the Earl of Douglas on account of the
contract matrimonial between the son of the Earl and Isabel the king's
(huighter,'* and this entry may indicate the year in wluch the marriage took
place, when the young knight could only be a])out fifteen years of age. In
August 1372 he had a safe-conduct to pass into England.^
The payment made to Sir James Douglas in 1371 was an instalment
of 100 merks, gifted by the king, apparently soon after his accession,
and payable yearly until the grantee was infeft in land of that value.
Tliis sum was paid annually down to about 1380, when it was secured upon
tlie customs of Haddington.*^ i>esides this, other payments were made to
Douglas from time to time, one series showing a deljt due to him by the king,'
and another series referring to a sum paid yearly by the chamberlain as the
complement of an annuity of £100, nominally secured on the lands uf
E(biani in I'oxburghshire. These lands were partly in possession of the
Kn^lish, who, in terms of the truce of 1369, drew half the rents, and the
' Theiaer's Vetera Monumenta, p. 34."^, ■' Exchequer Rolls, vol. ii. p. .'504.
No. 691, 24th September 1371. The papal 4 //^;j „ 403
writ gives the name of the lady as Margaret.
V, . . . • , 1 , . , , , ■' Rotuli Scotiie, vol. i. p. i)'yl.
But there is abundant evidence that she was
named Isobel. Her sister Margaret was '' Exchequer Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 304, 303,
married about 1350 to the Lord of the Isles. ^•^^' "^^O, 501 ; vol. iii. p. 293.
- Antra, pp. 25r)-259. ' Ibid. vol. ii. pp. 557, 507, 585, 0U2. 020.
294 JAM/:S, SECOND KARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAU
king's chamberlain therefore made up the deficiency. The first payment
was made in 1373, about the time of Sir James's marriage, and continued
until 1383, when the truce expired.^
In 1374 Sir James Douglas witnessed a charter by his father to tlie
monks of Melrose, and in 1375 travelled into England, from which countrv
also he received permission to export grain.- In or before 13S0 his father
conferred upon him the lordship of Liddesdale, as he is designed Sir James
Douglas of Liddesdale in a royal grant of that }-ear conferring upon him
200 merks, payable yearly from the custom-duties of Haddington."
These notices, with the addition of one or two remissions of custom on
wool, frequently granted as a mark of ro}'al favour, are all that have been
discovered regarding Sir James Douglas, from the time of his marriage until
the year 13S4, when, on the death of his father, he succeeded as Earl of Duughis
and ]\Iar. Godscroft states that he was an ambassador to France in the year
1381, along with "Walter "Wardlaw, bishop of Glasgow, and Sir .-Vrchibald
Douglas, Lord of Galloway."' But this is a mistake, arising apparently from
a confusion of names and dates. There was no emltassy to France in I3sl,
but in 1371 Sir Ai'chibald Douglas and the Bishop of Glasgow Vy-ere envoys
to that country. They were accompanied by a Sir James Douglas, whose
further designation is not given, but who was probably Sir James Douglas
of Dalkeith, and not the subject of this memoir, then a mere boy.'"' The
^ Exchequer Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 4.i4, 460, gard to the North Berwick customs, the Earl
501 ; vol iii. pp. 79, 92, 6GG. was charged, after his death, with having
- Rotuli Scotiie, vol i. p. 9GS. IGth Feb- exacted payment of a large amount against
ruary 1375. the will of the customars. [/6/c^. pp. 153, 17 1,
3 Exchequer RoUs, vol iii. p. 293. At a 225, 254, 255.]
later date, in 13SG, while Earl of Douglas, he * History of Houses of Douglas and Angus,
received a supplementary grant for two years edition 1G44, p. 93.
from the customs of North Berwick in aid of "^ Actsof the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. i
the sum exigible from Hadilington. In re- p. 559. Cf. p. 54G.
SUCCESS lOX TO HIS FATHER, 1384. 29-5
two have occasionally Leeii confounded by historians. Sir James iJouglas
witnessed a charter by his father to the cliurch of Whithoi'n, at Wigtown, in
September i:5sl.^
The long truce with England begun in 13G9, and prolonged notwith-
standing frequent infractions on both sides, finally expired at Candlemas
1384. A few days before that date the Scots took the field in force and
laid siege to Lochmaben Castle. It soon surrendered, and then among
other achievements, William, Earl of Douglas, overran Teviotdale, and won it
back from the English to its allegiance to the Scottish Crown. This was
accomplished immediately after the retreat from Scotland of the Duke of
Lancaster, who with a large army had entered the northern kingdom about the
beginning of April, but after a comparatively harmless invasion, returned to
England in aliout a fortnight. Sir James Douglas probably took part in his
father's expedition into Teviotdale, as by the condition of the complementary
payment of the rent from the lands of Ednam — that it should cease with the
expiry of the truce, — it was necessary that the portion of the lands in the
hands of the English should be recovered.
About the beginning of May 1384, Earl AVilliam died, and Sir James
succeeded to him as Earl of Douglas and ]Mar. At this point there is con-
siderable confusion among historians as to the exact order of events, and
n(j accurate data have been obtained which indicate the true sequence.
The Duke of Lancaster's expedition into Scotland returned to England
before the 23d April, and soon afterwards ambassadors from France reached
the Scottish Court, announcing a truce with England, in Avhicli it was
desired that Scotland should be included. About the same time or a little
later other visitors from France arrived on a very difierent errand. These
were thirty French knights, under the leadership of Sir Geoffrey de Charny,
who, according to Froissart, came to Scotland in search of adventures, and
• Registrum Magai Sigilli, vol. ii. No. 21'2S, iwt<:.
29 G JAMES, SECOND EARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAIL
landed at Montrose.^ Thence they passed to Perth, from which town they
sent two of their number to Edinlmrgh, where the Court and nobility were, to
explain the reason of their visit and learn the temper of the Scots.
The two knights were well received, and James, Earl of Douglas, is
specially named among those who entertained them. Their companions were
summoned from Perth, and made welcome by the Scottish nobles, who, so far
from wishing a truce with England, were meditating a raid over the Border
in retaliation for injuries inflicted by the Earls of Xorthumberland and
Nottingham. These Earls, it appears, had invaded Scotland with a consider-
able force, and penetrated as far as Edinburgh, burning the town and mills of
Haddington and the tron of Edinburgh, and also laying waste tlie town of
Dumfries.- The Scottish chroniclers do not record this raid, but Eroissart,
who may have received the information from some of his countrymen, states
that it took place after Easter 1384, and that the persons who suffered most
were the Earl of Douglas and Lord Lindsay."
The Scottish nobles therefore joyfully received the Erench knights as
comrades. The presence of the Erench ambassadors on their mission of jieace
had no deterrent influence, as the fact that the truce of which they brought
tidings had been signed in January, wliile they had been detained in England
since the middle of February,'* to give Lancaster's army an opportunity of
striking a blow at Scotland before the truce was known there, would naturally
incense the Scottish chiefs. Eager as the latter were for war, they were
^ That the English fleet had possession of ■' A later date has been suggested for this
the sea, as stated by Froissart, is corroborated invasion [Exchequer Rolls, vol. iii. Preface,
by Wyntowii and Bower, who refer to the p. Ixvi.], but Walsingham practically concurs
fleet which accompanied Lancaster's army, with Froissart.— [Historia Angliae, editiou
and the damage which was attempted by the 1574, p. 330.]
sailors. — [Wyutown, B. ix. c. v. ; Fordun, a ■* The safe-conduct for the French envoys
Goodall, vol. ii. p. 39S.] to pass through England to Scotland is dated
'- Exchequer Rolls, vol. iii, pp. 117, 120, 13th February 14S4. [Fanlera, vol. vii.
125, 130. p. 423.]
nWA.SWX OF AWGLAXD WITH FA'tWCII KXIGHTS, l;j8L 21)7
tlius furnished with a sufficient pretext for retaliation. They resolved, how-
ever, that their proceedings should be concealed from the king, who desired
peace and had welcomed the ambassadors, and they accordingly concerted
their plans at a secret meeting in the church of St. Giles.
After a residence of twelve days in Edinburgh, the thirty French knights
received a secret invitation from the Earl of Douglas to join him on
the following day. Fifteen thousand troops, on horseback, armed in the
usual fashion, were assembled, and the march southward began. Froissart
nowhere distinctly says that the Earl of Douglas led this force, but he was
probably the leader, as Bower states that in this year he repeatedly led
armies into England.'' They marched into Xorthumberland, and " began to
brinne, to robbe, and to steale " on the lands of Percy, besides invading the
territories of the Earl of Nottingham and Lord Moubray.- They returned
by way of lioxburgh, but did not delay there, being anxious to get home
with their plunder, which they accomplished without much loss.
In the first week of June the Bishops of Glasgow and Dunkeld had
been appointed envoys to treat with France, but King Bobert the Second
deemed it necessary to send a messenger to the English Court to make
explanations as to the raid. Lyon herald was accordingh", a week or two
later, despatched on that errand, and the French ambassadors also, it is said,
sent a similar explanation. The messengers were favourably received by
the English king, who had already appointed envoys to treat with the Scots,'*
' Fonlun, ;i Gooilall, vol. ii. p. 400. Bower ^ The Scots Ambassadors to France were
describes Earl James as a brave soldier and appointed on Gth June [Ftedera, vol. vii.
always very troublesome to the English, or p. 441], and the safe-conduct for Lyon herald
as Sir Richard Maitland has it, he "wesna is dated at Westminster, loth June 13S4
lesnoysum "to them than was his father. [Sir [Rotuli Scotia;, vol. ii. p. 63], while the
Richard Maitland's ms., at Hamilton Palace.] appointment of the English envoys is dated
- Froissart, Lord Berners' edition, vol. i. 12th June [Fuedera, vol. vii. pp. 431, 432].
p. 780.
VOL. I. 2 ?
298 JAMES, SECOND EARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAR.
and a truce was agreed upon at the cliiirch of Ayton, on 7th -Tuly 1;kS4,'
to last, like that of France, until the 1st October following. The commis-
sioners on the Scottish side were John, Earl of Moray, Sir Archibald Douglas,
Lord of Galloway, Sir James Douglas of Dalkeith, and others.
In the following September the work of the French ambassadors was
accomplished at an important meeting held at Boulogne, in France, between
Commissioners from France and England and the Bishops of Gla^gow and
Dunkeld acting for the Scots, when a truce between the three countries was
arranged to last till the following ]\Iay.'^ At the same time, other and less
pacific arrangements appear to have been made, which resulted in the French
expedition to Scotland of the following year. The treaty of August 1383, by
which France engaged to send into Scotland forty thousand francs of gold,
and a thousand men-at-arms, with a thousand suits of armour, and which
had so excited the minds of the Scottish nobles, had never yet been ful-
filled.^ But the report of Sir Geoffrey de Charny and his companions of
their reception in Scotland, and the delights of a raid into England from that
quarter, led the French king to favour the proposal of the Scots, and during
the winter an expedition was fitted out in preparation for the ensuing year.
The force composing this expedition was larger than had been agreed
upon, but so was the sum of money sent with it, and the number of suits of
armour was also increased. The French army consisted of about two thousand
^ Fcedera, vol. vii. p. 434. A mouth later the month the Earl was present at a Council
Earl of Douglas was apparently in the north' held in Glasgow, but no record of its proceed-
with his mother at the castle of Kildrumuiy. iugs has been preserved save a charter in
His seal, at least, is said to be appended to a favour of Sir "William Douglas, son of the
writ by her granting a piece of land to the Lord of Galloway, to which Earl James was
Chajjel of the Virgin at Garioch, for the welfare a witness. [Acts of the Parliaments of Scot-
of her own soul, and the souls of her deceased land, vol. i. p. 5Co.]
husband and of her son Earl James. [15th - 14th September 13S4. Fcedera, vol. \ii.
August 1384. Antiquities of Aberdeen and p. 442.
Banff, vol. iv. p. 724.] In the following -^ Acts of Parliaments, vol. xii. p. 10.
ARRIVAL OF FRENCH ARMY, 1385. 299
men, under the command of Sir John de Vienne, admiral of France, who
brou^'ht with him fourteen hundred complete suits of armour, and fifty
tliousand francs of gold, of which one-fifth was paid to the King of Scots, and
the remainder divided among his nobility and barons.^
Nothing of great importance is recorded regarding the Earl of Douglas
between the signing of the truce and the landing of the French expedition.
He seems to have been more or less in attendance at Court, witnessing various
royal charters at Edinburgli, Arnele, and Stirling respectively.- He also
dealt with his own estates, directing his bailiff to infeft John Beutlay in a £10
land in Strathalva, in Alar.-^ On the 12th of March, the Earl of Northum-
berland and the Lord of Galloway, at Salom Chapel, on the Esk, entered
into a Border truce until the 1st of July, agreeing to warn each other if
hostilities broke out on either side. The Earl of Douglas was not present,
but the Lord of Galloway acted on his behalf, power being reserved to the
Eai'l, if he " misliked " any condition to give notice of the fact.*
The Earl was in Edinburgh towards the end of April, and Froissart states
that he and the Earl of Moray were the first to receive Sir John de Vienne
and his attendant knights, on their landing at Leith in the beginning of
May. Part of the army appear to have landed at Dunbar,-^ and as Edinburgh
could not receive them all, the Frenchmen were quartered in various places
around, at Dunbar, Dalkeith, Dunfermline, and even at Kelso.^ The king,
it would appear, was not then in Edinburgh, but the French were assured
' Foetlera, vol vii. pp. 4S4-4SG. ^ Antiquities of Aberdeen and Banff, vol. iv.
- On 8th January 13S5 at Edinburgh, p. 728. 3d April 1385.
Reg. Hon. de Morton, vol. i. p. xxxviii ; at 4 Fcedera, vol. vii. pp. 468, 469.
Arnele on 2Sth February, Registrum Aber-
donense, voL L p. 129 ; at Stirling on 20th
^ Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 400.
March, and again at Edinburgh on 20th and "^ Froissart, Johnes' edition, vol. ii. p. 35.
22d April, vol. iii. of this work, p. 31 ; Liber Edinburgh is described as containing only
de Melros, vol. ii. p. 448. 4000 houses.
300 JAMES, SECOXJJ EARL OF DOUGLAS ASD MAR.
he would arrive shortly. Froissart graphically describes how, though the
French were welcomed by the Scottish nobility, the common people held
the new comers in small esteem. The French knights had not been many
weeks in Scotland before they were obliged to enter into a formal indenture
with the Estates. This contract regulated the relation of both sections of
the allied army, but it must have been specially di.'^agreeable to the French,
as it required them to pay for all they received, and contained other stipula-
tions galling to their high conceit of themselves.^
For this somewhat ignominious treatment, the Earl of Douglas and other
leading nobles made them some recompence by promising them a raid into
England. Though the king was averse to war, the Earls of Fife, Douglas,
Moray, and others were determined to invade England, the more so, as they
had probably learned that the English king, so early as the middle of June,
had summoned a large army to meet him at Newcastle on the 14th of July -
for the invasion of Scotland on a large scale under his own command.
The Scots, however, anticipated the English invasion by marching into
England, accompanied by their French allies. The Scottish army numbered,
it is said, thirty thousand. On their way south they passed Eoxburgh
Castle, which was considered too strong to be attacked ; but Bower relates
that the project was abandoned because a question was raised as to the
possession of the castle, if it were taken by the aid of the French. Sii" John
de Yienne claimed it in such case for his master, the King of France, a claim
which was resisted by the Scots.^ The Earl of Douglas, says Sir IJichard
Alaitland, took a warm part in this discussion, and altogether refused that the
French should have any authority in the land, reminding them that they
came only as " suddarts " (soldiers or mercenaries ?) to the kingdom.*
1 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. i. pp. 554, 555. 1st July 1385.
-' Foedera, vol. vii. p. 475. " The summons is dated 13th June 1385.
•" Forduu, aCioodall, vol. ii. p. 401. ^ Sir Kichard Maitlaud's MS., at Hamilton Pahiee.
EXPEDITION INTO ENGLAND, 1:385. 301
Sir llicliartl adds, that because of this dispute the army " scalit," or
dispersed, and did nothing, but this is a mistake. On leaving Koxburgh, the
allied forces continued their march southwards, and took the two fortalices
of Ford and Cornhill. The strong castle of Wark was also assaulted, and
captured, if Froissart is to be believed, chiefly by the bravery of the French.
Hower corroborates this, stating that the three fortresses fell Ijy the art and
skill of the Franks.^ After this the Scottish army swept through Northumber-
land, everywhere laying waste the country almost to the gates of Newcastle.-
While thus engaged the Scottish leaders received intelligence of the
advance of the English army. King IJichard, it is said, mustered a force of
seven thousand men-at-arms, and sixty thousand archers, and Walsingham
states that there were one hundred thousand liorses." Froissart asserts that
the English had mustered strongly, because it was reported that the Admiral
of Fi-ance woidd give them battle. And he and his followers, who were
splendidly equipped, were willing and eager to do so. But the Scottish
leaders, who, though they could rely on the bravery of their men, knew that
it would be madness, with their poorly armed soldiers, to attack the chivalry
of England, followed their usual tactics, and retreated before the English
advance. Then followed the well-known incident, so often related, in which,
after a debate between the Scottish and French leaders as to the expediency
of giving battle, they repaired to an eminence which commanded a view of
the English army on the march. There, as they estimated the number of
the enemy and the splendour of their equipments, the Scots asked how they
could hope to vanquish such a powerful host with a force only half their
n\imber and ill armed, and by this argument convinced Sir John de Vienne
and his knights of the futility of such an attempt. ■*
' Froissart, Lord Bcrners' translation, - Forduu, ii Goodall, vol. ii. p. 401.
vol. ii. p. -ll ; Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. ^ Walsingham, edition 1.374, p. 343.
I'- -i**!- * Froissart, at supra, pp. 26, 27.
302 JAMES, SFX'OXJ) EARL OF DOUGLAS AXD MAR.
The allies accordingly withdrew their troops, warning the countn- peoj^li-
as they retired to retreat to their mountain fastnesses. The result was that
the English host marched to Edinburgh through a comparati\e desert. In the
words of the English chronicler, they rode through a land void of inhabitants,
emptied of animals, lacking in provisions, which the prudent Scots had
carried off— a land so desolate, that the soldiers declared that in it they saw
not even a bird, owls alone excepted.^
In the meantime the Scots had not been idle. Though they would not
meet the English in battle, they had no intention of discontinuing the war.
Leaving some of their troops to watch and harass King Eichard and his armv,
the Earl of Douglas, his kinsman the Lord of Galloway, with their French
allies, had entered England by the West Marches and overran Cumberland
and Westmoreland, finding no desert country, as did the English. On the
contrary, the French remarked among themselves that they had burned in
the bishoprics of Durham and Carlisle more than the value of all the
towns in Scotland. The united forces of Scots and French made an attack
upon Carlisle, but the town was bravely defended, and the fortifications
withstood all the efforts of the besiegers, though Eroissart states the
French brought ordnance to bear upon the town. He probably meant
not cannon, but other instruments of war then used in sieges. The allied
forces effected a successful retreat into Scotland, being forced to retire,
not by the enemy, as their raid had been almost entirely unopposed, but
by their own effective plundering, which had so wasted the country that
supplies ran short.
At Edinburgh famine and disappointment worked dissension in the
English army, one party desiring to attack the Scots who had entered
England, while others opposed this plan. To add to their misery, the
English fleet, consisting of twenty-six ships laden with provisions, faile'l
^ Walsingham, edition 1574, p. 344.
DEVARTVRE OF THE FRENCH TROOFb', 1385. 303
tlieui, and starvation stared them in the face. The liorses fared bettor than
the riders, for they fed on the tiehls of corn, which, tliough it was the begin-
ning of Angust,. was growing green, and though good pasture, was useless as
human food. They had encountered no enemy, and according to the Englisli
chronicler, liad done nothing worthy of notice, save burning the Abbeys
of Melrose, Dryburgh, and Xewbattle, with tlie town of Edinburgh and
the church of St. Giles. Holyrood Abbey was spared only at the inter-
cession of the Duke of Lancaster. In the end the English army which was
to have conquered Scotland, returned as it came, leaving the Scots and their
French allies to effect tlieir retreat into Scotland unmolested.
After this raid the Frencli knights desired to return to their own
countiy. They were much offended at the way in which they were treated
by the lesser barons and common people among the Scots. But, says Fruis-
sart, " how to depart was the difficulty, for the barons could not obtain any
vessels for themselves and men." The Scots were willing that a few poor
knights should leave the country, and also that the men-at-arms might
(K'liart ; but they insisted that the French barons, or the Admiral himself,
should remain as pledges for repayment of the sums expended on their army.
In this strait the French barons complained to the Earls of Douglas and
Moray, who appeared to be sorely displeased with the conduct of their
countrymen in dealing so hardly with the French. These two Earls remon-
strated with the other Scottish nobles, who, however, advised them to
dissemble with the French, for, said they, you have lost as well as we, and
we will ha recompensed. The Earls of Douglas and Moray then told the
French that they could not prevail in the matter, and that if they wished
to leave the country, they must pay damages. The affair was settled by
the Admiral offering to recompense all damages ; and transport being pro-
vided for the other knights, he remained in Scotland until the money was
paid. When he took leave of the King of Scots, the Earls of Dougrlas and
304 JAMES, SECOND EARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAR.
]\Ioray accompanied biiu to his place of embarkation for I'lauders.^ At what
date Sir John de Yienue left Scotland is not clear, but the receipt for the
subsidy sent from France to the Scottish king and nobles was granted on IGth
November 1385. From the terms of the king's acquittance, it would appear
that the money was paid, or at least fully paid, only on that day. If so. the
policy adopted by the Scottish nobles of detaining the Admiral as security
becomes intelligible. The shares of the Ecarls of Douglas and i\[orav, win*
throughout were so friendly with the French visitors, were respectively 75oO
and 1000 francs d'or. The amount paid to the Earl of Douglas, which
considerably exceeded the sum paid to any other noble, was probably regu-
lated by the damage done to his territories, which suffered more than any
other from the inroads of the English.-
According to the Scottish chroniclers, after the English army had wholly
returned to their own land, the Scots remembered that a portion of Cumber-
land had remained unharried from the days of King Eobert the Bruce.
The Earl of Fife, with the Earl of Douglas and others, accordingly made a
descent by way of the Solway Sands, and marched to Cockermouth, where
the country was so rich and fruitful that they remained three days, con-
tinuously collecting captives, plunder, and spoils. One historian quaintly
remarks : There was not one among the Scots so feeble but that, unless
he were unwilling, he was able to fill his hands wdth good booty .^
For a time at least there was comparative peace between Scotland anil
England ; and as to the events of the next three years, the chroniclers are
silent. The movements of the Earl of Douglas during this period can be
^ Froissart, Lord Berners' translation, vol. lishman, named Thomas Mildcomb, became
ii. pp. 31, 32 ; Johnes" edition, pp. 52, 53. captive to the Earl of Douglas, who fixed his
2 Foedera, vol. vii. pp. 4S4-4SC. ransom at 400 quarters of wheat, and one tun
' Fordun, h. Goodall, vol. ii. p. 403 ; Wyn- of wine, which he received permission to im-
toun. Book IX. c. vii. In one or other of port from England. [2Sth July 13S0. Eotuli
these expeditions, probably the last, an Eng- Scotiiv, vol. ii. p. 85.]
WARDEN OF THE BORDERS, 1380. 30-5
traced chiefly by cliurters to which he was a witness, showing that he was
usually in attendance at the Court. The business of most public moment in
which he was engaged during the period in C[uestion was a Border truce
which he and the Earl of March, as Wardens of the East JMarches, entered
into with the English Warden, John iSTeville of Kaby, in the summer of 138G,
the provisions of which were afterwards formally ratified by the English king.^
The other public transactions in which the Earl of Douglas appears as a
party are of no special importance. The various royal charters to which the
Earl was a witness are dated at intervals from 10th April 1386 to 15th
May 1388, a few months before Otterburn." During these years the Earl
granted several private charters. One of these conferred upon Sir John
Swinton of Swinton the lands of Tillicoultry, in Clackmannan, and of Clova,
in Forfarshire ;^ probably on the occasion of his marriage with the Earl's
mother, Margaret, Countess of Douglas and Mar. Another conveyed the
lands and barony of Drumlaurig to his natural son, William Douglas, with
reversion to his other natural son, Archibald, afterwards Laird of Cavers.*
^ Truce dated 27th June 13Sl3, at " Billy- The Ked Book of Grandtully, by "William
mire," and ratified 1st August same year. Fraser, vol. i. p. 4.]
Fcrdera, vol. vii. pp. 52G, 527; Rotuli Scotiae, ^ The Swintons of that Ilk, 1£S3, p. 12.
vol. ii. pp. S5, 86. The Earl's charter was coutirmed by King
- The charters are dated 10th April, 10th Robert the Secomi on 2d August 13SG.
July, aud ISth November 13SG, at Glasgow, ^ Original Charter at Druiulanrig. No date.
K<linburgh, and Linlithgow ; 7th January, This Earl also granted a charter in favour
liUh April, 6th October, aud 19th October of Alexander Kewton, of the lauds of Little
l.'iS7, at Edinburgh, Kilwinning, and Scone ; Newton, and others, in the shire of Berwick
and on l.lth May 13SS, at Edinburgh. [Liber [Original Charter in H.M. Register House,
de Melros, vol. ii. p. 466 ; Registrum. Honoris Edinburgh], and another to Alan Lauder of
de Morton, vol. ii. p. 157; The Carnegies certain subjects in the burgh of North Berwick
Earls of Southesk, by WiUiam Fraser, p. 496 ; [Carte de North Berwic, p. xxxvii.] The
Charters of St. Giles, p. 23 ; The Red Book of latter was issued from the Earl's Castle of
Menteith, by William Fraser, vol. ii. p. 26S ; Tantallon, of which Alan Lauder was then <jr
Antiquities of Aberdeen, etc., vol. iv. p. 642 ; afterwards constable.
VOL. I. 2 O
30G JAMES, SECOND EARL OF DOUGLAS AXD MAR.
The invasion of England, of which the chief event was the chivulric
fight at Otterbnrn, M'as the result of a determination on the part of the
Scottish nobles to revenge on a large scale the devastation committed by
King Eichard's array in 1385. The time was considered opportune because
of the disputes between King Eichard and his uncles, which had paralysed
the Government of England, and further on account of a feud wliich liad
arisen between the Percys and Nevilles, occasioned by John Xeville of Eaby
having been superseded as warden by Henry Percy. Their quarrel distracted
the north of England, and this perhaps more than the other seems to have
influenced the Scots, who, moreover, were anxious to test the new armour
they had received from France. A large assembly of the nobles was held at
Aberdeen, away from the English border, and also, it would appear, from
the Scottish Court, for the king was averse to war, and it was resolved to
gather a large army, the place of muster to be near Jedburgh. At the rendez-
vous there gathered a larger army than had been seen in Scotland for many
a day, estimated by good authorities at upwards of forty thousand men.^
A few days previous to this invasion, on 27th July 1388, James, Earl
of Douglas, was at Etybredshiels, one of his own manors, situated near
the junction of the rivers Ettrick and Yarrow, near the modern residence
of Bowhill belonging to his Grace the Duke of I>uccleuch. He there granted
a charter in favour of the monks of Melrose, confirming to them the
advowson of the church of Great Cavers, gifted to them by his father. Among
the witnesses to this charter were Sir Malcolm Drummond, the Earl's brother-
in-law. Sir John Swinton, his stepfather, and Sir John Towers. The t\\(»
last fought side by side with their chief at Otterburn, and Sir John Towt-is
was slain on tliat fatal field.- From Etybredshiels the Earl of Douglas and
his attendant knights probably rode out to the place of meeting,
^ Froissart, Johnes' edition, vol. ii. p. 362. of this work, pp. 71-73 ; Liber de Melros,
2 Transumptdated2Sth July 1442, vol. iii. p. 465.
PROJECTED IXVASIOX OF ENGLAND, 1388. 301
The leaders, besides the P^arl of Douglas, were the king's secoud son,
Ilobert, Earl of Fife and Menteith, the Earls of March and Moray, Sir
Archibald Douglas, Lord of Galloway, and other prominent Scottish lords.
To finally settle their plans they met together in the little church of
Southdean, near which their forces were encamped.'^ AVhile they were
engaged in deliberation, an English spy who had entered the building,
was captured, and gave information which had an important efiect on
the plans of the Scots and on the fortunes of the Earl of Douglas. The
spy was committed to safe custody that he might not communicate with his
masters, and it was resolved that the army should invade England in two
divisions. The bulk of the army, under the Earl of Fife and Sir Arcliibald
Douglas, were to proceed by Carlisle, while a smaller division made for
Durham. This division was to travel without baggage, and was intended
as a flying column to engage the attention of the English Wardens,
thus leaving the main body of the Scots to harry the country at their
leisure. The Earl of Douglas was placed in command, but with him
went the Earls of March and Moray, Sir James Lindsay, Sir John Sinclair,
Sir Alexander Eamsay, Sir John Haliburton, Sir Patrick Hepburn, Sir John
Maxwell, and a number of other knights all more or less distinguished. It
was agreed that if the smaller party was pursued, the forces should unite and
the whole army offer battle to the English.-
In the morning the Earl of Douglas and his small force ^ bade their
1 FroLssart, Johnes' edition, vol. ii. p. 362. called " Soodeu." This view is corroborated
Froissart styles this place of meeting "a by Godscroft, who describes the place of
church in the forest of Jedworth, called muster as " Suddan-Church in Jed worth
Zedon," which some historians have stated to forrest." [MS. History at Hamilton PaLioe.]
be Yetholm. But a local antiquary [White, This church is now in ruins.
History of IJattle of Otterburu, lSo7] makes - Froissart, voL ii. p. .361.
out a strong case for Southdean, situated •^ The number of the force under Douglas
as it is close to the Border, and locally has been variously estimated — Froissart giv-
308 JAMES, SECOND EARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAR.
comrades au affectionate farewell, aud passed rapidly over the four miles of
Scottish ground between the Church of Southdean and the liedeswire, by
which they would enter Northumberland. The exact landmarks by which
they guided their course have been preserved in the old ballad, and may still
be seen — Ottercops Hill, and liothley Crags.^ Passing these they swept
down, without doing any mischief, until they crossed the Tyne above Xew-
castle, and penetrated as far as Brancepeth, in the county of Durham, or
almost to the confines of Yorkshire. Here tliey commenced the work of
devastation, harrying and burning towns and villages, and driving off cattle.
So rapidly and silently was all this done, that the smoke of the burning
hamlets was the first intimation to the English Wardens that the Scots were
in their midst. The Earl of Northumberland, who was then at Alnwick,
sent bis two sons. Sir- Henry (Hotspur) and Sir Ealph Percy, to Newcastle, to
gather their forces there, while he kept Alnwick, in the hope of intercepting the
Scots on their way homeward. The Wardens feared to make an immediate
attack, as Douglas and his party were believed to be merely the advance
guard of the large army which the Scots were known to have mustered.
Continuing their devastation, Douglas and his followers skirmished a
little, it is said, under the walls of Durham, but made no stay there. They
then recrossed the Tyne and came before Newcastle, where was assembled
the military force of the neighbourhood, commanded by the two Percys, the
Seneschal of York, Sir Matthew Eedman, Governor of Berwick, and others.
The Scots took up their position on the north side of the town, and a local
antiquary describes the spot chosen as commanding an excellent view not
only of Newcastle and its walls but also of the surrounding neighbourhood."-
iDg 300 spears, or mea-at-arms, and 2000 attendants and camp-followers.
infantry — while Wyntown gives the number ^ " The Battle of Otterbourne," Percy's
at 7000. Both may be correct, as the former Reliqties, edition 1794.
historian may refer to the actual fighting - White's Battle of Otterbuni, lSo7,
men, and the latter probably includes their p. 2G.
CAPTURE OF THE PENNON OF PERCY, 13«t!. ;jO-J
From this vantage ground Douglas and his men made frequent attacks upon
the town. The Scots remained two, or, according to some accounts, three
days before Newcastle, and during that time, says Froissart, there was an
almost continual skirmish. The besiegers made at least one attempt to enter
the town by scaling the walls, but owing to the insutficient length of their
ladders, were beaten back. If the old ballad is to be believed, the besieged,
in the most romantic spirit of chivalry, consoled their assailants for their
repulse by letting down to them over the walls a pipe of wine.^
On the last day on which the Scots lay before Newcastle, they approached
close to the barriers, where the two young Percys were generally to be found.
TIere the Earl of Douglas had a personal encounter with Sir Henry Percy.
Froissart implies that it was in the rush of battle the leaders met and
fought hand to hand, Percy being worsted. Other authorities state that
" Hotspur," anxious to prove his valour, challenged or provoked the Scottish
leader to single combat. "Whatever the cause, the two leaders engaged,
mounted on horseback, and ran a course together with sharp spears. The
force of Douglas's onset drove l^ercy out of his saddle, and, though the
English rescued their leader, Douglas captured his opponent's pennon.
Waving this above his head, he cried out that he would carry it as his spoil
into Scotland. Percy, grieved for his loss, strove to regain his pennon, l)ut his
friends, desirous for his safety, carried him off within the gates, protesting
that Douglas should never accomplish his purpose. Sir Ptichard ^laitland
states that Douglas was the challenger, and provoked Hotspur to single
combat, who then " did recountir the Erie of Douglas, hot was manfullie
owircum and strikin down to the ground with the dynt of a speir ; bot or the
Erie off Dowglas could lyclit apone him the Englis suddartts (soldiers) did
cleik him vpe saufHie away to the toun."- Nothing is said of the pennon.
^ "The Battle of Otterboume," Percy's Reliques, edition 179-t-
- MS. History at Hamilton Palace.
310 JAMES, SECOyi) EARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAIL
The uiglit following this encounter the Scots kept strict watch, as they
expected an attack by Percy, but nothing occurred. In the morning, pro-
bably the third after tlieir arrival at Newcastle, Douglas broke up his camp
and departed towards Scotland. He adopted this course, as the English were
gathering from all sides to Newcastle, and he feared the real smallness of Ids
force might be discovered. The road he and his men travelled probably
corresponded to the present highway, as on their way nortliward they passed
the tower of Ponteland. This tower, then held by Aymer or Adomar of
Athol, a descendant of the ancient Scottish Earls of Athole, who had gone
over to the English side in the Wars of Independence, tlie Scots attacked,
made its lord a prisoner, and having burned the fortress, pushed on towaids
Otterburn, where they had resolved to encamp for the night.
Otterburn, according to a recent writer, " forms a kind of promontory,
jutting out to the south-west from the high land behind ; and to the Scots it
commanded a good view, both up Eedesdale and around the central part
thereof for several miles. The tower of Otterburn was situated about a mile
and a half below tliem; and they liad an open prospect to the south-east, the
direction whence they might reasonably expect the approach of the English.
On the north the position of the Scots was somewhat exposed ; but on the
west and south it was closely surrounded by natural wood, of which some
straggling birch trees and a few^ solitary remnants of the mountain-ash still
grow at no gTeat distance from the place. Upon the east side was the
entrance ; and this part was likewise shaded with underwood and trees." ^
On reaching the intended site of their camp, which may formerly huw
served a similar purpose, the Scots erected their tents, or temporary huts.
and fortified their position, placing their baggage and servants' quarters
next the road towards Xewcastle. They probably sent their cattle and horses
to pasture in the neighbourhood, attended by the grooms or camp-followers.
1 White's History of the Battle of Otterburn, 1S57, pp. 30, 31.
77//; BATTLE OF OTTERBCIIX, 1388. 311
The inoruing after their arrival, the Scots inarched down to attack the tower
of Otterburn, but failed to take it. On returning to camp, it was proposed
that next day they should make an effort to join their countrymen, but, it is
said, the Karl of Douglas opposed this plan, giving as a reason, that Percy
ouglit to be allowed to retake his pennon, if possible. He therefore suggested
waiting a day or two, and making another attack on the tower of Otterburn.
To this all his comrades agreed, " for their honour, and for the love of him,"
and remained in camp, fortifying it more strongly.
In the meantime, Sir Henry Percy and his brother Ealph, much mor-
tlHed at the insult done to their honour, were anxious to follow the Scots
and retrieve the lost trophy. They were dissuaded from immediate action
by the other English leaders, who believed Douglas and his force to be
only tlie van of the whole Scottish host, with which they knew themselves
unable to cope. But when the Scots marched towards Otterburn their
small array was noted by the country people, and reported in Newcastle,
with the news that they had halted for the night in such a manner as to
indicate a lengthened stay. The Percys thereupon sunnnoned their men with
all haste, and set out with a force estimated at six hundred men-at-arms
and eight thousand infantry, more than double the number of the Scots.
The evening was well advanced when the English came in sight of the
cam}) where the Scots, not expecting an attack so late in the day, were
resting, some at supper, others aslee}). Yet they were not altogether unpre-
part'd, as their plan of action had been arranged in case of a sudden attack,
a piece of forethought on which Froissart bestows much praise. In the
hurry of arming, when the first onslaught was made, and tlie war-cry of
" Percy, Percy," rang through the camp, it is said, part of Douglas's armour
was left unfastened, and the Earl of Moray fought all night without his
helmet. The Scots were fortunately favoured by a mistake made by the
p]nglish in their attack. Percy and his men reached the neighbourhood of
312 JAJIES, SECOND EARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAL'.
the Scottish camp unnoticed in the gathering shades of evening, and halted,
it is believed, on a rising ground which lay to the left of the camp, towards
Newcastle, where arrangements for the onset were made, as Hotspur resolved
to lose no time, not even to rest his followers. He detached a small force-
under Sir Thomas Umfraville and his brother to pass on his own right to the
northw"ard of the Scots, and cut off their retreat, or to attack the Scots in
rear, while they were engaged with Percy. ^ Sir Henry Percy then led the
main body over the rising ground, straight towards the entrance to the
camp, which, as already stated, was on the eastern side, where also the
plunder was piled, and the servants were lodged, whose huts, in the twilight,
the English mistook for those of their masters. This delayed them, for not
only was the camp well fortified, but the servants made a stout defence,
and as the alarm and the English war-cries sounded over the camp, Douglas
and his fellow-leaders had time to make their dispositions for resistance.
The first move w"as to despatch a body of infantry to the aid of the servants,
to keep the English engaged. The rest- of the Scots ranged themselves under
their three principal leaders, who each knew what to do. The English soon
drove back the servants, but as they forced their way further into the camp,
they found themselves still steadily opposed. In the meantime a large body
of the Scots, under the Earl of iJouglas, left the camp in silence, drew off
towards a rising gTound on the northward, and marching rapidly round, fell
suddenly on the flank of the English, with shouts of Douglas ! Douglas !
This unexpected attack, made, as Wyntown asserts, by no fewer than twelve
displayed banners, disconcerted the English ; but they rallied bravely, and
formed into better order. The war-cries of the leaders now resounded on
every side, and as the moon was shining, the combat increased in intensity.
Froissart, who wrote from the account of eye-witnesses and combatants,
says that at the first encounter many on both sides were struck down. The
^ White, Battle of Otterburu, p. 37 ; Wyntown, B. ix. c. viii.
HIS DEATH IX VICTORY, 1388.
Englislnncii kept well together, and fought so fiercely, that the Scots were
at first driven back. Then the Earl of Douglas advanced his banner, to
which the banner of the Percys was soon opposed, and a severe fight raged
in which the Scots had rather the worst, and even the Douglas pennon
was for a time in danger. Knights and squires, says the historian, were
of gitod courage, and both sides fought valiantly : cowards there had no
place. The combatants met so closely that the archers could not use their
bows, but the battle was waged by hand-to-hand conflict. The leaders
especially were emulous of victory. When the weight and numbers of the
English made their foes give way, the Earl of Douglas, " of great harte, and
hygh of enterprise," seized his battle-axe, or, according to some, a heavy mace,
with both hands, and rushed into the thick of the fight. Here lie made way
for himself in such manner that none dare approach him, and went forward
" lyke a hardy Hector, wyllynge alone to conquere the felde, and to dyscomfy te
his enemyes." He was well supported by his followers, who, inspirited by the
prowess of their noble leader, pressed upon and forced back the English,
though fighting was difficult in the dim light. At last, the Earl was encoun-
tered by three spears at once ; one struck him on the shoulder, another on the
breast, " and the stroke glented downe to his belly." The third spear struck
him on the thigh, and sore hurt with all three wounds, the hero was by sheer
force borne down to the ground. As he fell he was struck on the head with
an axe, and round his body the press was so great that no aid could be given
to liim, while a large number of the English in retreat marched over him.
Fortunately, when the Earl was struck down, his rank and identity were
unrecognised by the English, or the issue of the conflict might have been
very different. The Englisli falling back, those Scottish knights who had
closely followed Duuglas came up to the spot where their leader had fallen.
Beside him lay one of his personal attendants, Sir Eobert Hart, while the
Earl's chaplain, Kichard (or William) Lundie, defended the body of the
vof.. I. 2 i:
3U JAMES, SECOXn EARL OF DOUGLAS AXI) MAli.
prostrate hero.^ The Earl's kiusman, Sir James Lindsay, with Sir Johu aud
Sir Walter Sinclair, were the first to reach their chief. The scene which
followed is one of the most affecting in the annals of chivalry. When asked
how he did, the dying Earl replied, " Eight evil ; yet, thank God, but few of
my ancestors have died in their beds. I am dying, for my heart grows faint,
but I pray you to revenge me. Eaise my banner, which lyeth near me on the
ground ; shew my state neither to friend or foe, lest mine enemies rejoice
and my friends be discomfited." So saying, the Earl expired, with his war
cry sounding in his ears, as Sir John Sinclair raised the fallen pennon, and
his friends renewed the fight, first covering their leader's body w^th a mantle.^
Obeying the last words of the brave Douglas, his friends shouted his
name with increased energy, as if he were still in the forefront of the fray.
They pressed upon the foe with vigour, being reinforced by the Earl of
Moray and liis men, who, attracted by the shouts of " Douglas ! Douglas ! "
rallied to the cry, and so stoutly did the Scots follow the banner of the slain
Earl, that the English were driven back far beyond where his body lay.
And this, indeed, was the last charge, and virtually decided the contest in
favour of the Scots, as the English, tired with their long journey from Xew-
castle, though they had fought valiantly, now began to break their ranks,
and in a short time were in full retreat. In another part of the field also,
the strenuous efibrts of the Earls of March and Moray had turned the tide
of conquest, and Sir Ralph Percy was a prisoner.
^ Froissart and Godscroft both say he was Godacroft adds the reference to the prophecy
the same or next year made Archdeacon of of a dead man winning a field, which reads like
Aberdeen, but this is disproved by the fact a traditional afterthought. Wyntown, ar'ain,
that the poet Barbour was then and for some and Barry (quoted by Bower), say that the
years afterwards. Archdeacon of that diocese. death of the Earl of Douglas was wholly un-
- This account of the Earl's last words is knownto the Scotsuntilafterthe field waswou
taken from Lord Bemers' Froissart, which when they found his body among the slain,
gives the simplest and most probable accouat. But Froissart 's account was received from
The later editions give a longer speech, and actors in the conflict. — Vol. ii. pp. 395-399.
RESULTS OF THE BATTLE, 1388. 3ir,
Of the other iucideuts of tlie battle, the suiTender of Sir Heury Percy,
the retreat of Sir Matthew Redman, his pursuit and capture by Sir James
Liudsav, the capture of the latter in turn by the Bishop of Durham, and all
the other adventures of the knights engaged, it is not necessary here to speak,
for they have often been related. It is not known exactly at what hour the
conflict bc'^an, but Froissart states that the field was clear of combatants
before the day broke. He adds that the Scots drew together, which proliably
means that they gathered to their respective standards from pursuit of
Percy's broken army. There is some probability that the conflict was of
short duration. The Bishop of Durham, who arrived at Newcastle on the
eveninf of the Ijattle, set out after supper, with a considerable array, to aid
the Percys, but had not advanced far until he was met by fugitives from Otter-
burn. This seems to imply that the event had been very quickly decided.
Froissart states that of the English about one thousand and forty were
taken or slain on the field, and upwards of eight hundred in the pursuit,
while more than a thousand were wounded. The Scots, he says, had one
hundred slain, and two hundred made prisoners — the latter chiefly because of
their impetuosity in pursuit. The number of prisoners taken by the Scots
was very great, and the amount of their ransoms equalled 200,000 francs.
But the rejoicing on this account, and because of the victory, was greatly
mingled with sorrow at the death of the Earl of Douglas. His body was
placed on a bier, and borne on the second ilay after the l)attle to the Abbey
of Melrose. There his funeral obsequies were performed with due ceremony
two days later, and he was buried under a tomb of stone, over which his
banner was left to wave.
Of the character of this Earl of Douglas, not much can be said, for
his career was so short, and so little is known of him, that no just estimate
can be formed regarding him. Even the historian of his family, Hume of
Godscroft, finds little to say, except repeated references to his youth, hi^
31 G JAMES, SECOND EARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAIL
virtue, and Ids valour. That lie was brave, like liis namesake the Good
Sir James, and that like him he possessed the qualities of a good military
leader, is proved by the skill with which lie conducted his last expedition,
selected his last camp, aud by the manner in which he met his death.
Wliatever censure he may merit for exposing himself and liis small body of
men to the attack of tlie English for tlie sake of Percy's pennon, is to be
judged by the laws and customs of chivalry as then understood. It cannot
be said that he died in defence of his country. Froissart admired the battle
of Otterburn, because it was a well-fought field, and because of the many
doughty deeds done by knights and squires on both sides. For the same
reason it commended itself to minstrels and poets on both sides the border,
and the ballads to which it oave rise were sung with such fervour, as to move
hearts " more than with a trumpet," according to Sir Philip Sidney's oft-quoted
saying. Yet it may be regretted that the services of one so high in rank and
young in years, were thus lost to his country in a battle whicli arose out of a
mere point of chivalric honour, and from which no national benefit resulted.
The pennon captured by Douglas with such fatal consequences is said
to be preserved, with the Earl's armour and other relics, in the family of
Douglas of Cavers. Bishop Percy, in his contribution regarding the Percy
family to the Peerage of England by Collins, expresses a belief that the
flag at Cavers was only an ancient standard of one of the Earls of Douglas,
as it is inscribed with their own motto, " Jamais arriere," and adorned with
their own insignia, viz., the bloody heart, etc. It is true, he adds, there is
also a white lion introduced, which, if it has any relation to any badge of
the Percys, may have been inserted in defiance of that family, as if this
trophy was wTested from them according to the fantastic laws of chivalry.^
1 CoUins's Peerage, vol. ii. pp. 346, 347. Sir Scottish Border, vol. i. p. 346, apparently
Walter Scott, '\\\ his notes to the battle of adopts this view, and states that the banner
Otterburn, printed in his Minstrelsy of the of Douglas was borne by his natural son.
THE PENXON CAPTURED FROM PERCY, 1388. ;3i:
A representation of a flag, said to have been the one preserved at Cavins,
is given in the Border Antir|uities, vol. ii. p. 208, which so far bears out
Risliop l^ercy's description. lUit, it has been asked, " Is it not quite likely
that the lion of the Percys was the original adornment, and that the captors
of the pennon or banner added the insignia of Douglas as a means of setting
their own mark upon a trophy of which they had so much reason to be
proud ?"^ This view of the matter is not improbable, and is borne out by
the fact that in the representation of the flag, the lion is evidently the
principal figure, while the stars and heart of Douglas are not arranged
according to heraldic blazon, but in a mere fanciful manner distributed over
the field. The tradition is therefore probably correct.
The Earl of Douglas had scarcely been laid in his tomb when a question
arose as to certain of his possessions. These were the castle and barony of
Tantallon, regarding which the Earl of Fife, who was superior of the lands,
made a motion in a general council, held at Linlithgow, on Tuesday, 18th
August 1.388.' The proceedings, in so far as they related to the deceased
Archibald Douglas, ancestor of the family of six separate and distinct days being assigned
Cavers, " among whose archives this glorious to it by various writers. Froissart says the
relic is still preserved." But Archibald 15th August ; Bower, Kuighton, Holinshed,
IJouglas of Cavers could have been but a mere and by far the greater number of writers
youth at his father's death, and in any case assert that the battle was fought on St.
he was Laird of Cavers for many years after Oswald's day, or Wednesday, the 5th August.
Otterburn, whereas the bearer of the Earl's But the freciueut references of Froissart and
banner was slain. The banner itself was left others to the moon point to a different date,
drooping over its owner's tomb, though it Buchanan places the original muster on oth
may have been removed later. August, and founding on this and also on the
^ White's History of the Battle of Otter- fact, known \>y calculation, that the moon was
burn, Appendix, Note I. [i. 130. newon the 6th, a recent writer describes the e.x-
-' Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. i. pedition, and tinally fixes the date of the battle
p. 555. This date is of great importance in fix- as Wednesday evening, the 19th August,
ing the date of the battle of Otterburn, as to chiefly, it would appear, because the muou
which great confusion exists, no fewer than was then full. [White's History of the Battle
318 JAMES, SECOXD EARL OF DOUGLAS AMJ MAIL
Earl, aro.se from the fact that he left no surviving heirs-male. As narrated
in the previous memoir, the Earls of Douglas held the castle of Tantalluu
and barony of North Berwick in tenandry of the Earl of Eife. In conse-
quence of the death of Earl James, the castle and lands fell into the hands
of Robert, Earl of Fife and Menteith, vi'ho ought, in accordance with feudal
custom, to have gone in person to receive them. He pleaded the cares of
State as an excuse for not performing this duty, and on his application,
the king wrote to the freeholders and inhabitants of the barony of North
Berwick, and the keeper and constable of Tantallon Castle, directing theni
to obey the Earl of Fife in all things, and to render up the fortress to him.^
At a later date the Earl of Fife was appointed Guardian of the kingdom, and
in regard to North Berwick, provision was made that the claims of the heirs
of the Earl of Douglas should be respected, if made. It was also provided
that seeing tliese claims fell to be heard in the Guardian's own Court, the king
should have power to interpose any authority necessary on their behalf-
o£ Otterbum, Appendix. Xote J. p. 133.] This implies that it .shoue only in the early part of
view, however, is disproved by the date of the the night, that the combat was for the most
council, which must have taken place some part fought in dim light, and that the moon-
days after the battle. Besides, it is imi)rob- light failed altogether daring the pursuit,
able, for obvious reasons, that the Scots were which took place some time before daybreak,
more than a week in England ; and, accepting Six days would suffice for intelligence of the
the 5th August as the day of muster, and Earl's decease being carried to the main bodj'
allowing a week for the rapid inroad of the of the army, the assemblage for his funeral at
Scots, their two days' stay at Newcastle and ilelr(;se, where liis body lay in state two
march to Otterburu, this places their arrival days, and for the journey of the nobles from
thereonTuesday afternoon, the nth August,if, Melrose to Linlithgow. The 12th of August
as is generally asserted, the battle was fought seems therefore the proi)er date to assign tu
on a Wednesday evening. The moon being the famous conflict of Otterburn.
new on the Gth, it could not have given much
light on the lith, which agrees with the
account given by Froissart, who is most
minute in his references to the moon. He - Uiiif. p. 'yo(j. 11th December 13SS
^ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland,
vol. i. pp. 555, 565.
HIS MAERIALIE AND CHILD REN. 310
In November of the same year, the ward of the lands of Westerkirk ami
Stablegorton (or Langholm) were bestowed upon Sir James Douglas of
Dalkeith, until the true and lawful heir of James, Earl of Douglas, should
recover sasine of the lands.^ This grant probably lapsed after- the following
April, when Sir Archibald Douglas, Lord of Galloway, produced in Parliament
a charter of entail of tliese and other lands of the deceased Earl, and his
right to tliem was recognised. This charter of entail included the lands of
Douglasdale, the forest of Selkirk, Lauderdale, Bedrule, Eskdale, Stablegor-
ton, Buittle in Galloway, and others of less importance, in which the Lord
of Galloway was infeft as lawful heir of entail.- The lands of Liddesdale and
of Jedburgh forest passed along with the lands of the earldom of ^Lar to
Isabel Douglas, sister of Earl James, as stated in the previous memoir.
The latest references to James, Earl of Douglas, in charters, are in two
documents which assign lands to the clergy on behalf of his soul. One is a
charter by Richard of Hangingside, Laird of that Ilk, in which certain lands
in Lauderdale are bestowed on the monks of Kelso, primarily for the benefit
of the granter and his relatives, but also for the souls of James, Earl of
Douglas, his father. Earl AVilliam, and of the then Earl of Douglas, Archi-
bald the Grim.^ In the other the Earl's sister, Isabel, Countess of ^lar and
Lady of Garioch, resigned her right to a carrucate of land in Kynalchmund
in favour of the monks of Arbroath, for the souls of her father and mother,
William and Margaret, Earl and Countess of Douglas, and of her brother
Earl James.'*
James, second Earl of Douglas and Mar, married, as already stated, about
the year 1373, the Princess Isabel Stew\art, daughter of King liobert the
Second. About a month after the Earl's death the Sheriff of Selkirk was
' 8th November 13SS. Registrum Honoris ^ Circa 139S. Liber de Calchou, vol. ii.
«le MortoD, vol. ii. p. 161. \k 411.
- Acts of the Parliaments of .Scotlaiul, vol. i. ^ 27th. May 1403. llegistrum Nigrum de
pp. 5.57, o">8. Aberbrothoc, p. 47.
320 JAMES, SECOND EARL OF DOUGLAS AND MAR.
directed to give his wddow her proper terce of all the Earl's lands within
his jurisdiction.^ The Countess married, as her second husband. Sir John
Edmonstone, knight, ancestor of the Edmonstones of Duntreath, and the
annuity of 200 merks, which the Earl of Douglas held from the customs of
Haddington, was paid to them from 1390 until her death about 1410.-
They had also a charter of the lands of Ednam.^
By the Princess Isabel, the Earl of Douglas had one son, who died in
early infancy, and whose name has not been recorded.^
James, J^arl of Douglas and ]\Iar, had two natural sons, William Douglas,
ancestor of the Douglases of Drumlanrig and Dukes of Queensberry, and
Archibald Douglas, ancestor of the Douglases of Cavers. They are both
named in the charter by their father granting to William, and failing him to
Archibald, the lands of Drumlanrig.^ Archibald Douglas received a grant of
the lands of Cavers from his aunt Isabel Douglas, styled Countess of Mar,
sometime before 1405, for in that year King Robert the Third bestowed the
lands on Sir David Fleming of Biggar, on the plea that they w^ere alienated
without the Eoyal consent.^ But on oOtli Xovember 1412, while still a
prisoner in England, King James the First contirmed the charter by Isabel
in favour of Douglas, and his descendants still possess the lands."
The second Earl of Douglas had also, there is reason to believe, a natural
daughter, Elinor, who married Sir William Eraser, second of I*hilorth. On
their marriage Sir William Eraser received a charter from Isabel Douglas,
Countess of ]\Iar, of the lands of Tibbertie and Utlaw in the shire of Banff.^
From them the present Lord Saltoun is descended.
1 Liber de Calchou, vol. ii, p. 408 ; 20th •' Original Charter at Drumlanrig.
^ Original Charter at Cavers.
- Exchequer Piolls, voL iv. p. 120.
3 lUd. p. clxiii. ' ^^^ ^opy Charter, ibid.
■* History of the Houses of Douglas and * Antiquities of Aberdeen, etc., vol. iii. p.
Angus, edition 1G44, p. 92. 57G ; The Frasera of Philorth, vol. I p. 122.
321
VI.— 3. SIK ARCHIBALD DOUGLAS, THIED EARL OF DOUGLAS,
LORD OF GALLOWAY, surnamed "THE GRIM."
JOANNA MORAY OF BOTH WELL, his Countess.
1388—1400.
TAMES, second Earl of Douglas and Mar, as already stated, was succeeded
^ in Douglasdale and otlier family estates by his kinsman. Sir Archibald
Douglas, lord of Galloway, called also " the Grim, or Terrible," ^ who became
third Earl of Douglas. Tlie parentage of Sir Archibald has been much
discussed. Godscroft leads the van of confusion among historians on
the subject by stating that there were three Archibalds almost contem-
poraneous. These he distinguislies as first, Archibald, brother to William,
first Earl of Douglas, and lord of Galloway ; second, Archibald, natural
son to the Good Sir James, who was at Poitiers, and died in France ; and
third, Archibald the Grim, brother of the second Earl of Douglas, and his
proper heir.- But these three Archibalds are one and the same person, the
natuml son of the Good Sir James.
That Archibald, third Earl of Douglas, was the son of the Good Sir James
has been denied, but the fact is proved by one of his own charters conveying
lauds to the monastery of Holywood, for the soul of his father, Sir James
' Sir llichard Maitland alleges that this He perhaps inherited his father's expression
Earl was "callit Archibald Grym be the Eng- of visage.
lismen, beuaus of his terrible countenance in - Houses of Douglas and Angus, editiou
w-firfair." [MS. History at Hamilton Palace.] 1(344, p. 107.
VOL. I. 2 S
322 SIR ARCHIBALD DOUGLAS, THIRD EARL OF DOUGLAS.
Douglas.^ Where his true parentage was known, or surmised, the reason of
his succession to the Douglas title and estates has been a subject of much
ingenious conjecture, especially among those historians who believed that
George Douglas, first Earl of Angus, was a lawful son of "William, first Earl
of Douglas. Lord Hailes, who held that Archibald the Grim was not the
brother of James, second Earl of Douglas, was ignorant of his real parentage,
and assigned a " capricious entail " as the reason of his succession. "Without
entering into the many theories on the subject, it may be said that Lord
Hailes was so far right. The name of Archibald Douglas, son of tlie late
James, lord of Douglas, was inserted in the charter of entail of the Douglas
estates following on the resignation of Hugh, lord of Douglas, in 1342. This
charter was produced by Sir Archibald L)ouglas before the Scottish I'arlia-
ment in 1389 as his title to the estates, and in right of it he succeeded.^
The age of Sir Archibald Douglas at the time of his father's death in 133<)
has not been ascertained, but he was probably very young, as he makes no
appearance in any historical record until about twenty years afterwards,
except in the entail of 1342, and he survived his father for seventy years.
The first reference to Archibald Douglas " the Grim" made by the Scottish
chroniclers is in 13.56. With his kinsman, William, lord of Douglas, and
many other Scottish knights and esquires, Archibald Douglas passed over to
France, and was present at the battle of Poitiers, where he was taken prisoner.^
This is all that Fordun relates, but Bower and another chronicler tell an
amusing story of his escape from his captors. They state that when young
Archibald, called " Blac Archibalde," son of Sir James Douglas, was taken
prisoner, it was not known who he was, but as he wore very splendid
armour, his captors believed him to be some great lord. Late in the evening
* Registrum Magni Sigilli, vol. i. p. lOG, No. oG.
- Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. i. pp. ,~),i7, 5.58.
■' Fordun, Annalia, edition 1S71, vol. i. p. 377, nott.
ESCAFK FROM CAPTIVITY AT POITIERS, 135G. 323
after the battle, when the prisoners met in the lodging in the town of Poitiers,
Sir William Kamsay of Colluthie, seeing Douglas, and desirous to effect his
release, looked on him, and, as if in a great passion, exclaimed, 0 treaclierous
rascal, why have you stolen the armour of your lord, my cousin ? Cursed be
the hour in which you were born ; for he sought you the whole day, and not
finding you in camp, going forth unarmed, was slain by a tlyiug arrow.^ Come
here, and pull off my boots. Douglas carried on the farce, approached in a
trembling manner, and kneeling down, pulled off one boot, with which
IJamsay beat him about the head. The English interposed, assuring Eamsay
that Douglas was certainly the son of some great noble. No, said he, he is a
scullion and a rascaL Then, to Douglas, he added, Go, you villain, to the
field, and search among the slain for your master's body, that it may have at
least a decent burial" He then ransomed the feigned serving-man for forty
shillings, and striking him again, bade him begone. Douglas bore the buffets
patiently, and made his escape as C|uickly as possible ; for, " if the English
had known who he was, they Avould certainly not have liberated him for his
weight of gold." -
The danger of a captivity in England being thus avoided, Archibald
Douglas returned home, only to fall, a few months later, into the very calamit}'
he had escaped. The circumstances leading to this imprisonment, which
was but temporaiy, cannot be clearly ascertained. Douglas, along with a
companion, "William of Tours, received a safe-conduct to pass to London or
Canterbury.^ A week previously, they and some others had been made the
^ The same writer here adds, "For that somewhat in details ; their narratives are corn-
Archibald was dark, nor was he comely in bined in the text. The Liber Piuscardensis
countenance, but more resembled a cook boy states that " because Archibald Douglas was
(coco) than a noble." a bastard, his friends held him cheap."
2 Fordun, u Goodall, voL ii. p. 358 ; Liber
Piuscardensis, edition 1877, vol. L p. 300. ^ EotuliScotioe, vol. i. p. 817. IGthXovem-
These authors tell the same story, differing ber 13.37.
324 SIR ARCHIBALD DOUGLAS, THIRD EARL OF DOUGLAS.
subject of a special application to the English king. The Bishops of St.
Andrews and Brechin had concluded a truce with England in May 1357, and
they now demanded from King Edward the Third that Archibald Douglas
and others who had been seized, and were then (in November) captives in
England, should be released without ransom, as they had been taken in time
of truce.^ The prisoners were ordered to be released on bail, and a commis-
sion was appointed to inquire into their detention. Arbiters were named to
investigate the charge made by Douglas, and two years later, during which
time Douglas was more than once in Em-land, the En^rlish \m^ issued a
mandate that justice should be done, and the sum exacted for ransom repaid.-^
During the interval between the battle of Poitiers and his detention in
England, Archibald Douglas received the rank of knighthood. He is
described as " Archibald Douglas, chivaler," in the safe-conduct already
referred to, which is the earliest document in which the title is applied
to him. He may have been knighted at Poitiers, but he is not named
among those who then received that honour.^ In the beginning of the vear
1359, though he had a safe-conduct to England, he was at Edinburgh in the
middle of March. About 1361 he was appointed Constable of the Castle
of Edinburgh, and held that important post until about the year 1364, at
a yearly fee of two hundred merks.^ During his occupancy, repairs on
the fortress were executed to the amount of £200, distributed between
\Vhitsunday 1363, and the same term and ^Martinmas in the following year.^
Sir Archibald Douglas, it would appear, lield also the office of Sheriff of
Edinburgh.^ In this capacity he was freo^uently in attendance upon the Court
^ Rotuli Scotia?, vol. i. p. SI 7. _8th Novem- about 1361, by a burgess of Edinburgh, founcl-
ber 1357. ing masses for the souls of the Earl of Douglas,
■■^ Ihld. pp. 826, 833, 837, 838. Sir Archibald, and others. [Charters of St.
' Fordun, edition 1871, vol i. p. 377, notf. Giles, p. 12.]
■• Exchequer Rolls, voL ii. pp. 92, 166, ^ Exchequer RoUs, vol. ii. p. 131.
176. Sir Archibald is named in a charter " Charters of St. Giles, p. 8.
LOYALTY TO KIXG DAVID THE SECOND, 1363. 32-5
between 1361 and 136-4, as proved by his witnessing royal charters at
Arbroath, Spynie, Edinburgh, and elsewiiere during that period.^ In the
beginning of 1363 or earlier, took place the insurrection headed by the High
Steward and "William, Earl of Douglas, against King David the Second.
But as Sir Archibald Douglas retained his official appointments and attended
tlie Court, it is evident he adhered to the king, and, as one of the royal
council, he witnessed, on 14th May 1363, the final submission of the Steward
and liis sons at Inchmurdach.'-^
In April and November 1364, Sir Archibald Douglas had safe-conducts
to England, but apparently only used the second of the two.^ In August of
tliat year, he was acting as warden of the West Marches of Scotland; and
entered into a formal arrangement with the lieutenant of the English Earl of
Hereford as to Lochmaben Castle. A considerable portion of Annandale
was then in possession of the English, and between 1360 and 1363 had been
bestowed on Humphrey Bohun, Earl of Hereford. He died about 1372, an.d
in a question as to the succession of his daughters to Annandale and otlier
lauds, Edward the Third found it necessary to ratify the contract made in
1364. Tiie terms of the agreement are not narrated, but seem to have
referred to the rents and services of the free tenants round the castle.^
In January of the following year, Sir Archibald Douglas was in his place
in the Parliament at Scone on 13th January 1364-5, when the Scottish
nobles and people resolved to make special concessions to secure peace witli
England.'' In consequence of their overtures, the truce between England
and Scotland was continued for four years, and Sir Archibald seems to have
' Charters of St. Giles, pp. 11, 15, 19; was at Perth in July 1364. [Antiquities of
Cartulary of Inchaffray, p. xlvi ; The Red Aberdeeu, etc., vol. i v. p. 374.]
Book of Menteith, by William Fraser, vol. ii. ^Agreement, dated 24th August 1.3G4,
p. -49. quoteil Rotuli Scotiai, vol. i. p. 957.
- Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 369. ^ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland,
•^ Rotuli Scoti;p, vol. i. pp. SS2, SS6. He vol. i. p. 495.
r.26 SIK ARCHIBALD DOUGLAS, THIRD EARL OF DOVGLA^.
availed himself of this fact, to set out on a pilgrimage to the shriue of >St.
Denis, in France.^ He was again in Scotland in Jannaiy 13G7, when he
was at Perth with the king.- In September of the same year Sir Archibald
is named as one of those appointed to secure the truce on the "West INIarches;*
and in the same month he was present at a Parliament held at Scone, which
directed its efforts to dealing with the patrimony of the crown.'*
In June of the following year, Sir Archibald Douglas was again present
in Parliament. The subject of the Marches formed part of their deliberations,
and Sir Archibald was, by special appointment, continued in his office of
warden of the West Marches. During the same Parliament he was also
defendant in a dispute with Eobert Stewart, lord of ]Menteith. The latter
demanded from King David the Second that justice should be done as to
a terce due to the complainer's wife, ]\Iargaret, Coimtess of IMenteith, from
certain lands held by Sir Archibald Douglas. Sir Archibald, he said, had
lately at Aberdeen promised to his Majesty to be present at that Parliament
and arrange the matter. Douglas, on being questioned, said that whatever
was right or reasonable, or what he had promised to the king, he was willing
and ready to do, but he did not believe that he was bound by law or promise
to appear in the present Parliament for the arrangement referred to. Yet, if
it pleased his Majesty, or if the law or custom of the realm required the
matter to be arranged now, he was quite willing to agree, notwithstanding
the shortness of time. The lord of Menteith repeated his .statement that Sir
Archibald had promised to settle the matter in this Parliament. The issue
was, that the king on consulting with those who were present at Aberdeen,
decided that Douglas had promised to appear at this Parliament, in connec-
tion with the case, only if he were legally required, and the parties were
- Safe-conduct, 16th October 1305, Eotuli ^ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland,
Scotiifi, vol. i. p. S97. vol. xiL p. 14.
- Registrum Magni Sigilli, vol. i. p. 50. * lUd. vol. i. p. 501.
ACQCISiriOX OF LORDSHIP OF GALLOWAY, 13G9.
ilisniisscd to pursue the matter, as a point of comniou law, iu the ordinary
courts.^ This sentence was ordered to be recorded, but the affair appears to
liave been amicably settled, as no breach of friendship took place betwet-n
the parties.
Sir Archibald Douglas also acted in Parliament as one of the committe(3
for the barons.- He was present as one of the king's council, when, on 20th
.Jidy 1369, in the Castle of Edinburgh, King David the Second signed the
important treaty with England which secured to both kingdoms a fourteen
years' truce,^ and, with the other barons present, Ijound himself to observe
the terms of this treaty. In the previous month Sir Archibald Douglas
chartered a ship to trade between Scotland, England, and Ireland, for the
purchase of victuals and other necessaries, for which he obtained from the
English king a safe-conduct to endure for one year.*
The district of GaUoway had always been a troublesome appanage of the
Scottish crown. During the Wars of Independence the Galwegian chiefs
sided with Baliol and the English party, but were defeated by Edward
Ihuce and Sir James Douglas, and forced to submit to King Itobert Bruce.'*
The lordship of Galloway was then bestowed by the king upon his brother
Edward, who was killed in Ireland in 1318. After the usurpation of Edward
Baliol, GaUoway again showed signs of insurrection, and after the battle of
Durham in 1346, the chiefs openly went over to the English king. In
13.')3, however, William, first Earl of Douglas, compelled them to return to
their allegiance to the Scottish crown, and they had since remained faithful.''
As the Douglases had done so much to bring this turbulent district into
submission to the Government, and as Sir Archibald Douglas had probably
' Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, •* In the year 1.30S. Chronicoa de Laner-
vol. i. p. 505. cost, p. 212.
- Ihld. p. 506. (3th March 1.369.
^ Rotuli Scoti;e, vol i. p. 939. " Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 356 ; Kotuli
* Ih'dl. p. 9.32 ; vol. iv. of this work, p. 7. Scotise, vol i. p. 761.
32,^ ^7A' ARCH I BALI) DOUGLAS, THIRD KARL OF DOUGLAS.
shown that those qualities which earned him his soubriquet of " the Grim,"
were eminently fitted to control the restless Galwegians, Iviug David the
Second bestowed upon him all the lands of Galloway, extending between
the Cree and the Xith, as formerly held by the king's uncle, Edward
Bruce. These boundaries include the present Stewartry of Kirkcudbright.
Sir Richard Maitlaiid states that he received Galloway " becaus he tuke grit
trawell to purge the cuntrey of Englis Idude," and the charter, which is
dated 18th September 13G9, refers to the diligent labour and grateful
service of the Lrrantee.'^
A few years later Sir Archibald Duuglas acquired, under special circum-
stances, the remainder of Galloway, from the Cree to the western shore of
Wigtownshire. This portion of Galloway, now forming the shire of Wigtown,
had been gTanted, in 1342, to Sir Malcolm Fleming of Cumbernauld, with the
title of Earl of Wigtown. After Earl Malcolm's death he was succeeded by his
grandson, Thomas Eleming, to whom King David the Second, on 26th January
1367, confirmed and restored the earldom of Wigtown.- Thomas, Earl of Wig-
to\\"n, however, held his territory only a few years, and in 1372 sold the whole
earldom to Sir Archibald Douglas, lord of Galloway east of the water of Cree.'^
The reasons assigned by the Earl of Wigtown for thus disposing of his
extensive territory were the great and serious discords and deadly feuds which
had arisen between him and the more powerful natives of the earldom.
Earl Thomas is said to have been of a dissipated character, and, at least, he
was apparently too weak to govern a district which had always needed
the grasp of an iron hand. According to local tradition, the new lord of
Galloway was not one whose sway was a mere form. xV recent writer implies
^ MS. History at Hamilton Palace ; Reo;is- ^ Charter, dated Sth February 1372, and
trum Magni Sigilli, vol. L p. 69, >io. 233. confirmed by King flobert the Second 7th
- Registrum Magni Sigilli, vol. i. p. 51, October same year. Registrum Magni Sigilli.
No. 154. vol. i. p. 114, Xo. 5.
s^
^
^
'"^
•I
9
PURCHASE OF EARLDOM OF WIGTOWN, 1372. 32U
that it was very despotic, for as overlord he demanded that the proprietors
should produce their written titles or accept charters from himself.^ As by
local custom tlie Galwegians had from an early period enjoyed special privileges'-
und claimed to hold their lands by inheritance and not by charter, they
probably in some cases resented the demand. Yet such a demand was
natural ; and if the character given to Sir Archibald Douglas by a contem-
porary be reliable, he was just, if rigorous, in his judgments, and faithful
to his promises,^ qualities fitted to win him respect among a turbulent
va.ssalage. In any case, he and his successors were able to rule Galloway,
and from his time that district gave no trouble to the Scottish crown. The
Earl of Wigtown's charter was afterwards confirmed by the king.
The grant of territory bestowed in 13G9 on Sir Archibald Douglas may
have been given, not only in consideration of his abilities in suppressing
disorde-r, but also as a reward for a delicate serxice in which he apparently
engaged, during the month of May 1369. This was an embassy to France.
No particulars of this mission have been preserved, except the expenses paid
to the ambassadors, but there is reason to believe that it was occasioned
by the appeal of Queen Margaret Drummond to the Papal See. This
ambitious woman had been divorced from her husband. King David the
Second, by a decree of the Scottish bishops, some time in ]March 1369.* She
immediately carried her case to Pope Urban v. at Avignon, and gained
his ear so successfully that the Scottish Court was somewhat alarmed
lor the result. Ambassadors were at once despatched to Avignon, ami to
the French Court, Sir Archibald Douglas being sent to the latter place
evidently to request the intervention of the king of France on behalf of
1 "The Agiiews of Lochnaw," 1864, ^ Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 429.
pp. 49, 51.
- Acts of the Parliameats of Scotland, ■* Hid. p. 379 ; cf. Exchequer Rolls, vol. ii.
vol. i. pp. 4S'2, O.J I. p. 346.
VOL. r. 2 T ■
3:10 SIR ARCHIBALD DOUGLAS, THIRD EARL OF DOUGLAS.
the king of Scotland.i The result of liis particuhir mission is not known,
but the proceedings at the Tapal Court ended in the triumph of Margaret,
and Scotland, even after King David the Second's death, was threatened
with an interdict. Large sums were expended on these embassies, the one
to which Sir Archibald Douglas belonged costing £14 G6, 13s. 4d., besides
£223 paid to Sir Archibald himself for surplus expenditure.^
The embassy to France took place in ]\ray, and was apparently followed
by a visit of French envoys to Scotland.^ But Sir Archibald Douglas had
returned to his own country before July 1369. Two days before he received
the charter of Galloway, he was appointed auditor and executor for the monks
of Melrose, to uplift the dues granted to them by King Eobert the Bruce, under
circumstances already detailed in the life of Sir James Douglas.^ Sir Archibald
Douglas was also present, a few months later, in the Parliament of February
1370, and again at the last Parliament of King David the Second in October of
the same year.^ He appears indeed to have attended at Court almost to the very
close of the king's life, as he witnessed a royal cliarter at Edinburgh, on 26th
January 1371, and King David died there on the 22d of the following month.'^
King Piobert the Second was crowned at Scone on 26th March 1371, in the
presence of the prelates and nobles, who, on the following day, did homage
and swore fealty to the new king. For some reason Sir Archibald Douglas
and the Bishop of Dunblane are distinguished from the other magnates,
as giving their oath of fealty only, but Sir Archibald is also named among
those who by their acclamations hailed the declaration that John, Earl of
Carrick (afterwards King Robert the Third) was next heir to the throne."
^ Exchequer Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 344, 356. ' Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland,
2 Ibid. p. 356. '^o^- i- I'P- 534, 537.
3 ® The Lennox, by William Fraser, vol. ii.
p. 37 ; Fordun, a Gooclall, vol. ii. p. 3S0.
* Acta of the Parliaments of Scotland, " Acts of the Parliaments of Scothuul,
vol. i. p. 533 ; antea, p. 156. vol. i. pp. 545, 546.
AMBASSADOR TO FBAXCE, 1371. 331
Two days later Sir Archibald Douglas received from Kiug Eobert a special
commission as ambassador to the Court of France " to swear on the king's
soul " for the renewal, amplification, and closer observance of the ancient
league of friendship formerly made between the kings of France and King
Ilobert the Bruce.'' In the discharge of this commission. Sir Archibald
Douglas, Walter, bishop of Glasgow, and others proceeded to France, and
the result of their labours was a treaty signed by King Charles the Fifth
of France, at his castle of Vincennes on 30tli June 1371, and by King
Hubert the Second on the 2Stli October following.- In connection with
tin's embassy, Sir Archibald received the large sum of £521, Gs. 8d. as per-
sonal surplus expenditure incurred in France, and while waiting for a ship.^
While active in serving his country abroad, Sir Archibald Douglas did not
forget his own interests at home, and on the eve of his departure for France,
entered into an arrangement with King Eobert the Second of a somewhat
peculiar nature. Sir Archibald had married, some years previously, Joanna,
daughter and heiress of Thomas Moray, lord of Bothwell, and through his
wife had become lord of Bothwell, and of extensive possessions in the north
of Scotland. To provide against contingencies during his absence. Sir Archi-
baLl Douglas obtained a grant of all the casualties due to the Crown from the
lantls and oftices of his wife. If she died without issue, the king renounced all
right in her heritable estate, and declared that Sir Archibald Douglas and his
heirs should hold the same as freely as did the predecessors of Joanna of Moray. ^
' Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, plete, that it was formally renewed and
vol. L p. 559. ratified without alteration by King Charles
'-' Original Treaty, in French, in General the Sixth of France in the year 1391. [E.\-
liegister House, Edinburgh, printed in Ex- chequer Rolls, vol. iii. p. civ.]
chequer Holls, vol. iii. pp. xcvii-civ ; Latin
translation, preserved by Bower [Fordun, a
Good;iU, vol. ii. pp. 392-395]. This treaty * Pvegistriun Magni Sigilli, vol. i. p. 87,
■^ Ibid. voL ii. p. 3G3.
* Pvegistriun Magni
wa.s considered to be so important and com- Xo. 305. 31st March 1371.
332 SIR ARCHIBALD DOUGLAS, THIRD EARL OF DOUGLAS
From the time of his acquisition of Galloway, Sir Archibald Douglas
received in royal charters and public documents the title of Lord of
Galloway. Some time between 1369 and June 1372, as an act of tilial
affection, perhaps also as a thank-offering for his accession of territory,
Sir Ai-chibald, as lord of Galloway, made a special grant of lands to tlie
]\ronastery of Holywood in Dumfriesshire. This religious establishment on
the border, though not within the bounds of Galloway, received much atten-
tion from the lords of that territory. It is said to have been an offshoot of
the Abbey of Soulseat, near Stranraer, which itself owed existence to Fergus,
lord of Galloway, who became, about 1160, a monk of Holyrood.^ Holy-
wood, or the Monastery of the Sacred Grove (Sacrmemoris), was, it is said,
founded about one hundred years later by Devorgilla Baliol, lady of
Galloway.- Edward Bruce, brother of King Eobert the First, during his brief
possession of Galloway, built a house at Holywood, and Sir Archibald
Douglas now emulated the pious deeds of his predecessors.
Sir Archibald dedicated liis grant to the monastery for the weal of the
souls of King Eobert Bruce, his brother Edward, King Da\id the Second,
and of his own father Sir James, lord of Douglas. In memory of these
he founded and instituted an hospital of poor persons with a chapel, for
feeble and infirm to be received into that hospital, and into the house
which Edward Bruce had built within the confines or bounds of the
monastery of Holywood.^ For the upholding of the hospital and for the
^ Spottiswood's Religious Houses, Keith's ou 2rl June 1.372, implies that Edward Bruce
Bishops, p. 39S. had built a chapel within the monastery ; the
2 Statistical Account of Dumfriesshire, p.
558.
charter of foundation says simply a house.
It is probable that during the troublous times
from 1.333 to 1350 the buildings of the monas-
^ Registrum Magni Sigilli, vol. i. p. 106. tery had suffered damage, and Sir Archibald
The preamble of King Robert the Second's Douglas's charter was virtually a new founda-
con6rmation charter, which is dated at Stirling tion.
FOUNDATfOX OF HOSPITAL OF HOLYWOOD, 1372. 333
support of " Christ's poor " there to be maiutaiiied, the Ibunder applied tlif
lands of Crossmichacl and of Troqueer in his lordship of Galloway, betwixt
the Dee and the Xith. This grant was to be free of all dues exigible by
Douglas or his successors, being burdened only with a sum" of five shillings
to be paid yearly to the abbot and convent of Holywood, so long as the
hospital stood within their Ijounds. The conditions of benefit and manage-
ment are carefully laid down in the charter, and are of some interest.
Sir ArchibaLl Douglas, evidently in right of his wife, possessed the pro-
perty or superiority of considerable estates in the shires of Aberdeen, Forfar,
and Kincardine.^ One of these estates was Arbuthnot, the actual proprietor
of which, Philip Arbutlinot, liad married Margaret Douglas, a daughter of Sir
James Douglas of Dalkeith. Tlie laird of Arbuthnot resigned his land into the
hands of his superior, and Sir Archibald Douglas, as lord of Galloway and of
l>othwell, regranted, in October 1372, the lands to Philip and his wife and
their heirs. The lands are to be held of Sir Archibald and the heirs to be born
betwixt him and his spouse Joanna, whom perchance failing, of the nearest
lieirs of Joanna. The same expression is used in another clause, and the tenor
implies that the superiority of Arbuthnot belonged to Sir Archibald's wife, as
heiress of Bothwell. The resignation was made in the presence of a numerous
audience, and the regrant given at Balncrefe or Ballincrief, a manor of Sir
Archibald Douglas, near Gosford, in East Lothian.- In April of the following
year, Sir Archibald Douglas was present in Parliament, and was one of those
' Archibald, fourth Earl of Douglas, son of King Eobert ii. on 31st December 1.378, Sir
Sir Archibald, resigned, in 1409, the barony Archibald Douglas, lord of Galloway and
of Cortachie, which had belonged to his pre- Bothwell, granted to Sir Alexander Fraser,
decessors, and was probably inherited through knight, an eighty merk land in the lordship
his mother, the heiress of Bothwell. [Regis- of Aberdour, in Aberdeenshire ; to be held of
trum Magni Sigilli, vol. i. p. 237, No. 37.] the granter and his heirs, whom failing, of
- Charter, dated 25th October 1372. [Re- Joanna his spouse, and her heirs of the lord-
gistrum Honoris de Morton, vol. li. pp. 97, 98.] ship. [The Frasers of Philorth, by Lord
In a charter, not dated, but confirmed by Saltoun, vol. ii. p. 218.]
334 -S7A' AUCUIBALlJ DOUGLAS, TUIUU EARL OF DOUGLAS.
luagnates who swore upon the (iospels to observe the Act which entailed tlic
succession to the Scottish throne upon the sons of King liobert the ►Second.^
Though Sir Archibald Douglas is not again named in any record of great
public importance until the year 1384,- he yet appears more than once durin-
the interval on the page of history. The peace with England, which nomi-
nally was to endure for fourteen years from 13G9, was frequently infringed
on both sides of the Borders. As warden of the AVest jMarches, Sir
Archibald Douglas took his share in the efforts made to keep the truce.
In August 1372, he addressed a letter to King Edward the Thii'd, in answer
to one from him, requesting postponement of a warden meeting on the
Marches. Douglas agreed, but charged I'ercy and the deputy English
wardens with connivance at breaches of the truce, and suggested inquiry.^
His advice was ultimately taken, and he was one of those appointed on the
Scottish side to confer with the Duke of Lancaster and other English com-
missioners to arrange a settlement.^ About the same time, in September
1377, Sir Archibald used his influence with the English king to obtain a safe-
conduct for a number of merchants from the west and south of Scotland to
^ 4th April 1373. Acts of the Parliaments pp. 56, 57.] This letter is dated from Brent
of Scotland, vol. i. p. 549. Isle, in Galloway. Brent Isle has been sup-
- In 1375 he -witnessed three royal Char- posed to be Buittle, but Buittle was at this
tera ; two at Perth in January, and a third date in possession of the first Earl of Douglas.
at Aberdeen in June. [Registruni de Morton, Macpherson, in his Geographical Illustrations
vol. ii. pp. Ill, 113 ; Antii|uities of Aberdeen, of Scottish History, states that Brent Isle was
vol. ii. p. 351.] In another document, dated a castle in Loch Fergus, Galloway. There
in November of same year, Sir Archibald was a castle of the ancient lords of Gallowa}'
is named, along with his kinsman, William, built on an island in Loch Fergus, which is
first Earl of Douglas, and James, the son of now wholly ruinous. Sir Archibald Dougla.'^
the latter, as a particular ally of Eobert, Earl at a later date resided at Thrieve, but he may,
of Fife and Menteith, the king's second son. during the building of that fortress, have used
[The Red Book of Menteith, by William the castle in Loch Fergus.
Eraser, vol. ii. p. 200.] * 27th September 1377. Rotuli Scoti;e,
^ 1st August 1372. [Vul. iv. of this work, voL ii. p. 3.
VALOUR IX BATTLE WITH MUi^GllAVE, 1377.
trade in England for a year. These, it would a})pear, were to furnish wines
and other victuals for Sir Archibald's own household.^
At a later date Sir Archil aid Douglas took part, with his kinsman, the
first Earl, in the expedition towards ^lelrose, directed agaiiist a party of
English under Sir Thomas IMusgrave, when the Scots performed the night
march so graphically described by Eroissart, and already narrated. Accord-
ing to the historian, Sir Archibald held the honourable post of Constable of
Scotland, though no other evidence of the fact has been obtained. He also,
it is said, was very active in urging succours to be sent to those Scots who
had taken Berwick. On the surrender of that town, Douglas and his com-
lades withdrew to the Lammermoors, but soon afterwards, according to
Froissart, made the march towards "Melrose. When the historian describes
the skirmish between the English troops, under Sir Thomas ]\Iusgrave, and
the Scottish forces, he gives a vivid picture of the onset, and the conduct
therein of Sir Archibald Douglas. There began, he says, a fierce encounter ;
archers began to shoot, and men-at-arms began to stir. The Scots were so
numerous that the archers could not take heed in every place ; between the
jjarties there was many a goodly passage of arms, and many a man thrown
to the earth ; many taken and rescued again. Sir Archibald Douglas was a
mighty knight, and much feared by his enemies. "When near the English, he
lighted down on foot, wielding a long sword, with a blade two ells in length.
Too heavy for any other man to lift easily, this weapon was for him light
enough, and with it he gave such strokes that whosoever he hit went to the
••artli, and not the hardiest of the English could withstand his strokes. The
English were defeated, and Sir Thomas Musgrave and his son were taken captive.-
' Kotuli Scotia-, vol. ii. pp. 2, 3. Sir John Gordon, and, as stated in a previous
memoir, the order of events as narrated by
- Froissart, Lord Berners' edition, voh i. Froissart is doubtful ; but his narrative is
pp. .jOG, 507. Wyntown and Bower state valuable for the vivid description he gives of
that Sir Thomas Musgrave was defeated by the prowess of Sir Archibald Dou'das.
33G ,S7A^ ARCHIBALD DOUGLAS, THIRD EARL OF DOUGLAS.
On 1st Xovember 1380, Sir Archibald Douglas was present at Berwick,
and, with other Scottish commissioners, concluded a truce with the Duke of
Lancaster, which some months later was ratified between the Duke and the
Earl of Carrick, to last until Candlemas 1384,^ when the truce of 1369
expired. In the following summer the Duke of Lancaster became for a time
the guest of the Scottish nation, and Sir Archibald Douglas is named as one
of those who were most attentive to the distinguished visitor."^ He was at
Wigtown in October, and there, as lord of Galloway, affixed his seal to a
charter by William, Earl of Douglas, granting to the monks of "Whithorn
20 merks yearly from the lands of ]\Iyrtown.^
Sir Archibald Douglas is first named as warden of the AVest Marches of
Scotland in 13G4, though he may have held the office earlier.'* He seems to
have performed his duties faithfully, and to have had considerable influence
with the English wardens. If the silence of historians be any indication he
does not appear to have joined his kinsman, the Earl of Douglas, in his raids
across the Border. The skirmish with Musgrave took place in Scotland.
How Sir Archibald Douglas fulfilled his duties as warden is shown by a
codification of his laws which was put in writing many years afterwards by
his grandson, William, eighth Earl of Douglas.
In December 1-448, Earl William assembled at Lincluden the whole
freeholders and the oldest borderers, and required them upon oath to put in
1 Rotuli Scotic-e, vol. ii. pp. 20, 30, 38, 39. Rolls, vol. iii. pp. 81, G59.] In 1384 Douglas
- Wyntown'3 Cronj'kil, B. IX. c. iiii. ; received a further sum on behalf of Sir
Fordun, a Goodall, voL ii. p. 396. During Alexander Stewart, amounting to £35, 15s.
the same year Sir Archibald Douglas received. In 1391 he received a further sum, the amount
by order of King Robert the Second, a sum of of which is not stated, on account of a debt
£77, los. 7d. in payment or part payment of due to him by the king. — [Ihid. pp. 279,
a debt due by Sir Alexander Stewart of 673.]
Badenoch, the king's son, and the same "^ Registrum Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. p. 450.
amount in the following j'ear, though the note.
reason of the gift is not stated. [Exchequer * Rotuli Scoti;i-', vol. i. p. 957.
WARD EX AXD JUSTICIAR OX THE BORDERS. 337
writing the statutes and customs of the Marches in time of war, which had
been ordered to be kept in the days of " Elak Archibald of Douglas " and of
his son the fourth Earl. The borderers furnished the information desired,
and Earl William ordered the laws of the ^Marches to be duly recorded. The
document is both interesting and important, and is printed in the appendix
to the Scottish Acts of Parliament of the period. They were probably the
result of Sir Archibald's own experience. Most of the laws are general
regulations as to the conduct of the troops in action, the taking of prisoners
and dealing with them and their goods, lighting and responding to beacons, etc.^
Besides his office of warden, Sir Archibald Douglas acted as Justiciar for
the king. He was holding court as such at Dumfries in July 1383, when,
among other suitors, appeared the cellarer of the abbey of Melrose, with a
charter in his hand and a petition on behalf of his fellow-monks. He read
the charter in court, which was a confirmation by King Eobert the Second of
a grant in 1326 by King Eobert the Bnice to the monks of ]\Ielrose, relieving
them and their possessions in Dumfriesshire from all taxes, and begged Sir
Archibald Douglas to direct his officers to permit the enjoyment of this
privilege. Sir Archibald inquired from the barons of the country who
attended as assessors, if there was any objection to the privilege ; and there
being none offered, the lord of Galloway, turning to the barons, said, " As
you have nothing to propose to the contrary, neither have I, nor do I wish
at present to say aught in opposition. My will is, that my servants do not
presume to do aught unjustly in the premises." ^
On the expiry of the truce at Candlemas 1384, or a few days before its
close, Sir Archibald Douglas was again in the field. Accompanied by the
two other Scottish wardens, the Earls of Douglas and March, he suddenly
presented himself and his host before the castle of Lochraaben, then held by
* Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, - Liber de Melros, vol. ii. pp. 455-457.
vol. i. pp. 714-71G. 14th July 1383.
VOL. I. 2 U
338 SII! ARCHIBALD DOUGLAS, THIRD EARL OF DOUGLAS.
the English, and demanded its surrender. Sir Archibald is expressly described
as the promoter of the expedition.^ The castle of Lochmaben lay within his
jurisdiction, and though in 1364 he had entered into an agi'eement with the
English custodier of the castle, which apparently had been obsei-ved,- he now,
on the conclusion of the truce, was moved by other considerations. His own
Galwegian vassals, it is said, complained of the great damage done them by
the English castellans of Lochmaben, and being informed that the castle was
altogether destitute of defenders and of provisions. Sir Archibald Douglas
besieged it. The castellan, astounded by the suddenness of the attack, and
alarmed by the weakness of his garrison and scarcity of supplies, sent to the
English wardens to come speedily to his succour. They advised him to hold
the castle for eight days, either by truce with the Scots or otherwise, and if
on the ninth day he did not receive aid, he should defend himself tlie best
way he could. He then informed the Scots that within eight days he would
be succoured or surrender the castle, receiving assurance of life and limb.
Sir Archibald Douglas and his comrades desisted from the assault, but
remained on the alert in the neighbourhood of the fortress imtil the ninth
day, notwithstanding very stormy weather. On that day, the -ith of Eebruary,
no succours arriving, the Scots took the castle and razed it to the ground.^
Sir Archibald Douglas is not named as taking part with his kinsman, the
Earl of Douglas, in his other military expeditions, but his diplomatic talents
were employed in negotiating a truce between Scotland and England, to last
from July 1384 till the following October.-* The commissioners of both
^ The movements of Sir Archibald Dou- near it ten days or more,
glas and his brother wardens must have been - Agreement made 'Jith August 1304;
remarkably prompt. Sir Archibald and the renewed and ratiQed by English king, TJth
Earl of Douglas were with the king at Perth !March l;>73. Eotuli Scotite, vol. L p. 957.
on 18th January 1384. — [Chai-ters of Holy- ^ Wyntown, B. ix. c. v. ; Forduu, a Goud-
rood, p. 100.] Lochmaben surrendered, it all, vol. ii. p. 397.
is said, on 4th February, and the Scots lay ^ Fiutuli Scotite, vol. ii. p. 64.
CUSTOMS OF THE GALWEGIAXS, 1384. 339
kingdoms met in the church of Ayton, on the 7th of July, but beyond the
agreement made, their labours were of no special interest.
A few months later Sir Archibald Douglas was present in the Parliament
held at Holyrood in November 1384, which bestowed upon the Earl of
Carrick power to reform the northern portions of the kingdom, which, owing
to the turbulence of the chiefs, were almost in a state of anarchy. Bands of
plunderers or kathrrans traversed the country, and committed all manner of
crimes. The Parliament passed various Acts with a view to enforce order,
and those nobles who governed districts which claimed special laws or
privileges, expressed their willingness to aid in the general repression of
crime. Galloway, from a very early period, had possessed special laws,
but Sir Archibald Douglas promised to omit all delays and excuses usually
made, and to accelerate justice within his lordship for a specified time,
reserving, however, certain privileges of the Gahvegian law, and protesting
for the free use of his right and the law in question.
The special right here claimed may refer to the settlement of disputes by
wager of battle, a custom which prevailed in Galloway from the time of
King William the Lion. The judges of Galloway then enacted that no
Galloway man should have cisiiet (or trial by inquest) unless he refuse the
law of Galloway and crave visnet ; and they fixed the fine to be paid by any
Galloway man convicted of crime either by battle or some other way, and
the provisions for the proper conduct of the ordeal by duel.^ A change
took place about 1324, when King Pobert Bruce granted to the chieftains
and men of Galloway to be tried by an assize, instead of purging themselves
according to the old laws of Galloway.- In 1426 the special privileges of
that district were abolished by an Act of Parliament, which provided that
^ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, - Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland,
vol. i. pp. 378, 747 ; Robertson's Scotland vol. L p. 4S2.
under her Early Kings, vol. i. p. 2S4, note.
340 ,S7A' ARCHIBALD DOUGLAS, THIRD EARL OF DOUGLAS.
the king's lieges should be governed by the laws of the realm only, and not
by special laws.^ But in the time of Sir Archibald Douglas the ancient
customs still prevailed, and in other parts of Scotland as well, if the clan duel
on the North Inch of Perth in 1396 be accepted as a genuine instance of
ordeal by battle.
In March 1385, Sir Archibald Douglas, as warden of the Marches,
entered into an agreement with the English warden, Henry Percy, Earl of
Northumberland, already noticed in the memoir of James, second Earl of
Douglas and ^Mar. Neither party seems to have been present at the final
adjustment of this affair, but their signets were afhxed in absence.'^ For his
expenses on days of truce, on which the wardens of both sides of the Border
met to arrange questions of compensation, Douglas received a grant from
King Eobert the Second.^
In the various expeditions which were made into England during the
visit of Sir John de Vienne and the other French knights to Scotland in
1385, Sir Archibald Douglas took a prominent part.* The story of the
French visit has already been told. In the Scottish raid into England which
ended so fatally at Otterburn, Sir Archibald Douglas also bore his share.
Along with the Earl of Fife, he commanded the main division of the Scottish
* Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland,
vol. ii. p. y.
'^ Rotuli Scotise, vol. ii. p, 73.
3 He was paid in 13SS the sum of £33, 6s.
8d., and the same sum a year later. [Ex-
chequer Rolls, voL iiL pp. 691, 239.] Between
1385 and 1387 Sir Archibald took by force
from the sheriff of Lanark, the castle wards
payable to the Crown from the baronies of
Crawford Lindsay and Cormannock, in
Lanarkshire, the first amounting to 20s. and
the second to 40s. yearly, and complaint was
made to the Crown, but the matter appears to
have been arranged amicably. [Ibid. pp. 162,
164.]
^ The sum which was paid to Sir Archi-
bald from the money brought by Sir John
de Vienne amounted to 5500 francs d'or.
[Fcedera, vol. vii. p. 485.] Sir Richard Mait-
land in his MS. History makes the raid on
Cockermouth an independent foray by Sir
Archibald Douglas, but this view is not cor-
roborated by other writers.
SUCCEEDS AS EARL OF DOUGLAS, 1388.
341
army, which iuvaded the western Marches of Enghiud. Little is recorded ol"
their movenients, except that they did much damage, burning and destroying
the country, until they received the news of OtterLurn, and the death of the
Earl of Douglas. Wyntown and Bower state that the Eatl of Fife and Sir
Archibald Douglas, during their expedition, were joined by the natural son
of the latter, Sir William Douglas of Xithsdale, who, with a small force, had
returned from an unsuccessful descent on Ireland. Bower adds that the new
comers were received with much cordiality, and he draws a vivid picture of
the vicissitudes of camp life, by representing the soldiers as laughing and
joking together over their successes, which was changed into grief and
mourning when next morning the unhappy news of the death of the Earl
(jf Douglas at Otterburn was made known.^
On the death of his kinsman, as already related. Sir Archibald Douglas,
by virtue of the resignation and regrant of 1342, succeeded to Douglasdale and
other Douglas estates, while the unentailed lands fell into other hands. Sir
Archibald did not at once assume the title of Earl of Douglas, but took
steps to complete his infeftment in the lands. His succession, however,
was disputed, but it was settled in a full Parliament held at Holy rood in
April 1389, eight months after the death of Earl James. The first article in
the minutes as preserved, refers to Sir Malcolm Drummond, husband of
Isabella Douglas, sister of Earl Janit-^i. Sir Malcolm had apparently claimed
a portion of the Douglas estates to which he had no right, and had procured
from Chancery a brief for seising him in the lands of Selkirk Forest. This
was declared wholly null and void, and the Chancellor was censured for
issuing the letters to Sir Malcohn.-
A few days later Sir Archibald Douglas presented in Parliament a royal
charter on his own behalf, which made it evident that Douglasdale, the
' Wyntown s Cronykil, B. ix. c. viii. ; For- - Acts of the Parliaments of .Scotland,
ilun, a Gooilall, vol. ii. p. 404. vol. i. p. 557.
342 SlI! ARCHIBALD DOUGLAS, TIJIIU) EAliL OF DOUGLAS.
Forest of Selkirk, and other lauds named, fell to Sir Archibald by entail. It
was then declared that Sir Archibald Douglas was legally infeft, and that
claimants of the lands should proceed by ordinary process of law. But all
sasines given in violation of that charter were declared, by decree of Par-
liament, utterly void and powerless against Sir Archibald and his heirs.^
After the capture of the two young Percys at Otterburn, the Earl Marshal
of England had been made warden of the Englisli ]\Iarches. On taking office,
he reproached the English borderers for allowing the Scots, though fewer in
number, to gain a victory at Otterburn, and he boasted of what he would do
in similar circumstances. His vauntings were reported in Scotland, and in
order to give the Marshal an opportunity of making his words good, Eobert,
Earl of Eife and Menteith, then Guardian of Scotland, accompanied by Sir
Archibald Douglas, marched a considerable force into England. Sir Richard
Maitland, after remarking that Piobert, Earl of Fife, " luifit this Erie sa weiil
that thai never syuerit cumpanye fra other during the tyme of his govern-
ment," says that Fife, by the advice of Douglas, entered England with a
large army, to test the Earl ^Marshal's boasting, either by single combat or set
battle. A challenge to single combat, either with the Earl of Fife or Sir
Archibald Douglas, was sent to him, but the Marshal refused both champious.'-
The Marshal, according to Bower, also decUned a pitched battle, on the plea
that he dared not without orders risk the liegemen of his king. This pro-
voked the ridicule of the Scots, who took advantage of his inactivity to
ravage and pillage the country before returning to their own land.^ An Eng-
lish historian, referring to this inroad, exculpates the Earl IMarshal on the
ground that his forces were unequal to those of the Scots, he having only
five hundred lances, while his challengers numbered thirty thousand.'* This
' Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, -^ Wyntown, B. ix. c. L\. ; Fordun, a Goodall,
voL L pp. 557, 558. vol. ii. p. 414.
- MS. History at Hamilton Palace. * Walsingham, edition 1574, p. 368.
APPEALED TO BY FRENCH ENVOYS FOR PEACE, l;3S9. 34.]
invasion, though the date is not recorded, seems to have taken place in tlic
summer of 1389.^
In June of the same year a truce was agreed upon between P:ngland and
France and their allies, to last for three years. As this truce affected Scot-
land, two envoys were despatched from France to the Scottish Court, wlio
probably arrived there about the middle or end of July.^ With them came also
messengers from tlie ICing of England to ascertain the views of King Robert
the Second, and, if necessary, to receive his oath for observance of the truce.
An incident which occurred on the arrival of the envoys in Scotland seems
to mark the peculiar esteem in which Sir Archibald, now Earl of Douglas,^
was held by the English. The Scottish Iving and Court were then reskling
at Dunfermline, where the envoys also found lodging. The Frenchmen were
received by King liobert with great friendliness and honour, but the English
ambassadors found less favour, at least among the people, who murmured,
and the Scots, it is said, yearned for war. Upon this the Englishmen applied
to Sir Archibald Douglas, and, urging the good of peace, begged that he
would use his influence with i^i^ king to join the truce. Sir Archibald,
liowever, declined, saying, that such a matter was not within his province,
but belonged only to the king and the governor, and he courteously sent
tliem to the latter, who in turn referred them to the king. To the royal
presence, therefore, the Englishmen went, in company with the French
envoys, by whose influence the afiair was satisfactorily concluded.-*
' 'Hie Earl Marshal was appointed wanleii
on 8th March 13S9, to take office from the Ist
•fiine following.
- Truce, ISth June 1.3S9. Safe-conducts
fur French and English ambassadors to Scot-
land, ,3d .July. Ftedera, vol. viL pp. 622-6.31.
^ Sir Archibald witnesses a charter on 12th
August 1.3S9 at Dunfermline, and a montli
later at Kilwinning, as Earl of Douglas and
lord of Galloway. Antiquities of Aberdeen,
etc., vol. ii. p. 31 ; vol. iii. p. 296.
* Wyntown, B. ix. c. ix. ; Fordun, a Goodall,
vol. ii. p. 415. The lord of Dalkeith, in 1.390,
executed an elaborate will, settling Lis affairs.
a will which he repeated with some alterations
two years later, though he long survived borii
;-t4 SIR ARCHIBALD DOUGLAS, THIl'D EARL OF DOUGLAS.
The peace which was begun in 1389 was settled on a more enduring basis
in 1391, in terms of the treaty with France, arranged by Sir Archibahl
Douglas himself in 1371, and was prolonged by successive renewals until
1399. During this interval of rest, the Earl of Douglas figures only occa-
sionally on the page of history. On one of these occasions, the Earl performed
a duty which sometimes devolved on the wardens of the Marches — acting as
umpire at a duel between representatives of both kingdoms. Such encounters
sometimes attracted considerable attention, as, in a similar case in 1380, when
a duel was fought between Eobert Crrant, a Scotchman, and Tlioiuas de
r Strother, an Englishman, on a day fixed by the famous John of Gaunt,
Duke of Lancaster.^ In the present case, the Englishman, who was also
named Thomas Strothers, was the challenger, and the defender was a
Scotchman, named William Inglis. The duel took place at Eulehaugh,
within the barony of Bedrule, belonging to the Earl of Douglas, and he
and the English warden, the Earl of Northumberland, were judges (jf the
testaments, dying only in 1420. In his first
testament, Sir James Douglas appointed the
Earl of Douglas and others curators to his
children, a provision omitted in the second will.
But, under the earlier document, the Earl of
Douglas was to receive the following jewels :
A gold ring, in which was a ruby placed " end-
lang," bearing the inscription, Vertu ne pus
aitnir coiiterpois ; a sapphire which purified
the blood, and had a stalk of gold ; and
the donor's second best gilt cup, ■with a
cover, weighing £8. In the second wiU
the sapphire is bequeathed to the testator's
oldest son James. In both testaments, how-
ever, the Earl is named as one of the chief
executors, and £40 was left to those who
intromitted with the estate. [Kegistium
Honoris de Morton, vol. ii. pp. 170-I7G,
179-186.] At a later date, the Earl of
Douglas entered into a special arrangement
with the lord of Dalkeith and his son, Sir
James Douglas, as to certain lands within the
lordship of Galloway. The lord of Dalkeith,
in settling his aiTairs, had requested permis-
sion to infeft his son in the barony of Preston
and a foiiy merk land within the barouy of
Buittle, now in possession of the Earl, who
duly granted his special leave to carry out
the infeftment, reserving the ward or relief
of the lands in qiiestion, [Ibid. p. 190. This
document was granted by the Earl at Ed\ -
bredshiels, on 29th May 1393.]
• Kotuli Scotia', vol. iu p. 29.
A BORDER CONFERENCE, 1398.
345
combat, in which the English champion Mas slain.^ In the year 1395 also
the sum of £100 was paid to the Earl of Douglas for his expenses regardu.;
a diet of truce to be held on the Marches, which was not held.^ The Earl's
activity on the Borders, and especially his vigilance over certain parts, seems
to have given much ofience to the English warden. Wyntown relates that in
an important meeting at Haudenstank between Prince David, Earl of Carriek
and John, Duke of Lancaster, in March 1398, at which the Earl of Douglas
and young Percy were present, Percy complained that Douglas had fixed\is
headquarters in Jedburgh Forest, and prayed the Earl of Carriek that the
forest might be given up to himself, as he had been wont to quarter there
But the prince promptly repHed he would not, for a thousand pounds bid
the Earl of Douglas leave the forest. It was the territory of the king of
Scotland, and Douglas did right to fix his residence there.^
About the same time a question of possession arose as to four oxgates of
land within and without the town of Dunipace, within the Earl's 'baron^•
of Harbertshire, in Stirlingshire, which were claimed both by the abbey of
Cambuskenneth and John Keil^ At the instigation of tlie latter, the Earl of
Douglas for some time displaced the abbot and convent in their occupancy,
but afterwards, on inspection of the charters produced by them, he, as over-
lord, expelled Keir, and caused the monks to be reinstated in their property/
' ForJun, a GoodaU, vol. ii. p. 420 ; Liber
Pluscardensis, vol I p. 3.32.
- Exchequer Rolls, vol. iii. p. 371.
^ Wyntow-a'3 CronykO, B. ix. c. xviii.
Wyntown is the only writer who tells this
story. The meeting took place, as he de-
scribes, at Haudenstank [F^dera, vol viii.
p. 35], but the E;irl of Douglas and Percy
are not referred to as parties to the indenture
then made. They might, however, be present.
* Thirty years later the question was re-
VOL. r.
opened by John Keir's son, and the Abbot of
Cambuskenneth appeared in presence of a
number of persons in the cemetery of the
church of Dunipace, and declared what had
formerly taken place. He stated that the
sasine in favour of the abbey was missing, and
as he was afraid of a dispute with John Keir,
younger, though the monks had peaceably
held the land for twenty-six years, he beu'ged
that if any bystanders were present at the
giving of sasine, they would, for charity's
2X .
346 SlJi ARCHIBALD DOUGLAS, THIRD EARL OF DOUGLAS.
Tlie Earl's friendliness to the Church must have been widely known. A
few years before tliis he received an urgent letter from the prior of Durham,
begging his assistance in inducting, and maintaining Mr. Jolni Aclyf their
presentee as prior of Goldingham in opposition to a rival. In this epistle the
Earl's zeal for the Church is specially referred to.^
In April 1398, the title of Duke was for the first time introduced into
Scotland, when King Piobert the Third conferred upon his son. Prince David,
the title of Duke of Rothesay, and upon his brother, the Earl of Fife and
^lenteith, the title of Duke of Albany. The king, it is said, desired also to
create the Earl of Douglas a duke, but he declined to accept the dignity. The
historians nearest his own day, Wyntown and Bower, do not refer to the fact,
but a somewhat later author, who wrote about 1461, records the incident. He
states that Earl Archibald refused the dignity on the ground that his lordship
was not sufficiently valuable to bear the title of duke, and when the heralds
cried out to him, " Schir Duk, Schir Duk," he replied, saying, " Schir Drak,
Schir Drak," and would accept only the title of earl.- Godscroft states that
Douglas "refused the title of duke as a novelty and an empty title, not
worthy of the accepting, seeing it was neither bestowed for merit nor service
done, nor had any real advantage in it, save an airy show of appearing
honoui- to please the humour of ambitious minds, of which he was none."'^
In tlie beginning of 1399, the Scottish Parliament, assembled at Perth,
passed what may be called a vote of censure upon the king and his officers for
sake, give their evidence. Six persons re- heritable right, to the abbey alone. [21st
sponded to the appeal, and stated that they January 1420-7. Cartulary of Cambusken-
were present at the infeftment, and knew neth, Grampian Club. 1872, pp. 1 14-11 G.]
that the abbot had possessed the lands for ^ Priory of Coldingham, Surtees Societ\,
the time specified. To this testimony two 1S41, pp. 67, 68. 12th March 1391.
witnesses added that before the sasine was - Liber Pluscardensis, edition 1877, voL i.
given, they heard the Earl of Douglas say p. .'J.31.
that neither he nor any one else had any ^ History of Houses of Douglas and Angus,
right to the lands, but that they belonged, by edition 1644, pp. Ill, 112.
IIIH DEATH AND BURIAL.
347
misgovemmeut, and the young Duke of Eotliesay was appointed lieutenant
of the kingdom for three years, under the direction of a special council, of
which the Earl of Douglas was a member. He was also a member of a
special committee appointed to decide as to the maintenance of peace with
other countries.! The third Earl of Douglas was also present in the Parlia-
ment held in Xovember 1399."-
In the following year, which was the last of his life, little or nothing
is recorded of his movements.^ No notice is taken of him by any historian
in connection with the invasion of Scotland by King Henry the Fourth of
England in August 1400; and Bower's narrative, if read literally, would
imply that the Earl's death preceded the English invasion. Wyntown.
however, places the invasion firsf Other authors have stated the Earl's
decease in Febmary 1401, but this is contradicted by charter evidence.^
The true date appears to be that stated in a MS. chronicle written in the
begmning of the sixteenth century, which records that Black Archibald,
Earl of Douglas, died at Thrieve on Christmas Eve 1400, and was buried
at Bothwell.6
One of the latest acts of the Earl, which somewhat quaHfies Plume of
Godscroft's statement as to his unambitious character, was to secure the
* Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland,
vol. i. pp. 572, 573.
2 Ihld. p. 574.
^ He was at Both well in the month of
May, and there granted a charter to William
Crawford of the lands of Douglas-ferme, on
the bank of the Clyde, to the east of the
town of Eiitherglen. [Charter, dated 21st
May 1400; Transumpt, dated 9th July 1454,
in General llegister House, Edinburgh.] He
also witnessed two royal charters, one at
Linlithgow on 4th June, and the other at
Renfrew on 5th October 1400. [Antiquities
of Aberdeen and Banff, vol. i. p. 290 ; vol. iii.
p. 363.]
* VVyntown, B. ix. c. xxi. ; Fordun, a
Goodall, vol. ii. p. 429.
•^ Charter by Joanna, widow of the third
Earl of Douglas, to her son, the fourth Earl,
before 9th Februarj- 1401, printed in "The
Swintons of that Ilk," 1SS3, App. Xos. x.
and XI.
^ Gray's Ms. Chronicle, Advocates' Library,
quoted in Mr. Eiddell's "Stewartiana," p. 97.
348 SIR ARCHIBALD DOUGLAS, THIRD EARL OF DOUGLAS.
marriage of his daughter, :Mary, with the Duke of Rothesay, the young
Prince of Scotland. Bower narrates that the Duke had been betroUied
to Elizabeth, the daughter of George, Earl of :\rarch, who had paid a con-
siderable sum as her dowry. But tlie Earl of Douglas, taking advantage of
the fact that this marriage was contracted without the consent uf the three
estates, at the suggestion of the King's council, offered a larger sum of money,
and the king consented that his son should many the Earl's daughter.
According to Sir Richard :\Iaitland, the Earl of Douglas was covetous of a
royal alliance, and desirous to have his family honoured by a union with the
king's blood ; and, therefore, under the pretext of lack of due ceremony, made
impediment, and having won over the council, offered, as stated, a larger
dowry with his own daughter.^ The prince was then betrothed to :Maiy
Douglas, and the marriage was solemnised within the church of Bothwell,
during the last year of the Earl's life. Between this second betrothal of tlie
prince and the marriage, the Earl of March went to the king and demanded
the fulfilment of the first contract, or, at least, that the dowry should be
repaid. The king's reply was not satisfactory, and the Earl, enraged beyond
bounds, left the kingdom, and joined the king of England.- The latter's
invasion of Scotland was probably instigated by March.
Archibald, third Earl of Douglas, must have been upwards of seventy
years old when he died, and it was probably consciousness of his approaching
end which led to his additional benefactions to the Church. The Colle^-e of
Lincluden, in the same neighbourhood as the hospital at Holywood, also
received the Earl's favour, but at what date is not on record. This beautiful
* MS. History at Hamilton Palace.
2 Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 428. It
would appear that so early as 139.3 an at-
tempt -was made by the English king to under-
mine the allegiance of both the Earls of March
and Douglas. Ambassadors were sent to treat
with the Earl of March as to service to be
done by him during his life for the English
king, and similar letters were intended for
Douglas ; but no results apparently followed
at that time. [Fredera, vol. vii. p. 755.]
LINCLUDEX AXD SWEET-HEART ABBEYS.
340
place, sitmited within the EaiTs own lordship of Galloway, is said to have
been founded by an ancient lord of that district, and was, at least so early as
1296, occupied as a nunnery of Uenedictine or Black nuns. At a later dattj
the nuns were removed by Earl Archibald, who erected the building into a
collegiate establishment, consisting of a provostry and twelve canons. At
the lleformation, it is said, the building contained a provost, eight preben-
daries, twenty-four beadsmen, and a cha})lain. The prebendaries received
forty-five merks yearly, and the beadsmen among them one hundred and
ninety-two bolls of oatmeal and bear, with fire and clothing.^
The remains of the building, as described by Grose and other antiquaries,
indicate its ancient splendour. The choir, in particular, was finished in the
finest style of the fl.orid Gothic. The roof was treble, in the manner of that
of King's College at Cambridge, and the trusses from which the ribbed arch-
work sprung were covered with coats of arms.- In regard to the later history
of the building, Grose states that the Earls of Douglas expended large sums
in ornamenting tliis place, which he asserts was their favourite residence as
wardens of the "West IMarches. The armorial bearings of Archibald, third
Earl of Douglas, and his wife, Joanna ^Sloray, and many other armorial shields,
are still to be seen in various portions of the ruins of the abbey.
Archibald, third Earl of Douglas, is also in one document referred to as
the founder and reformer of Sweet-heart Abbey or Xew Abbey, in the
parish of New Abbey, also w-ithin the lordship of Galloway. His name is
not usually associated with this religious house, and he certainly was not the
original founder, as the abbey was first endowed by Devorgilla Baliol. The
building, however, had suffered from fire and pillage, and was apparently
restored by Sir Archibald Douglas, perhaps not long after he became lord of
1 Lands and their Owners in Galloway, vol. v. p. 140.
- Pennant's Tour in Scotland, 1774, p. 104; Grose's Antiquities of Scotland, vol.
pp. 171, 174.
350 SIR ARCHIBALD DOUGLAS, THIRD EARL OF DOUGLAS.
Galloway.^ The active interest which tlie lord of Galloway took iu thi.s
monastery, after his accession to the honours and estates of Douglas, is also
evinced by the conveyance to the monks of Sweet-lieart of his right as patron
of the church. The gift was made only three years Lefore his death for the
welfare of his own soul and those of Joanna his spouse, Archibald and James
their sons, and also on behalf of the Earl's father, Sir James Douglas, and of
the Earl's mother, whose name is not given.-
In the year following this grant, the Earl founded the collegiate church
of Bothwell, fur a provost and eight prebendaries. Upon this establisli-
ment, erected about a mile from his own residence of Bothwell Castle, the
Earl bestowed considerable property, including the tithes of the parish, the
church lands, the lands of Osberniston, in the barony of Bothwell, and Xether
Urd in Peeblesshire, with its mill.^ About the same time probably, the
Earl built what formed the choir of the college, and afterwards the old
parish church of Bothwell, only disused for public worship in 1828. This
building is described, about 1720, as a very stately structure, not very large,
but old Gothic work, an arched roof and very fine workmanship. The
Douglas arms, quartered with what the writer describes as the royal arms,
^ Charter by Thomas, Bishop of Galloway,
dated 16th July 13S1, bestowing upon the
monks the parish church of St. Colmanel of
Buittle, on account of their urgent need and
notorious poverty from the smallness of their
rents and the oppression of their monastery,
which had been totally consumed by light-
ning, and suffered much in the Border war-
fare. The patronage of the rectory, then
vacant, was in the hands of William, Earl of
Douglas aud Mar, as lord of the regality of
Buittle, and Archibald, lord of Galloway,
founder and reformer of the monastery, had
earnestly besought the bishop's predecessor,
Adam (who probably died before 1372). and
now Bishop Thomas, to grant the church.
[The Book of Carlaverock, by William Fraser.
vol. ii. pp. 426, 427.]
- The Book of Carlaverock, ^d supra. Both
grants were confirmed by Benedict xiii. on
nth January 189S.
3 Founded lOth October 1398. Robert-
son's Index, p. 145, Xo. 16 ; Statistical
Account of Lanarkshire, p. 7S9 ; Origuies
Parochiales, vol. i. p. 54.
&
t?:^|
"v.
7
-, /
DOUGLAS AND MORAY ARMORIAL STONES,
AT BOTHWELL CASTLE
ESTIMATES OF HIS CIIAKACTER. 351
but which probably represent the lion of Galloway, were cut in stone at the
south corner of the east window.^ The roof is arched and lofty, and presents
the most remarkable feature of the building. On the outside it is covered
with large flags of stone, resting on a mass of lime and stone which in the
centre is eleven feet in depth. The side walls are strengthened by strong
buttresses to support the weight of the roof."-
These numerous and extensive benefactions to the Church may have
inspired the monkish historians of his time, wdien they recorded his death,
to bestow upon the Earl a high character. Wyutown, in referring to the
Earl's death, mentions also his founding of Bothwell, and describes him as a
lurd of great bounty, of steadfastness and clear loyalty, of good devotion, and
bearing a high character for justice.^ Bower follows in the same strain. In
tlie same year, 1400, he says, died Sir Archibald, first of that name, Earl of
Douglas, called the Grim or Terrible, who, in worldly prudence, bravery and
boldness, wealth and possessions, surpassed other Scots of his time. He was
also very just, though rigorous, in his judgments, and faithful to his promises.
Wherever he went he was surrounded by a great company of knights and
brave men. He held the servants of the Church in great honour, and was not
bui'densome to monasteries or churches, but wherever he spent a night in a
monastery, it pleased him to pay a large sum for the food supplied to him.^
In another place the same historian, referring to the EaiTs death, and the
decease, a few months later, of Queen Annabella and the Bishop of St.
Andrews, mourns that with them departed the glory, honour, and honesty of
1 Description of Bothwell Parish, in Hamil- the dexter half of the shield. Probably this
ton's Lanark, Maitland Club, 1831, \>. 132. is the device referred to. Seal attached to
It is donbtful if the amis in question were charter, dated 26th July 1393. [The Scotts
tjuartered. In a seal used by the third Earl of Buccleuch, by William Eraser, vol. ii. p. 17.]
of Douglas at this time, the arms of Douglas - Statistical Account, p. 789.
and the lion of GaUoway ai-e found imi)aled, ' Wyutown's Cronykil, B. ix. c. .xxi.
the latter on the sinister, and the former on * Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 429.
352 SIR ARCIIinALI) DOUGLAS, THIRD EARL OF DOUGLAS.
Scotland.^ The writer of the Book of Pluscardeu also states that the Eail
was in his own day called a just and true man, and a famous soldier, faithful
and wise for king and kingdoni.-
As already stated, Archibald, third Earl of Douglas, married Joanna
Moray, heiress of Bothwell. The date of the marriage is not known with
certainty. A dispensation was granted by Pope Innocent Sixth, on 23d July
1362, for the marriage of Sir Archibald Douglas, knight, and Johanna of
Moray, who is described as a widow, and the relict of the late Sir Thomas
of ]\Ioray.^ This description conflicts with all evidence on the subject of
Sir Thomas Moray's descent, and with the fact that Joanna of Moray calls
herself and is styled lady of Bothwell. She was the heiress of Sir Thomas,
the younger son of Sir Andrew Moray, lord of Bothwell, and Christian
Bruce, and the heir both of his father and of his elder brother. Sir John
Moray, who died without issue.^ Sir Thomas Moray of Bothwell, in 1357,
became a hostage for King David the Second on that king's release, and
died in England. A chronicle written in the sixteenth century assigns 13GG
as the year of his death, and adds that Sir Archibald Douglas espoused his
daughter and heiress after her father's death, marrying her from England,
on account of which he first oflered duel with five Englishmen.-'^
^ Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 431.
- Liber Pluscardensis, ed. 1877, vol. i. p. 340.
3 Theiner's Vetera Moaumenta, p. 318,
No. DCXLVII.
* Cf. Registruni MoraAnense, pp. 296, 298,
300.
* Gray's MS. Chronicle, quoted in Riddell'a
" Stewartiana," p. 97. The date of Moray's
death has been variously stated, Wyntown
and Bower assigning it to the year 13G1. He
probably died in that year, as a safe-conduct
in January 13G3 to one of his attendants,
Duncan Wallace, refers to him as lately a
hostage, while Wallace was to pay his debts.
[Uotuli Scotiaj, vol. i. p. S6S. ] This Duncan
Wallace was the lord of Sundrum, and
married Eleanor Douglas, Countess of Carrie k ;
in 1368 he founded a chaplainry for tht-
benefit, inter alios, of the deceased Sir Tlioma.s
Moray, lord of Bothwell. [Registrum Epi-
scopatus Glasguensis, p. 279.] This would
agree with the dispensation, which describes
Moray as deceased, though otherwise the Papal
writ appears to be erroneous.
HIS COUSTESS AND CHILDREX.
353
By his marriai^'e with Joanna Moray, Sir Archibald Douglas became
possessed of Bothwell and large possessions in the north of Scotland. Sir
Archibald may also have exercised his wife's hereditary office of Panitarius
of Scotland. He is nowhere so described, but the cups sculptured on
the canopy of the tomb of his daughter-in-law in Lincluden College favour
this supposition. Joanna, Countess of Douglas, survived her husband. In
February 1401, as Countess of Douglas, Lady of Galloway and Bothwell,
she granted to her eldest son, Archibald, Earl of Douglas, her lands of
Cranshaws in Berwickshire in exchange for the lands of Halls of Airth in
Stirlingshire.^ A few months later, in July of the same year, she, for the
welfare of her deceased husband's soul, granted to the church of Glasgow
three stones of wax, to be levied yearly from the barony of Bothwell, for
maintaining the lights of the church.- In January 1403, after the battle
of Homildon, King Henry the Fourth of England went through the form of
granting to Henry Percy, Earl of Xorthumberland, all the lands which the
Earl of Douglas and his mother Joanna held in the south of Scotland.^
Joanna, Countess of Douglas, was therefore probably alive at that date, but
may have deceased before 20th August 1409, when her lands of Halls of
Airth were bestowed by her sou the Earl on Sir "William Crawford of Ferm.*
Archibald, third Earl of Douglas, and Joanna his wife, had three children,
two sons and a daughter. The sons were —
1. Archibald, who succeeded his father as fourth Earl of Douglas, and was
created Duke of Touraine in France. Of him a memoir follows.
1 Charter dated at Bothwell about Oth
February 1400-1. "The Swintons of that
Ilk," 1SS3, App. X. and xi.
■^ Dated at Bothwell Sth July 1401. A note
by Father Innes, who saw the original charter
before 1738, states that the seal was then
attached, almost whole, showing upon a
VOL. I.
double shield crowned (1) a man's heart, and
three stars in the upper part of shield. The
second (coat of arms) obliterated. [Registrum
Episcopatus Glasguensis, pp. cxxxvi, ,':iOO.]
3 Rotuli ScotiiP, vol. ii. p. 163.
* Original Charter in General Register
House, Edinburgh.
2 Y
354 SIR ARCHIBALD DOUGLAS, THIRD EARL OF DOUGLAS.
2. James, who became, about 1440, seventh Earl of Douglas. His histoiA-
is narrated in a subsequent memoir.
The daughter's name was Mary or Marjory. She married, about 1400,
David, Duke of liothesay. Prince of Scotland, under circumstances already
related. After the Prince's death in 1402, his widow married, about 1403,
Sir Walter Haliburton, younger of Dirleton, afterwards Treasurer of Scotland.
The Duchess of Eothesay enjoyed, in right of her first husband, an annuity
of £640 apportioned on the customs of various burghs. This sum was paid
to herself between 1402 and 1403, and afterwards to her husband until the
year 1420, about which date the Duchess died.^
^ Exchequer Rolls, vol. iii. pp. 506, 591, as there is good reason for believing she was
et sseq. ; vol. iv. pp. clxxi, 2-343, passim. really a daughter of James, second Earl of
Another daughter, Eleanor or Ellinor, has Douglas and Mar, she has been referred to iai
been assigned to the third Earl of Douglas, but his memoir.
^lE WILLIAM DOUGLAS, LORD OF NITIISDALE.
355
SIR WILLIAM DOUGLAS, LORD OF NITHSDALE.
Archibald, third Earl of Douglas, had also a natural son "William, known
as lord of Nithsdale, who seems to have inherited so much of the prowess
of his father and grandfather, that his career, as narrated by the historians of
his own time, reads like a romance. The date of his birth is not known, but
he was married in 1387 to the Princess Egidia, one of the younger daughters
of King Piobert the Second. An annuity of £300 was secured to them on
their marriage, though Sir William Douglas is referred to as receiving one
or two payments before that date, under a grant dated in September 1384.^
In 1388 he received from his father a charter of the barony of Harbertshire
in the county of Stirling, whicli w'as duly confirmed by the king.-
Thougli his career was short, it was very brilliant. He first signalised
himself in the expeditions undertaken by the Scots and French in 1385,
under the leadership of his father and James, second Earl of Douglas. The
historians say that he was young, but excelled in manliness. Their descrip-
tion of his person shows that he inherited family characteristics. He
was swarthy, large-boned, though not overcharged with flesh ; his stature
approached the gigantic ; he was erect in his walk, valiant, courteous, and
amiable in his manner, faithful, and merry, and pleasant in company. He
was greatly feared by the English, as he was so strong that those whom
he struck with mace, sword, or lance, went down before him, however well
armed they might be. As an instance of his exploits, it is narrated that while
the Scoto-French army invested Carlisle, Sir William, almost unattended
save by a few of his household, burned the suburbs of that town. Standing
alone upon a bridge scarce two feet in width he fought with and slew the
bravest man in the place, and with his mace struck down two others scarcely
1 Excheciuer Rolls, vol. iii. pp. L34, 149, 69 1, et scq. ; Eegistrum Magni Sigilli, vol. i. p. 167.
2 Charter datetl Sth November 13SS, confirmed 16th May 13S9,in Crookston Charter-cheat.
356
SIB WILLIAM DOUGLAS, LORD OF NIT USD ALE.
inferior, all very well armed. Unhurt himself, he then ran to the aid of his
companions, who were skirmishing with the townsmen, and, by his fierce
onset speedily settled the contest. On another occasion, at the head of eight
hundred Scots, he conquered three thousand Englishmen in open battle,
of whom two hundred were slain, and five hundred carried captive to
Scotland.
These and similar deeds of daring commended Sir William to the notice
of King Eoljert the Second, and the king's daugliter Egidia, who is described
as of elegant form, and one of the most beautiful women of her time. So fair
was she, and her fame had so spread abroad, that the king of France sent
privately a skilful painter to take her portrait, intending to offer the damsel
his hand and heart. But hers were already disposed of ; for ere the painter
reached Scotland, Beauty had become the prize of Valour in the person of
Sir William Douglas, who received with his bride the territory of Nithsdale.
In the year following his marriage. Sir William Douglas, in retaliation
for raids made by the Irish on the coasts of Galloway, made a descent on
Ireland. He gathered a force of five hundred men, which landed at CarHng-
ford, and attacked the town. The townsmen, by the promise of a sum of
money, secured an armistice, of which they took advantage to send for aid
to Dundalk. Learning the small number of Scots, about eight hundi-ed
horsemen answered the summons, marched by night to Carlingford, and,
assisted by a sortie from the town, attacked the Scots. In the engagement,
however, the Scots, though surprised, were victorious, and took the town,
which they burned. They also captured the castle, and fifteen merchant
ships in the harbour. In returning to Scotland Sir William Douglas ravaged
the Isle of Man. He landed at Lochryan in Galloway, in time to join the
Scottish army under the Earl of Fife and Sir Archibald Douglas in their
invasion of Cumberland.^
^ Wyntowu's Cronykil, B. ix. caps. viL and viii. ; Forclun, a Goodall, voL ii. pp. 403, 404.
SIE WILLIAM DOUGLAS, LORD OF NITILSDALE.
357
A few years later the brilliant career of Sir William Douglas of Nithsdale
was cut short, it is said, by treachery. During the truce with England,
arran"-ed about the year 13S9, he passed over to Dantzic in Prussia, called
Spruce by the historians. There he was chosen Admiral of a fleet numbering
two hundred and forty vessels, appointed to sail from Dantzic against the
Saracens. This honour he owed to his knightly fame, which, above that of all
others there, was celebrated by the heralds at the table of the chief magistrate.
!Moved with envy at Sir William, it is said, an Englishman, Lord Cliftbrd,
hired ruffians to slay him. Another explanation of the act, however, has been
given, that on some former occasion Cliftbrd had challenged Douglas to single
combat. Before the appointed day Sir William went to France to procure a
stronger suit of armour, and during his absence Clifford endeavoured to sully
his reputation by reporting that he had fled, and dared not keep his appoint-
ment. Douglas, however, duly appeared at the place of combat on the day
named, but Clifford, afraid of his adversary's prowess, refused to meet him.
Being thus disgraced according to the rules of chivalry, Clifford hired a
band of assassins, who attacked and slew Douglas on the bridge of Dantzic.^
Godscroft also narrates this story, and adds that Sir William Douglas
was created " Duke of Spruce and Prince of Danskin " (Dantzic). But he
refers to no patent or other authority for these high creations. Godscroft
also states that accordiug to the report of many eye-witnesses there was a
gate in Dantzic which bore upon it the Douglas coat-of-arms engraven in
stone, but which had of late been rebuilt, and the monument lost. The
common opinion of his own day was, he says, that Dantzic, having been
takeu by infidels, was regained by Scotchmen, on account of which the Scots
had such privileges there that a part of the town was chiefly inhabited by
them, and called Little Scotland.^ Both Bower and Godscroft state that Sir
^ Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 416.
2 Houses of Douglas and Angus, edition 1644, pp. 110, 111.
358
SIR WILLIAM DOUGLAS, LORD OF NITIISDALE.
William Douglas was killed in or about the year 1390. But he was alive, if
not still in Scotland, in Martinmas of that year. His death probably touk
place in 1392, as he is said to liave drawn the greater part of the rents of the
burgh of Dumfries for that year.^
By his wife, the Princess Egidia, Sir "William Douglas had only one
daughter, Egidia. She married Henry St. Clair, Earl of Orkney, who was
made Panitarius of Scotland, and by him was mother of William, Earl of
Orkney, The marriage probably took place about 1407. On 17tli November
of that year, Archibald, fourth Earl of Douglas, granted the barony of Her-
bertshire, in the county of Stirling, to Henry, Earl of Orkney, and his spouse
Egidia, the niece of the granter. This charter was confirmed by Piobert, Duke
of Albany, three days later.^ William, Earl of Orkney, was the founder of
the Collegiate church of Pioslin, and became Chancellor of Scotland.
Egidia Douglas has usually been accounted by genealogists the only child
of Sir William Douglas of Nithsdale, but there is evidence which seems to
prove that he had a son, who inherited Nithsdale. The first notice of such
a person is in a safe-conduct for thirteen hostages of the fourth Earl of
Douglas to pass into England, of date 30th January 1406. There he is
styled William of Douglas of Nithsdale, chevalier, or knight. He is also
named in two similar documents of a later date, 1st November 1406 and
15th January 1407.^ On 2d February in the same year he witnessed a
charter by Archibald, fourth Earl of Douglas, and is described as the Earl's
nephew.* In the following year, under the same designation, he witnessed
two charters by the Earl, the first on 24th May, to William Johnstone, of the
lands of Drumgrey, in the barony of Aniisfield, Dumfriesshire, and the second
on 28th May to Sir Alexander Gordon, of lands in the barony of Balma-
1 Exchequer Rolls, vol. iii. pp. '281, 332.
- Vol. iii. of this work.
3 Eotuli Scotiaj, vol. ii. pp. 177, ISO, ISl.
* Registrum Honoris de jNIorton, vol. ii.
p. 204.
-y/i? WILL I A J/ DOUGLAS, LORD OF XITHSDALE.
359
clellan, in Galloway. About the same time he witnessed another charter
by the Earl at Wigtown, not dated, granting to Sir John Stewart of Girton
the lands of Barlay, in Galloway.^ These writs prove that Archibald, fourth
Earl of Douglas, had a nephew named Sir William Douglas of Nithsdale, a
knight. There are only two persons to whom the designation of the Earl's
nephew could be applied, William, a son of James, Lord of Balvauy,
afterwards the eighth Earl of Douglas, and William, a son of William, Lord
of Nithsdale. But William Douglas, afterwards eighth Earl, was, according
to Bower and others, only made a knight in 1430, and was then of tender
age." The conclusion therefore is that the William Douglas of Xithsdale
referred to as the Earl's nephew was a son of his brother, the famous Sir
William Douglas of Nithsdale. The Earl's nephew disappears from history
after the year 1408, and owing to his career being so brief, he may have
escaped the notice of historians. He probably died young, and apparently
without issue, as in 1438 Egidia Douglas, Countess of Orkney, was in pos-
session of Xithsdale, and made a protest before a general council against
the royal courts being held within her territory. It is probable that she
inherited the lordship from Sir William Douglas of Nithsdale, nephew to the
fourth Earl of Douglas, and evidently her own brother,
^ Vol. iii. of this work.
- Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 490 ; Liber Pluscardensis, vol. i. p. 376,
360
VII.— 2. AECHIBALD, FIEST DUKE OF TOUEAIXE, FOUETH
EAEL OF DOUGLAS, LOED OF GALLOWAY and ANNANDALE, Etc.
(SUENAMED TIXEMAN).
PEINCESS MAEGAEET STEWAET, his Duchess.
1400—1424.
A ECHIBALD, third Earl of Douglas, was succeeded in the earldom of
-^■*- Douglas, and the other extensive family possessions, by his eldest
lawful son, also named Archibald, who was distinguished from his two prede-
cessors of the same name, Archibald the Eegent, and his own father, by the
epithet Tineman,^ or Loseman, in allusion to the fact that, although he
uniformly displayed the bravery of his race, he lost several of the great
battles in which he was engaged. Yet, notwithstanding this want of success
in war, he was one of the most powerful of the Scottish nobles of his day,
wielding immense influence ; and he added largely to the possessions and
honours of the house of Douglas.
Archibald, fourth Earl of Douglas, was probably born in or about the
year 1372, and was the eldest surviving son of the marriage of his father and
Joanna Moray of Bothwell. During the lifetime of liis father he married
* Opinions differ as to whether this epithet
was applied to Archibald the Regent, or
Archibald the fourth Earl of Douglas.
Bower bestows it upon the former [Fordun,
i Goodall, vol ii. p. 310], and is supported
by Sir Richard Maitland of Lethington in his
MS. History, Godscroft disputes the propriety
of attributing it to the Regent, in respect
that while he lost but one battle, the fourth
Earl won very few. In applying the name
to the fourth Earl, Godscroft is followed by
later historians.
MARRIES THE PRIXCESS MARGARET, c. 1390.
IGl
the Princess Margaret Stewart, eldest daughter of King liobert the Third,
and on that occasion was provided by his fatlier in the lordship of Douglas,
and the regalities of the forest of Ettrick, Lauderdale, and Romanno, by a
charter of entail.^ This charter, which narrates the fact of the marriage, was
confirmed probably very soon after the accession of King Eobert the Third
in 1390. The marriage had previously been celebrated, and the arrange-
ments for it were made while the king was still Earl of Carrick.^
During the lifetime of his father the fourth Earl was styled Master of
Douglas. He was appointed by King Robert the Third, by letters under the
Great Seal, dated 4th June 1400, keeper of the castle of Edinburgh for life,
with an annual salaiy of two hundred merks, to be paid out of the customs of
Edinburgh.^ Along with his brother-in-law, the Duke of Rothesay, Lieutenant
of the kingdom, the Earl was in command of the castle, when two months later
it was besieged by King Henry the Fourth of England. For the relief of the
fortress, on that occasion, Robert, Duke of Albany, raised an army and
marched to within twelve miles of Edinburgh. There the Duke halted his
forces, and, aware that the garrison was well supplied, while the English host
was ill provisioned, he prudently declined an encounter which might have
ended in disaster, and awaited the course of events. These fully justified his
conduct, as the English king, finding his army starving, was compelled to
raise the siege and return to England.
Archibald, fourth Earl of Douglas, held the office of keeper of Edinburgh
Castle until his death. Personal residence on his part was not necessary,
and the actual oversight of the castle for the most part devolved on captains
or under-keepers.'* One of these under-wardens was Sir William Crawford
of Ferm, who signalised himself in his zeal for his master, during the Earl's
^ Robertson's Index, p. 142, Xo. 71.
- The Red Book of Menteith, by William
Fraaer, voL i. pp. 157, 158.
VOL. I.
2 Exchequer RoUs, vol. iii. p. 515.
* Ihkl. pp. 515, 545, 505, 591 ; vol. iv,
pp. 19, 42, 341, etc.
2 Z'
362
ARCHIBALD, FIRST DUKE OF TOURAINE, ETC.
absence in England, by seizing the custumars of Edinburgh and keeping
them in ward in the castle until they paid certain aiTears of salary and ctlier
sums due to the Earl since the battle of Homildon.^ For his praiseworthy
service in the onerous charge of keeping the castle of Edinburgh while the
Earl was detained in England, the Earl, in August 1409, bestowed upon
Crawford tlie lands of Halls of Airth and Heetoun of Airth.- During this
Earl's keepership there were considerable sums spent in repairing and
improving the castle.^
After the marriage of his sister. Lady Mary Douglas, to David, Duke of
Eothesay, and the departure of the Earl of IMarcli into England, in conse-
quence of the slight thrown by that marriage on the daughter of ^March,
Archibald, Master of Douglas, took possession of the castle of Dunbar. The
Earl of March, when he found refuge at the Court of Eling Henry the Fourth
of England, left his castle in the care of his sister's son. Sir Eobert Maitland,
who, either by agreement or through fear, handed it over, in the year 1400,
to the Master of Douglas. The extensive domains of ]\Iarch and Annandale
were at the same time attached by the Douglases. The Earl of ]\Iarch sent
messengers from England to remonstrate, and to receive back his castle, on
the ground that he was still a liege man of the king of Scotland, who had not
been forfeited in any way, and that he was only in England transacting some
business. The request was not entertained, and from that time March allied
himself with the English wardens of the Borders in making raids into Scot-
tish territory.*
Several petty incursions took place, and a larger expedition was planned,
^ Exchequer Rolls, vol. iv. p. 81.
^ Vol. iii of this work.
•^ In 1410, £70 were paid for repairs. Ex-
chequer Kolls, vol. iv. p. 116, et passim.
* By this conduct of the Earl of March, the
English gained a powerful auxiliary, and
King Henry the Fourth bestowed upon his
new ally the manor of Clipeston in Sherwood
Forest, with an annuity to himself and his son
Gavin of £40 each. [Fosdera, vol viii pp.
205, 212, 245.]
DEFEATS THE EXGLISH IN EAST LOTH I AX, 1400.
3G3
under the personal conduct of tlie Earl of March and Plenry Percy (Hotspur).
The invading force consisted of twelve tlionsand men, who about Candle-
mas, 1400, advanced unopposed as far as Popple, in Haddingtonshire, and
laying waste the comitry, directed their course towards Linton. The castle
of Hailes was twice assailed unsuccessfully, and the towns of Hailes,
Traprain, and ]\Iarkle, with their granges, were given to the flames.
Towards evening the invaders pitched their camps at Linton and Preston,
pui-posing to pass the night there, and to burn these places also in the morn-
ing. In the meantime Arcliibald, ]\Iaster of Douglas, whom the historian
here calls a high-spirited man (homo ad cor altum), summoning his men,
issued forth from the castle of Edinburgh, and with all haste marched
towards Linton. He roused the country as he went witli the sound of horn
and trumpet, thus increasing his forces, and before sunset he had arrived at
the hill of Pentrak. At his approach the English broke up their camp,
and fled in confusion, abandoning the spoils they had collected. All through
that " cruel night," says Bower, the Scots pursued the raiders, capturing
many of the fugitives in the woods, and iu the park of Cockburnspath.
The rest fled to Berwick, then in the hands of the English; but even
within the gates of that city they were chased and overthrown by the Scots.
The ^actors in retiring bore away from Berwick, as trophies, the lance and
banner of Sir Thomas Talbot.^
On the death of his father on 24th December UOO, Archibald, Master
of Douglas, succeeded to the honours and estates of Douglas as fourth
Earl. Next to the royal family itself, the house of Douglas was the most
influential and powerful in Scotland, with possessions which embraced a
large portion of the south country, and extending in detached form as far
north as the Moray Firth. In addition to these, the extensive lands of the
Earl of March, for a time at least, were in possession of Douglas, who
1 Fordun, a Goodall, voL ii. p. 429.
364
ARCHIBALD, FIRST DUKE OF TOURAINE, ETC.
assumed, with his other titles, that of lord of Duubar,^ and within a few-
weeks after his father's death was residing at Dunbar Castle, dealing with
the lands of the earldom of March as his own property.-
As warden of the Border Marches, an office he had held, even before his
father's death, the Earl of Douglas, in February 1401, addressed to King
Henry the Fourth a strong remonstrance and complaint as to the keeping of
truces on the Borders. Douglas, who styles himself lord of CJalloway and of
Dunbar, narrates at some length what had been done by himself and the Earl
of Northumberland towards the establishment of a truce. He maintained
that a truce had been finally an'anged at a meeting held on 14th October in
Yetholm kirk, and complained that the Earl of Northumberland had proved
a defaulter. Douglas therefore requested the king to send commissioners
with power to take cognisance of such defaults and amend them.^
King Henry the Fourth replied from Westminster on the 27th of the
same month, traversing in his answer the statements made by the Earl of
Douglas, and charged the Earl with refusing to concur in the proceedings
for a truce. Nor was that all ; for the king writes : " Shortly after the
departure of our Commissioners homewards, you in your own person, with
force, and arrayed for war with banner or pennon displayed, rode to our
towTi of Bamborough, and burned a great part of that town and neighbouring
places, as is said." He accordingly threw the blame of renewing hostilities
upon the Earl of Douglas, as having in his capacity of w^arden of the
Marches inflicted injuries upon the English borderers before any of the
^ Vol. iv. of this work, p. 62.
2 In February 1401, the Earl entered into
an agreement with his mother, Joanna Moray
of Bothwell, by which she exchanged the
lands of Cranshaws in Berwickshire for lands
in Stirlingshire. The lands of Cranshaws
were part of the earldom of March, and in
October 1401 were bestowed by Douglas on
Sir John Swinton, for his service, and as
many silver vessels as were worth 500 merks
Scots. [The Swintons of that Ilk, 1SS3,
pp. 32, xiv-xvii.]
^ Vol. iv. of this work, pp. 60-63.
THE DEATH OF ROTHESAY, 1402.
365
English wardens had invaded Scotland. The king of England, however,
agreed to send commissioners at the request of the Earl, and asked him to
send safe-conducts for four, whose names were given, and also to ascertain
the intentions of the king of Scotland and his council.^ It would appear
that Douglas in attending the meeting at Yetholm kirk, did so on the
understanding that the truce there made would be on the basis of an
agreement between him and the Earl of Northumberland in the previous
May. Wlien, therefore, he found that it was burdened with new conditions
on the side of the English, he declared his intention of holding the truce on
the former basis, and declined the new propositions. Corroborative testimony
of the attack by Douglas on Bamborough has not been discovered, and the
king of England merely asserts it on the strength of a report. The efibrts for
the prolongation of the truce proved unavailing, and hostilities between
England and Scotland were resumed in the following year.
During the interval there occurred in Scotland the imprisonment and tragic
death of the Duke of Rothesay. The episode is well known. The piince was
a young man of high talent, but unbridled passion, and to check his excesses
his father, the king, requested the Duke of Albany to place the prince under
aiTest for a time. The prince was seized on his way to St. Andrews, and con-
veyed to that place as a prisoner. After consultation with the king's council
at Culross, the Duke of Albany and Archibald, Earl of Douglas, proceeded to
St. Andrews, and removed the prince to the castle of Falkland, where, after
a short confinement, he died on 26th March 1402. His death was occasioned
by a deadly form of dysentery then raging, to which his former course of life
rendered him a ready victim. Humours, however, were spread abroad that foul
play had been resorted to by the Duke of Albany and the Earl of Douglas,
but these rumours were judicially investigated and declared to be groundless
by a decision of Parliament on 16th May 1402, which stated that the Duke
^ VoL iv. of this work, pp. 9-14.
366
ARCHIBALD, FIRST LUKE OF TOURAIXE, ETC.
of liothesay, arrested by the king's own commands, had departed this life b}-
divine providence, and not otherwise. The king further declared in the
Act of Parliament that his brother liobert, and his son-in-law Archibald,
were innocent and free from the charges of treason and from every charge
which might be imputed to them in connection with this event. He also
strictly forbade his subjects, without exception, to detract, by word or deed,
from the fair fame of the Duke of Albany and the Earl of Douglas.^
No reason has yet been shown for doul)ting that the restraint placed on
Rothesay was necessary for the welfare of the country, or for believing that
those who gave it effect had other motives than those which directed the
action of the king and his council. The share taken in the transaction by
Douglas, who can scarcely be conceived as favouring the alleged ambitious
views of Albany, goes far, despite all surmisings to the contrary, to establish
that neither Albany nor Douglas in any way contributed to the death of
one nearly related to them both. Douglas could have uo interest to injure
Rothesay, who stood to him in the close relation of brother-in-law by a
double tie, Rothesay being married to Douglas's sister Mary, while the wife
of Douglas was Rothesay's sister, Margaret. If Rothesay had survived the
king, his Duchess would have been queen of Scotland.-
Between the death of Rothesay and the acquittal of Albany and Douglas,
^ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland,
voL i. p. 582.
2 The Albany pillar in St. Giles' Church,
Edinburgh, has unfortunately been so much
associated with this event in the writings of
modem historians, that it has come to be
looked upon as a votive offering by the Duke
of Albany and the Earl of Douglas, whose
shields of arms are eugraved upon it, iu
atonement for their cniilt in the death of
Rothesay. But the association between the
two things is mere assumption. As the re-
cords of that church show, Albany, and pro-
bably also Douglas, were contributors to the
reparation of that edifice which was being car-
ried on in their day, and notliing was then
more common than that the armorial shields
of benefactors to churches should adorn the
buildings. In the same way, also, other por-
tions of St. Giles contain the armorial bear-
incrs of benefactors to that Church.
EXPEDITION INTO ENGLAND, UO:i.
oG;
war witli England had begun, the Scots being the aggressors. They were
roused by the incursions made by ]\Iarch and the Percys ; and though the
English had been defeated by the prompt action of the Earl of Douglas, the
Scots determined on further measures of retaliation. By the counsel and
with the assistance of Douglas, in conjunction, there is reason to believe,
with the Duke of Albany, the chief barons of Lothian, in the spring of
the year l-i02, arranged a series of invasions.^ The first expedition
into England was headed by Sir John Haliburton of Dirleton, and was
entirely successful. A certain time was appointed during which the invasion
was to begin and end, and by attending to this, Haliburton returned in
safety, and laden with spoils. But the second expedition, under the com-
mand of Patrick Hepburn, younger of Hailes, met with a complete defeat on
Nisbet-moor, in Pioxburghshire. The loss was so hea\y, that the chroniclers
say Lothian was in great part bereft of the flower of her chivalry.^
To avenge this defeat, the Earl of Douglas determined to invade England
in person. To aid the Earl the Duke of Albany sent his son ]\Iurdach
with a large following, and the Earls of Angus and IMoray. Douglas had
thus at his command about ten thousand men, with whom he entered
England, laying it waste once more as far as Newcastle, and then began to
retire. ^Meanwhile Henry Percy (Hotspur) and the Earl of March had
assembled an army equal in strength to that of the Scots, and threw
themselves in the way of the latter, near the village of Wooler. On the
advance of the English, Douglas posted his army in a dense phalanx on a
neighbouring hill, named Homildon, and awaited their onset. This was
^ Rymer'a Fcedera, vol. viii. p. 257. On
23d May 1402, King Henry iv, informed the
sheriffs of the Border countiea of the designs
of Albany and Douglas, and instructed them
to make such preparations as the necessities
of the case required.
- Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. pp. 432, 433.
The battle of Nisbet was fought on 22d June
1402. The Earl of March was the leader of
the Enslish forces.
3G8
ARCHIBALD, FIRST DUKE OF TOURAIXE, ETC.
a most unfortunate position, as Percy had a large contingent of archers
in his army, from whose shafts the hill afforded no shelter. Xot only
so, but within bow-shot of the Scots there were similar hillocks domi-
nating their position. Percy did not at first perceive his advantage, and
had already given orders to his cavalry to charge the Scottish army,
when ]\Iarch seized his bridle, and pointed out the easy way to Wctory
through his archers. His advice was followed, and the archers from the brow
of a neighbouring slope poured a deadly flight of arrows upon the unhappy
Scots. Many fell in their closely -packed ranks, and at last, unable to stand
the galling fire, the Scots began to break their lines and flee. Seeing tliis, says
the English historian Walsingham, the Earl of Douglas, lest he should seem tn
be shirking battle, seized a lance and bravely descended the hill at the head
of a large number of his followers for the purpose of attacking the archers at
close quarters. The archers accordingly slowly retired, maintaining their Are
the while so fiercely, that, according to the historian, armour and helmets
were penetrated, and spears and swords broken. The Earl of Douglas is
said to have worn a suit of armour which had cost tliree years' laboiu- to
make, and yet he was wounded in live places, including the loss of an eye.
The rest of the Scots who did not descend the hill with their leader fled in the
other direction, in the vain hope of escaping from the death-dealing arrows,
but could not thus secure safety, as flight seemed worse than remaining where
they were. No fewer than five hundred were drowned in attempting to cross
the Tweed. The victory was completely on the side of the English.^
The Scottish historian. Bower, ascribes the first assault upon the English
archers to Sir John Swinton, who rallied his comrades upon the folly of
standing still, and being shot like deer ; then calling upon them to follow
him, he dashed down the hill against the foe. The well-known incident of
the reconciliation at this moment of Swinton and his mortal enemy. Sir Adam
^ Walaingham's Historia Angliae, pp. 407, 408.
MADE PRISOXER AT EOMILDOX, 1402.
3G'J
Gordon, will be recalled by every reader of Border history, a friendship
cemented by only a few moments of brilliant military glory, when they fell
side by side in death. It is probable that i: was this breaking up of his
lines that caused the Earl of Douglas to head the charge against the English
archers, which was equally unavailing. Besides those slain, many Scottish
barons were taken prisoners, including their leader, the Earl of Douglas, the
son of the Regent Albany, the Earls of Moray and Angus, both of whom died
in England, and, among the rest, three members of the family of Douglas of
Dalkeith.! This eventful battle was fought on 14th September 1402, and
its issue may be said to have been mainly due on the one hand to the
prudence and wisdom of the Earl of March, who, with his intimate know-
ledge of the Scots and their mode of fighting, was an invaluable guide to the
English in their warfare with the Scots ; and on the other to the en*or of the
Earl of Douglas in under-estimating the power of the English, and delaying
his attack until their archers had got into position. The prisoners were
conveyed by their captors to safe keeping, and in confinement at Alnwick
Douglas had rest to recover from his very severe wounds. Some French
knights had been taken in the battle, and while the nobles of France dealt
for their release with the English Court, they interested themselves also to
secure the deliverance of the Earl of Douglas, as he had always shown much
attachment to France, and fidelity to their king.-
On receiving the welcome tidings of this ^-ictory, King Henry the Fourth
of England at once wrote commanding the Earl of Northumberland and the
rest of the English barons and knights, who had taken prisoners, on no
account whatever to set them at liberty or permit them to be ransomed until
they heard further from him.^ This measure is thought to have given great
^ Fordun, il GoodaU, vol. ii. p. 433-435.
- Les Ecossais en France, etc., par Francisque Michel, vol. ii, pp. 104, 105.
^ Eymer'a Fa^lera, vol. viiL pp. 27S, 279.
VOL. I. 3 A
370
ARCHIBALD, FIRST DUKE OF TOURAINE, ETC.
umbrage to the Percys, and to have been the origin of that dissatislaction
with King Henry which culminated in their open rebellion. It may have
been mutterings of this whicli, reaching the English king's ears, moved him,
six months after the battle of Homildon, to confer, on 2d March 1403, upon
Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, all the Douglas possessions in
Scotland. Ostensibly it was for that Earl's activity against the Scots,
especially in the late conflict. The grant was made by the king of England
in CouncH, and in formal language conveyed to the Percys the earldom of
Douglas and all other lands in Scotland which the Earls of Douglas had at
any time held, and also all lands and lordships which xVrchibald, present Earl
of Douglas, and Joanna, his mother, possessed in Scotland on the day of the
capture of the Earl at Homildon Hill.^
The gift, however, was an empty and ill-advised one, as none knew better
than the Percys themselves the true value of charters of lands in Scotland when
presumptuously granted by an English king. It was doubtless considered by
the receivers as an insult, and this is shown by their demanding money for
their services from King Henry and his Council.^ A week after granting the
Douglas estates, Henry, by the appointment of a special commission for the
trial of the prisoners taken at Homildon,^ superseded the Percys in their
judicial functions, an act which drove them into in-econcilable opposition.
Henry's tenure of the English throne was by no means secure. Many in
England looked upon him as a usurper, and believed a report that their
rightful sovereign, Eichard the Second, was a refugee at the Scottish
Court.4 The Percys had been among the foremost in establishing Henry the
Fourth upon the throne, but, disgusted by his ingratitude and oppressive
measures, they entered into correspondence with Owen Glendower, a Welsh
1 Rymer's Foedera, vol. viii. pp. 2S9, 290. 19, 21, British Museum, London
- Letters, dated 30th May and 26th June 3 Ry^^r's Foedera, vol viii. pp. 292. 293.
1403, in Cottonian Collection, Vesp. F. vii. ■• Jbid. p. 261
THE BATTLE OF SHREWSBURY, 1403. 371
cliief, then in rebellion against the English king. The Eaii of Douglas
willingly lent himself to the scheme, intending thereby to purchase his
liberty, English historians affirm that not only was he promised this, but
the town of Berwick and part of Northumberland ; and that on these
conditions he procured a large contingent from Scotland to assist in the
insurrection.^ To mislead the English king, the Percys gave out that their
intention was to prosecute a gi-eat Scottish war, and it favoured this pretence
that the Duke of ^Vlbany raised an army and marched on the Borders. The
Earl of March, hov/ever, to whom an alliance between the Percys and Douglas
boded no good, went over to the English king, who was thereby enabled to
defeat tlie objects of the plot.
After laying siege to the small border fortress of Cocklaws, the younger
Percy, who was in command of the expedition, suddenly changed the route
of his march and penetrated through England towards Wales, to effect a
junction with his Welsh ally. Before this was accomplished Henry the
Fourth led an army, equal in strength to that commanded by Percy, as far as
Shrewsbury, and there intercepted the rebel forces. A fierce battle ensued,
in which victory had almost declared for the valiant Hotspur, when the rebel
leader, on lifting his visor for a little air, fell pierced to the brain by an
arrow. During the whole conflict, which continued for upwards of three
hours, with enormous slaughter on both sides, I'ercy and Douglas fought with
the most heroic valour.- Either for the purpose of lessening his own danger,
or of inspiriting his soldiers by his apparent presence in various parts of the
field, Henry the Fourth resorted to the ruse of having several of his knights
dressed in armour similar to his own, and three of these fell to the sword of
the Earl of Douglas, who is reported to have expressed astonishment at there
being so many kings in the royal host. The Earl of Stafford was also slain
^ Holinalied, vol. ii. p. 1137. could not be found anywhere. — Historia
- Walaingham says that two braver warriors Angliae, p. 411.
372
ARCHIBALD, FIRST DUKE OF TOURAIXE, ETC.
by Douglas. But the death of Hotspur practically decided the battle, and
Douglas, severely wounded, was again made prisoner by tlie English. His
valiant bearing in the battle, and his frank and fearless conduct when brought
into the royal presence, are said by some historians to have- impressed King
Henry so favourably that he then and there granted him his liberty.'^ But
this is a mistake, as he was detained in England by King Henry for some
time.2 The rebellion was thus suppressed, and the aged Earl of Northumber-
land, with the young son of Hotspur, was afterwards obliged to seek refuge
at the Scottish Court.
The captivity of the Earl of Douglas nominally lasted until the year 1413,
but a considerable portion of it was done by proxy. In terms of arrangements
made with the king of England, he was permitted to return to Scotland, and
remain there for periods of time varying in duration from two to twelve
months. On such occasions he had to leave in his stead from ten to tliirteen
persons of high social position, including generally two of his own sons, and
others of his kinsmen. The Earl of Douglas and Murdach Stewart, the eldest
1 Holinshed, voL ii. p. 1140. The suppres-
siou of this rebellion was rightly attributed in
a great measure to the sagacity of the Earl of
March, who, however, with his family, was a
considerable sufferer by the result. They were
threatened both by the Northumbrians and the
Scots. A letter from the Countess of March
to the king of England petitions for a grant
to relieve herself and husband from the great
debt they had incurred since their exclu-
sion from their own coimtry. They were
threatened by those around them, she says,
and in the place where they were the plague
was raging badly ; but they were refused
permission by the Scots to remove to their
castle of Cockbumspath, and their retainers
were taken prisoners by the followers of the
Earl of Douglas. The mention of the preval-
ence of the plague makes it probable that the
letter was written about the year 1407,
shortly before the return of the Dunbars to
Scotland. It may have been this letter which
prompted the negotiations which in the next
year terminated in the reconciliation of March
to Albany and Douglas. \yo\. iv. of this
work, pp. 64, 65.]
- On 1st May 1405, Roger Bradshaw re-
ceived £30 for keeping in safe custody the
Earl of Douglas from the date of the battle of
Shrewsbury to 21st August following = 27
days, and charges of hired men. [Issues of the
Exchequer, Rolls Publications, 1S37, p. 301.]
RETURN FROM CAPTIVITY IX EXGLAXD, UU5.
son of tlie Duke of Albany, were the two Scottish prisoners of note in the
luuuls of the English at this time, and within a year after the battle of
Shrewsbury, negotiations were opened with a view to their ransom.^ These,
however, were ineffectual, but were repeated in the following year, 1405, with
no better result, at least in the case of the Eegent's son ; - but the arrange-
ment by which the Earl of Douglas obtained his release on parole may have
been at this time suggested. From his vast influence in the country, the
government of Scotland in these feudal days would not be easily accomplished
without the assistance of the Earl of Douglas, and it therefore became a
matter of the first importance to the Scottish Governor to secure his release,
even if merely temporarily. The conditions of his release were discussed in
the Englisli Parliament, and it was suggested to the king by the Commons,
who took the occasion to express their gratitude that the flower of the
Scottish chivalry were in the king's hands, that certain castles might be put
in hostage for the Earl.^
The first intimation of the Earl's return to Scotland is found in his appear-
ance at Erskine, on lOtli August 1405, in the capacity of a witness to a
charter of the lands of Cavers, and the office of sherifi' of Roxburgh, in
favour of Sir David Fleming of Biggar.* Information is not afforded by the
English Fredera of the circumstances of this parole, but these records show
from that date a series of arrangements for the Earl's subsequent visits to
Scotland. On 21st September 1405^ permission was given for his returning
^ Exchequer Rolls, vol. iii. pp. 615, 64(3; ' Sir William Hardy, Deputy Keeper of the
Rymer's Foedera, vol. viii. pp. 359, .362. Records of England, has, in a letter to the
- Ibhl p. .388 ; The Red Book of Menteith,
by William Eraser, vol. i pp. 185-187.
^ English Rolls of Parliament, vol. iii.
p. 580.
* Original Extract of Charter in Cavers
Charter-chest ; voL iii. of this work ; Anti-
quities of Aberdeen, vol. iv. pp. 171, 172.
editor of the Exchequer RoUs of Scotland, in-
dicated his opinion that the date of this docu-
ment, and several others issued in the same
year, should be 1407, instead of 1405. His
reasons for this opinion are fully stated in
the letter [Exchequer Rolls, vol. iv. preface,
pp. cxcvi-cc ; cf. also pp. xliv, xlv], which
374
ARCHIBALD, FIRST DUKE OF TOURAIXE, ETC.
to Scotland till 1st November following, and safe-conducts granted for eleven
hostages. After his return to captivity for two months, the favour was
renewed on 30tli January 140.J-6, and safe-conducts were granted for thirteen
gentlemen, including the Earl of Orkney, John Stewart, second son of the
Duke of Albany, the Master of Crawford, and a number of prominent mem-
bers of the Douglas family, who were to take the place of the Earl in England
until his return.^ The Earl returned to his captivity during the year, and
spent a considerable time in London,-
Another visit of the Earl to Scotland was proposed in the close of the
year 140G,^ but he was still in England on 2d February, as on that day he
was written in elucidation of the true date of
an event which does not concern the present
subject. But the necessity of determining
the true date of this passport granted to the
Earl of Douglas, has led to further investiga-
tion of the question, ■with the result that it
has been found more consistent with the
true order of events, as proved from various
sources, to accept RjTner's arrangement as
correct.
^ Rymer's Fcedera, vol viii. p. 429.
2 He was in London on 2Sth October 1400,
as on that day he granted there a sum of £20
Scots yearly to Alexander of Home, as liis
under-warden of the lands of the priory of
Coldingham. The Earl held the office of
keeper of the lands and rents of this priory,
receiving therefor an annual pension of £100
from the priory. [\'ol. iiL of this work.] The
Earl of Douglas appears to have acted as
bailie for the priory of Coldingham over their
lands in Scotland, even before the death of
his father. The office had formerly belonged
to the Earl of March, and so fell with the
rest of that Earl's estate into the hands of
the Master of Douglas. In the accounts of
that priory for 1399 there is included the
pajTnent of a pension of £06, 13s. Sd. to the
Master of Douglas. As the above letter and
other documents show, this was raised to £100
yearly, and the office was confirmed for life.
The grant was renewed in 1414, much against
the will of the Earl of March, who, on that
account, declined a request proffered by the
Countess of Westmoreland that he should
assist the prior of Coldingham. "They
shuld wrj-t and pray the Erie of Douglas,''
he says, "the quhdk is thayr balie, to help
thaym, er to me, for thay grauntit hyme
thair baliery, agayn my will." After the
death of the Earl of Douglas, the bailiary was
given to the Homes. [Priory of Coldiugham,
Surtees Society, pp. 65, S6, 89, 102, Ixxviii,
etc.]
^ Rotuli Scotiie, vol. ii. pp. ISO- 182 ;
Rymer's Fcedera, vol. viii. p. 404. The pass-
ports are dated 1st November 1406, 11th
and 15th January, and 5th February 1400-7.
fNDEXTURE WITH HENRY IV. OF ENGLAND, 1407.
granted a precept of sasine, and probably also the charter, of the baronies of
Buittle and Preston, and the lands of Borg, in Galloway, in favour of Sir
James Douglas of Dalkeith, and the charter is attested by several of those
tlien named as hostages for him.^ On the 14th of ]\Iarch the Earl entered
into an indenture with the king of England at London, when a release
was granted for thirteen weeks from, the day of his departure. In addition to
the usual conditions about hostages, the Earl became bound to endeavour
that the truce agreed to between himself and the English Government should
lie adopted by the Scots ; if not successful in this, then he was to cause
truce with England to be kept over all his bounds between the East, the
West and the Scottish Sea (the Firth of Forth), for one year, from Easter
to Easter. At the end of this document Douglas, with his own hand,
added his obligation that if any power in Scotland or France sought to
infringe this truce, or do any harm in England, he and all his men would
withstand the same with all their might, and take part with the king of
England and his sons in doing so.-
Another indenture made between the same parties on tlie same day
partakes more of the nature of a bond of manrent. The Earl of Douglas
thereby became "man" to the king of England, his son the prince, and to
his brothers, Thomas, Jolm, and Humphrey, before all men and against all
men, his liege lord James, the king of Scotland, alone excepted. During the
Earl's parole, all his men w^ere likewise to be " with the king of England, and
his sons." These conditions were also to be in force when the Earl was fully
liberated, for tiie wliole term of his life. The Earl then took solemn oath
upon the Gospels to observe the appointed day for his return, and to keep
^ Registrum Honoris de Morton, vol. ii. Drumlanrig was himself a hostage, [Tlie
pp. 20:^205. The Earl .also granted a charter Scotts of Bticcleuch, by William Fraser,
of the barony of Hawick to Sir William vol. ii. pp. 20, 21.]
Douglas of Drumlanrig, in England, which is
witnessed by those who came as hostages. - Vol. iii. of this work, pp. 4G, 47.
37G ARCHIBALD, FIRST DUKE OF TOURAIXE, ETC.
the covenants made, in token of which he affixed his seal to the duplicate
document retained by Henry .^
On the same day, 14th March 140G-7, safe-conducts were issued for the
Earl's hostages,- but the Earl did not leave England until the 24th of ]\Iay
following, when he received formal permission to depart, and to remain in
Scotland until the 1st of November.^ In a letter from Henry the Fourtli to
the Scottish Eegent, on negotiations for peace between the two countries,
the king refers to the fact of Douglas being on his way northward, and that
he would be able to convey to the Eegent the wishes of the English Court. ^
The Earl did not return on the 1st of November, as on the 17th of that
month he granted at Edinburgh the lands of Herbertshire, in the county of
Stirling, to Henry, Earl of Orkney/"^ After his return to England, he remained
there until the 2 2d of April, and was then again released on parole until the
11th of June following, giving hostages as usual, but, so far as recorded, only
four in number.^ The Earl was in Edinburgh in May, as charters granted
by him there on the 24th and 28th of that month show." After his return
to England in June his detention was very short, as on the 19th of that
month King Henry the Fourth and he entered into another indenture at
Mortlake, by which the Earl was granted permission to return to and
remain in Scotland until the ensuing Easter, upon special conditions.^ On
the following day safe-conducts were granted to Douglas and his hostages.'*
* Rymer'3 Fcedera, vol. viil p. 478. ^ VoL iii. of this work.
2 Rotuli Scotia?, vol. ii. pp. 182, 1S3. ** Rymer's Foedera, vol. viii. p. 536.
3 Ibid. pp. 183, 184. Another permission '' Ibid. pp. 537, 538. It is interesting to
is dated 13th May. note that on 1st September 1408 the Earl of
* Letter, dated 22d March 1406-7, printed Douglas obtained a safe-conduct from the king
in The Red Book of Menteith, by William of England for a merchant ship to trade
Eraser, vol. i. p. 206. between Scotland and Normandy, with per-
^ Vol. iii. of this work. mission to make use of English ports. [Kotuli
" Rymer's Fcedera, vol. viii. pp. 519, 520. Scotiie, vol. ii. pp. 187, ISS.J
TERMINATIOX OF ENGLISH CAPTIVITY, 1413.
The Earl, however, did not return at the day appointed, nor did he ever
return to captivity in England at all. He appears to have regarded his
release as an escape, for in the charter granted by him at Edinburgh on
20th August 1409 to Sir William Crawford, lord of the Ferm-, for keeping
the castle of Edinburgh during the Earl's detention in England, it is said
the Earl caused his seal to be affixed thereto after his escape from his
enemies of England.^ It was not so considered by the English Court, and the
failure of Douglas to return was the cause of protracted negotiation. Various
messengers passed and repassed to the English Court, and probably some
arrangement was made whereby a further parole was accorded to the Earl ;
but he had evidently made up his mind not to return. His prolonged absence
drew forth a strongly worded remonstrance from King Henry the Fourth,
who wrote to the Duke of Albany reminding him of the requirements of
knightly honour, and requesting him to use his efforts with the Earl of
Douglas, so that he might conform to his duties as a knight, and return to his
captivity.- This was subsequently followed by more peremptory demands,
with a warning that, if Douglas did not return, the kiuij- of Enuland would
dispose of his hostages as he pleased.^ This appears to have brought matters
to an issue, and though there is no evidence that the Earl returned to
England, there is reason to infer that his ransom was gradually being paid
off. The number of hostages named at first for his release on parole was
thirteen, wliile in 1408 it was reduced to five, and in 1413 a formal discharge
was granted by King Henry the Fifth for seven hundred merks, in part pay-
ment of a sum of one thousand merks, demanded for the release of William
Douglas, grandson of James Douglas of Dalkeith, one (and probably the last)
of the hostages for Archibald, Earl of Douglas, who, in the discharge, is styled
" lately the prisoner and captive of our illustrious father."* Until this arrange-
^ Vol. iii. of this work. Fraaer, vol. i. p. 212.
'- The Reil Book of Meateith, by William ^ Rotuli Scotiae, vol.ii.p. 194. •* /6iVi.p.205.
VOL. I. 3 B
378 ARCHIBALD, FIRST DUKE OF TOURAINE, ETC.
ment was made, Douglas is never found taking part in business between the
two countries, but he was employed in negotiating a truce in 1411.^
The Earl of Douglas had returned to Scotland in June 1408, and in the
same year, through the mediation of Walter Haliburton of Dirleton, the Earl
of March was reconciled to the Duke of Albany, and obtained back his
ancestral earldom of March, which had been in the possession of the Earl
of Douglas since the year 1400,- To reconcile the Earl of Douglas to the
loss of the March territory, he was permitted to retain Annaudale and the
castle of Lochmaben; and to make the transference of this large domain
legal and effectual, Annandale was formally resigned by George Dunbar,
son and heir of George, Earl of March, at Haddington, in favour of Archi-
bald, Earl of Douglas, who received a charter thereof from Eobert, Duke
of Albany, to hold to himself and his lawful heirs-male, whom failing, to the
Earl of March and his heirs. This charter was granted at Hadding^ton on
2d October 1409, and marks the date when the Earl of Douglas and Lord
of Galloway added to his titles that of Lord of Annandale.^
In the preceding month of September the lands of Cortachie in Forfar-
shire were granted by the Regent Albany to his brother, Walter Stewart,
' Rymer'sFcedera, vol.viii. p. 6S6. 23dMay. he granted to William Johnstone, one of his
- The Earl of Douglas refers to his own retainers, the lands of Drumgrey, in Dum-
barony of Dunbar in a precept for infefting friesshire. [Vol. iii. of this work.] His tirst
John Swinton in his father's lands, dated 16th appointed steward of Annandale was Sir
October 1407. [Vol. iii. of this work.] The Herbert Maxwell, lord of Carlaverock, whose
Earls of Douglas and March were co-wit- fee was fixed at £'20 annually, and all the tines
nesses to an instrument affecting the lands lev'ied in his courts of ISs. and under. [The
of Mar, in the toll-house of the bridge of Book of Carlaverock, by William Eraser,
Perth, on 18th July 1410. [Mar Minutes of vol. I p. 123 ; Eegistruni Magui Sigilli,
Evidence, p. 636.] vol. ii. No. 242.] The Earl also made grants
•^ Registrum Magni Sigilli, vol. i. p. 241. of lands in Annandale to two of his esquires,
The Earl had dealt with the lands of Simon Carruthers of Mouswald and Gilbert
the lordship of Annandale also as his own Grierson. [Historical mss. Commissioners'
property. A charter is still extant by which Sixth Report, pp. 709, 710.]
FPdENDLY RELATIONS WITH DUKE OF A LB A XT, 1409.
Earl of Atliole, on the resignation of Archibald, Earl of Douglas, at Perth.^
This may have some connection with the transactions respecting Annaudale,
as showing that Douglas gave to the Crow^n some equivalent for that terri-
tory. Cortachie at one time belonged to the Earl of Strathern, and came
by marriage into the Moray family,^ from which it was probably brought to
the third Earl of Douglas by Joanna INIoray of Bothwell, and inherited by
their son. The baronies of Abercorn and Aberdour, sometimes described as
in the lordship of Buchan, and sometimes as in Aberdeenshire, which also
appear to have been brought by Joanna Moray to her husband, were now
become an integral part of the Douglas estates. These two baronies were
bestowed by the fourth Earl of Douglas upon his younger brother, James
Douglas, lord of Balvany, but the superiority remained with the chief of
the house.^ It is probable that it was also by this Earl's gift James Douglas
of Balvany came into possession of Avondale, and other lands in that
district, which he held at a later period.
The friendly relations between Douglas and the Eegent Albany, which
seem to have existed imbroken during the whole period of their lives, were
in June 1409 strengthened by their entering into a bond for mutual
assistance and support. They engaged to maintain towards one another
" full friendship and kindness," faithfully to counsel and assist each other,
to send warning and information to each other of any peril, and to make
no similar bond with any without the other's consent, their allegiance due
to their sovereign, King James the First, being duly excepted. This bond,
which is very minute in its details, was made between Albany and Douglas
^ Registrum Episcopatua Brechinensis,
vol i. p. 25 ; vol. ii. p. 14.
2 The Red Book of Menteith, by William
Fraaer, voL L p. 456.
^ Regiatrum Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. Nos.
43, 49. In 1408 James Douglas granted
certain portions of these lands to William
Fraser of Philorth and Patrick Reede Ramsay,
which were confirmed by his brother the
EarL [The Erasers of Philorth, by Lord Sal-
toun, vol. ii. pp. 220-224.]
380
ARC in BALD, FIRST DUKE OF TOURAINE, ETC.
merely as subjects, and a special clause was inserted which provided that if
the Duke of Albany succeeded to the throne, the bond would ipso facto
expire. But the kindness between them was to be maintained in all time,
and between their families, a clause of the bond providing for the inclusion
in its arrangements of two of the Duke's grandsons, Eobert Stewart of Fife
and Walter Stewart of the Lennox, and the two sons of the Earl of Douglas,
Archibald and James, if they desired it.^
This alliance between the Regent and the Earl of Douglas was cemented
by the marriage of the Earl's daughter. Lady Elizabeth Douglas, to John
Stewart, Earl of Buchan and Chamberlain of Scotland, the second son of the
Duke of Albany, the contract for which was made at Perth in July of the
following year. A papal dispensation was to be obtained with all speed, and
the Earl of Douglas was to bestow upon them the lands of Stewartou and
Ormisheuch in Ayrshire, to the value of two hundred marks. These lands
were part of the jointure lands of the Countess of Douglas, and in the event
of her surviving her husband, a sum equal to the rent of these lands was to
be paid by the heirs of the Earl yearly out of the baronies of Bothwell,
Strathavon, Drumsargart and Cumnock, unless the Earl succeeded in getting
the Countess to resign her interest in the lands named. If there were no
heirs of this marriage, and no lawful male heirs of John, Earl of Buchan, the
lands were to revert to the Earl of Douglas and his heirs. For his part, the
Earl of Buchan promised to give his wife, as dowry, land yielding two
hundred marks of free rent yearly."-
The marriage, however, did not take place before November 1413, when
the Duke of Albany granted to his son, the Earl of Buchan, and his still
future spouse, a number of charters, among which were three referring to the
* Indenture, dated at Inverkeithing, 20th also vol. iii. of this work.
June 1409 ; The Red Book of Menteith, by - The Red Book of Menteith, by William
William Fraser, vol. ii. pp. 277-2S0. See Fraser, vol. ii. pp. 281-283.
EMBASSY TO FLAXDERS, U12.
381
lands of Stewartou, Ormisheuch and Dunlop in the barony of Cunningham,
and Trabuyage in the earldom of Carrick, Ayrshire, all resigned by the Earl
of Douglas in their favour. The other cliarters refer to the lands of Touch-
fraser in Stirlingshire, and Tillicoultry in Clackmannan, the former resigned
by John, Earl of Buchan, and the latter a gift from the Duke of Albany,
and all were bestowed in conjunct fee upon John Stewart, Earl of Buchan,
and Elizabeth Douglas, whom he was to marry,^
Bower relates that in the year 1412 the Earl of Douglas, with a large
company of knights and squires, embarked in a sliip for a voyage to France.
Thrice the seamen spread the sails to the wind, but as often did the wind
prove contrary. At the suggestion of his fellow-traveller, Henry, Earl of
Orkney, Douglas directed his course to Inchcolm, and there at the shrine
of St. Columba, with an offering, sought the saint's propitious influences
for his voyage. Be-embarking, the western breezes at once filled their
sails, and, under the saint's guidance a successful voyage was made, not to
France, but to Flanders." There was certainly an embassy sent from Scot-
land to Flanders during this year, probably with regard to the furtherance of
commercial enterprise, as all the burghs were specially required to furnish
loans for the expenses.^ In the accounts of the Chamberlain, Douglas is not
named as one of the ambassadors, but his adherent, Alexander Carnys, pro-
vost of Lincluden,* was one of those appointed to go to France. They were
^ Charters dated May and November 1413 ;
Registrum Magni Sigilli, vol. i. pp. 254-25G.
Among the other possessions of this Earl of
Douglas were the lands of Grandtully, Kyl-
tilich and Aberfeldy, in the abthanery of Dull,
Perthshire. These lands he bestowed upon
Alexander Steuart, fourth son of John, Lord
Invermeath and Lorn (who resigned them for a
regrant to his son), and he founded the family
of Steuart of Grandtully. The charter is
dated 30th March 1414. The precept is dated
Sth March following. [The charter and a fac-
simile of it are printed in The Red Book of
Grandtully, by WiDiam Fraser, pp. 4-7.]
- Fordun, a GoodaU, vol. ii. p. 447.
3 Exchequer Rolls, vol iv. pp. 137, 139,
140, 14.3, 145, 148, 149.
■* This was the second Provost of Linclu-
den, and his burial-jilace was only recently
discovered among the ruins of Lincluden Col-
382
ARCHIBALD, FIIIST DUKE OF TOVRAIXE, ETC
long detained in port waiting for a fovoumble wind, and incurred "^Jm^r-
able expense for tlie freight of vessels and otherwise. But before the wind
permitted them to leave Scotlan<l, their instructions, for some reason, wer.
revoked, and £200 were paid them, to indemnify their costs, although the
Chamberlain adds there was no return therefor.^ This delay on account
of the contrariety of the wind accords with what is related by Bower, and
probably refers to the very same expedition which afterwards, under tlu-
conduct of Douglas, sailed to Flanders.
Douglas found his way to Paris, and on 11th April 1412 entered into u
treaty of alliance and confederation with John, Duke of Burgundy, Lord of
Flanders,2 and commonly known as Jean sans I'eur. The Earl engaged to
come personally, when required, with four thousand men-at-arms, archers, and
others to the Duke's assistance, in the counties of Flanders and Artois, on
condition that the Duke defrayed the expenses of the passage, and paid the
troops while in his service. On the other hand, the Duke obliged himself to
pass into Scotland, at the first requisition of the Earl, with three'hundred men-
at-arms, and maintain and pay them at his own cost for the space of two months.
In the foUowing October one of the sons of the Earl of Douglas paid a\'isit to
the Court of the Duke of Burgundy, who presented him with a golden cup of the
weight of four marks.3 In the following year, 1413, the Earl of Douglas seems
to have meditated another visit to the Continent, as he obtained a safe-conduct
from Heniy the Fifth of England to pass through France, Flanders, and Enij-
land,^ but it is not apparent whether the Earl was abroad at this time or not.
lege. His tombstone bears the following in-
scription : — Hie iacet magister Alexander de
Carnys ... qui me calcatis pedibus prece
subveniatis. i.e. Here lies Master Alexander
of Carnys. ... Ye who tread on me with
your feet assist me with a prayer.
' Exchequer Rolls, vol. iv. p. 164.
- Cf. Chronicles of Monstrelet, vol. i. p. ?,'?,.
•^ Les Ecossais en France, par Francisque
Michel, vol. i. pp. 113, 114. The same Duke,
during this year, sent a present of tapestry to
the Duke of Albany.
•» Dated 26th August 1413, to terminate ou
15th November. Eotuli Scotia?, vol. ii. p. 207.
WARDEN OF THE MARCHES.
383
lu the accounts of the Chamberlain for the year 1412 there is mention of
a sum of £500 paid to Archibald, Earl of Douglas, for his labours and
expenses on the marches of the kingdom and elsewhere, for the weal and
quiet of the country.^ He was also engaged during some part of the
preceding year in holding what were known as March days, when the
wardens on both sides of the Border met, heard complaints, rectified abuses,
and, if need be, negotiated for prolongation of the truces.- Bower relates
that in this year the Earl presided at a duel fought at Battlehauch between
John Hardy and Thomas Smith. The latter liad been the aggressor by falsely
accusing the former of treason, but the duel terminated fatally for Smith,
who was slain.^
It was because of these and similar duties that from about this period
and until 1423 the Earl of Douglas laid the customs of the realm under
contribution, and appears to have used the custumars of Edinburgh as if they
had been his private purse-bearers. For their own exoneration the custumars
always recorded the pa}Tnents made to the Earl, or taken from them when
they were unwilling to accede to his demands, and the matter w%as left to
be settled between the governor and the Earl of Douglas. Eor the Earl's
services as warden of the ^Marches, or, one may almost say, as co-guardian of
the realm with Albany, there was no remuneration appointed. Albany was
averse to imposing taxes upon the people, and yet the heavy expenses
incurred by Douglas had to be met. The money was not expended upon the
Earl himself but upon days of truce, or Border raids, or expeditions into
England on a larger scale, as when in 1415 he burned Penrith,^ and in 1420,
Alnwick.^ He also frequently granted discharges under his signet for the
sums received, and his proceedings do not appear to have incurred the
* Exchequer Rolls, voL iv. p. 190. £&io, 1 3s. 4d. — Ibid. p. 1G3.
- During 1411-12 the Earlis twice credited ^ Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 447.
with receiving for this service the sum of * IhhK p. 448. * Ibid. p. 4G0.
384 ARCHIBALD, FIRST DUKE OF TOURAINE, ETC.
displeasure of the regent. It was perhaps the most couvenient method at
the time and in the cu-cumstances for the effective canying on of the work
of the State.i
During the years 1415 and 1416 the Earl of Douglas took a leading
part in the negotiations then carried on for the ransom of King James the
First of Scotland. He was one of the barons to whom King James wrote
more than once, to stir up his uncle Albany to expedite his release. The
drafts of some of these letters, written apparently in January 1416, have
been recently discovered and printed.- On 26th January 1416 the Earl
of Douglas received permission from King Henry the Fifth of England to
come to England accompanied by forty of a retinue. His safe-conduct was
to endure for two months,^ and though the business is not stated, it must
have been the same as that which caused its renewal at the close of the
same year, when safe-conducts were granted by the English king to the
Earls of Douglas, Athole, Crawford, Mar, and others, to come to England to
see their king in reference to liis release.^ In connection with these services
it is worthy of notice that Douglas himself refers to them in an assurance
granted by him to the abbot and convent of Melrose when invited by them
to arbitrate in a dispute between them and the Laird of Bemerside, respect-
ing the lands of Eedpath. The monks put their case before the Earl, who
* Exchequer Rolls, vol. iv. pp. 175, 177, it is added, has been at gi-eat expense for
201, 2-24, 253, 277, 300, 322, 324, 341, 36S. the welfare of the kingdom. [Ibid. p. 163.]
The Earl is mentioned in the Exchequer RoU In the same year, at the Regent's command,
of 12th June 1412, as having received the sum the custumars of Inverkeithing paid £40 to
of £940, 9s. 3d., of which the Chamberlain the Earl of Douglas. [Ihkl. p. 150.]
says he took a great part in payment of the - The Red Book of Menteith, by William
pension due to his sister, the Duchess of Eraser, vol. i. pp. 283-280.
Rothesay, concerning which, and the balance, ^ Rymer's Fcedera, vol. ix. p. 329.
the Regent was to be consulted and himself * Dated 8th December, 1416. Ibid. pp.
to reckon with the Earl of Douglas, who, 418, 419.
THE FOUL RAID, U16.
.•'.8'>
says, "We think, CJod grantand, to make finable accorde betwix thaim in
this mater, bot be cause of hee and grete besines that we hade appoun
hande to do in sere > contreis in the tyme of the rising of this discorde that
we might noth gudli dresse vs to melle tharMith, at oure speciale instance
and besy request," the abbot and monks put off tlieir plea to Fastern's Even
next.2 He afterwards settled the dispute in their favour.^ The negotiatiojis
affecting the king were not successful.
Between these two visits to England occurred what was popularly known
as the " Eoul raid." England and France were at war, and while the Kin-
of England and so many of his troops were absent in France, Albany pro-
jected an expedition to the English borders. The Scots are said to have
been incited to this by an English revolutionary faction, called the Lollards,''
but they may more probably have been guided by their friendship for France,
to make a diversion in her favour. Having collected a large army, the
Regent sent a detachment under the Earl of Douglas to besiege Roxburgh
Castle, while he proceeded with the rest to beleaguer Berwick. But on a
report that the king of England's brother, the Duke of Bedford, was rapidly
approaching the Borders with an army of one hundred thousand men,^ both
sieges were suddenly raised and a precipitate retreat made homeward by the
Scots. The rumour proved false, and hence the popular name attached to
the enterprise.^
The English appear, however, to have retaliated fiercely upon tlie Scots.
and for a considerable time a desultory warfare raged on the Borders.
Teviotdale and Liddesdale suffered severely, and a number of flourishing
Border towns, including Hawick, Selkirk, and Jedburgh, were burned. It was
» Several. -' Galashiels (Gallowschele), 17th December 1416. Liber de Melros, pp. 539, 540.
3 10th July 141S, at Edybredschele.— /6iU p. 541.
* Walsingham's Historia Angliae, p. 44G. '•> Ibid. p. 447.
^ Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 449.
VOL. I. 3 p
386
ARCHIBALD, FIRST DUKE OF TOURAIXE, ETC.
probably during this period that James Douglas, the younger son of the Earl,
was made prisoner by the English, necessitating the proceedings which were
taken for his ransom in 1418 and 1419.^
Murdach, second Duke of Albany, who in 1420 succeeded his father,
Duke Robert, in tlie regency, was, it is generally agreed, weak in his adminis-
tration, Douglas appears to have been on less cordial terms with the son than
with the father, and took a very active part in negotiating for restoration of
the king. James had been taken by Henry the Fifth to France in tlie hope
of counteracting the aid then being given by the Scots to the French, and
thither Sir William Douglas of Drumlanrig was despatched on a mission to
confer with him.- Douglas himself went to England in the following April,
and an agreement was drawn up by which King James was to be allowed
three months' leave of absence in Scotland after his return from France.'^
The document refers to the already prolonged negotiations between the
two sovereigns, and states that at length, by the intervention of the Earl
of Douglas, this arrangement had been concluded. Twenty-one hostages of
high rank were to take the king's place, one of them being James Douglas,
the second son of the EarL*
In view of his temporary liberation, King James commanded the Earl of
Douglas to render all the assistance and service he could to the king of
England. Douglas, therefore, obliged himself to assist King Henry the Fifth,
so long as he lived, with two hundred knights and squires sufficiently armed
and appointed for war, and two hundred mounted archers, wherever the
king of England desired him. These soldiers were to receive the same wages
as the king of England allowed his own subjects, to begin on the day of
their entry into England, by next Easter, or within fourteen days thereafter
1 Rotuli Scotia, voL ii. pj). 223, 224.
2 Rymer's Foedera,vol. x.pp. IS, 19. Safe-conducts dated 30th August aud 7th September 1420.
' Rotuli Scotipe, vol. ii. {.p. 228, 229. ^ Ibid. p. 229.
ESTERS THE SERVICE OF THE KING OF ENGLAND, 1421. ;!87
at Newcastle, if their further journey was to be by land, or at Berwick-on-
Tweed, if it was to be taken by sea, at the direction of the king of England.
In return for this service, the Earl was to receive a pension of two hundred
pounds yearly, so long as he and Henry both lived ; his shipping was to
be provided, and, while in England, he was to be under the protection of the
king, who became responsible for his debts, transgressions, etc., until he
returned to his own country. These conditions were solemnly sworn to by
both parties, and each appended his seal to the duplicate retained by the
other, the whole being concluded at London on 30th May 1421.^
Had the terms of this agreement been carried out, and had the Earl of
Douglas passed to France with Henry the Fifth, he woidd have been opposed
to his eldest son and many of his own former comrades in arms, who were at
this time Math the Earl's own consent in the service of the king of France,
and actively engaged against the armies of England. One is at a loss to
assign any good reason for the Earl of Douglas taking such a step as is here
described, unless it be that he felt powerless to resist the entreaties, and it
may have been the threats, of his captive sovereign, who was now straining
every effort for his own release. The English king, also, who had just received
news of the defeat of his army by the Scots at Bauge, in France, doubtless
used his utmost influence with King James to impress Douglas into this
agreement, as an essential element in the conditions for his release. Happily,
however, for Douglas, the death of King Henry the Fifth in the following
year, and apparently before the Earl's services were called into requisition,
released him from what must have been a painful and unwilling engagement.
The Scots, who were in France under the leadership of the Earls of
Buchan and "Wigtown, were there in the interest of Scotland, having been sent
by the Regent Albany and his council at the earnest entreaties of the French.
These leaders appear to have urged the Dauphin to secure the Earl of Douglas for
* Rymer'g Fceclera, vol. x. pp. 123, 124.
.",88
ARCHIBALD, FIRST DUKE OF TOURAINE, ETC.
his own service, a measure which the Dauphin at once adopted, and despatched
the Earls of Buchan and Wigtown to Scotland, in 1423, to bring Douglas to
France. Buchan had been raised to the honourable post of Constable of
France, and, with other ambassadors he returned to Scotland to negotiate with
his father-in-law.^ On 26th October U2.3, Buchan and the others met with
the Earl at Glasgow, and he there granted letters in which he promised faith-
fully to observe the ancient treaties between France and Scotland, and to
pass into France on 6th December following with other lords and soldiers."-
In terms of this compact, Douglas now made preparations for his departure
to France, almost, it would seem, with the presentiment that he would not
return. This may be indicated by his gifts to the Church. On the 6th of
December, the day appointed for leaving Scotland, he was at Bothwell, and
made a mortification of the lands of Crugilton and Bolton, in Wigtownshire,
in favour of the prior and convent of Whithorn ;^ and he was still at Both-
well four days later.'* On 6th February following he was at Edinburgh,
where he addressed a strong charge to his son, Archibald, Earl of Wigtown, to
continue to cherish and show that affection to the monks of Melrose which
his progenitors had always manifested, as he would desire his father's bless-
ing and the blessing of the Church.^ The Earl of Wigtown did not at this time
accompany his father to France, but remained (some say on account of sick-
^ Stevenson's Letters and Papers illustra-
tive of the Wars of the English in France in
the time of King Henry VI., vol. ii. pp. 15, 16.
- Michel's Les Ecossais en France, etc.,
vol. i. p. 136, note.
3 Registrum Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. p. 3. The
lands of Crugilton were also granted, on 27th
March following, by Margaret, Countess of
Douglas, for the construction of a chapel in
the church of WTiithorn, and the maintenance
of a canon serving therein. [Ibld.\
^ Registrum Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. No. 256.
' Liber de Melros, vol. ii. pp. 492, 493.
The Earl himself had, on 16th January
1418-19, bestowed in alms-gifts upon the
monks of Melrose the regality of Eskdalemuir,
in Dumfriesshire. [Ihid. p. 49S.] At an
earlier period of his life he had gifted the
chxirch of Kyrcum to the monks of Sweet-
heart Abbey. [The Book of Carlaverock, by
William Fraser, vol. ii. p. 417]
CREATED DUKE OF TOURAINE, 1424.
389
tiess) in Scotland, and took part in the proceedings consequent on the liberation
of King James the First from his English captivity.
It is worthy of remark that from the time that the Earl of Douglas was
forced into the treaty with King Henry the Fifth of England, he appears to
have personally taken no active part in the measures for the king's release,
though his secretary, Mr. William Foulis, was frequently one of those engaged
in the negotiations.^ But before the Earl left the country ever^'thing had
been finally aiTanged for the king's return,- suggesting that these arrangements
may have been the cause why his departure was delayed from December to
February or ]March.
After a somewhat stormy voyage, and much risk from other causes, the
Earl of Douglas landed at Eochelle, the governor of which, Henri de Pluscallec,
was instructed to defray the expenses of the voyage from Scotland, and the
landing of the troops in France.^ Douglas brought with him an army of ten
thousand knights and soldiers. On his arrival he proceeded to the Court of
King Charles the Seventh, then at Chatillon-sur-Indre, and followed it to
Bourges. There, on 1 9th April, the Earl took the oath of fealty to the French
king, who appointed him lieutenant-general of his forces, and bestowed upon
him the Duchy of Touraine.* Being a peerage duchy, this grant conferred the
1 Rotuli Scotife, vol. ii. pp. 2,31-238. Earl is styled " Due de Tourraine." It nar-
2 Ihid. pp. 241-249. rates that the king of France had been
^ Michel's Les Ecossais en France, vol. i. graciously pleased, from his love and couri-
pp. loG, 137, where some interesting informa-
tion on this subject is presented. la the
course of two voyages made to Scotland, six
large vessels were lost, and the transit of the
Scottish auxiliaries generally was a source of
great expense to the king of France.
■* The deeds signed and sealed by the Earl
of Douglas at ("Glasgow and Bourges are
preserved in the Tresor de Chartres at Paris.
In his oath of fidelity taken at Bourges, the
dence in him, to call him to his service, and
to ajiiioint him his lieutenant-general for war
throughout all his kingdom ; and further, had
been pleased, from his great liberality, and in
order that the Earl of Douglas might remain
for ever his man, vassal, and subject, and
might be perpetually attached towards him
and his kingdom, had given to him the Duchy
of Touraine. Wherefore the said Archibald,
Duke of Touraine, acknowledging the great
390
ARCHIBALD, FIRST DUKE OF TOURAINE, ETC.
title of Duke of Toiiraine on Douglas, and both lands and peerage were made
descendible to the lawful heirs-male of his body. Certain crown rights were
reserved, as the patronage of the churches of the duchy, which the king could
not alienate from the crown ; but, as if in lieu of these, Charles added tlie
town and castle of Chinon, with all their dependencies.^
This gift, which is said to be granted in return for the services of the
Earl and his eldest son, the Earl of Wigtown, was made in form of charter,
and signed by the king and liis grand council. It was then taken by the
Chancellor to the French Exchequer (Chambre des Comptes), which met
in the capital of Berry, but the lords of Exchequer at first refused to approve
the grant. They gave as a reason that the document was only addressed to
Parliament, and moreover, that it was their duty to oppose all alienation of
the crown lands. On learning this, the king ordered the refractory lords of
Exchequer to appear before his council, and there expressly charged them to
verify the gift, notwithstanding all their objections, and discharging them of
all consequences. They accordingly ratified and recorded the gift on 25th
April, and in the Parliament which met at Poitiers, it was published and
recorded on the 30th of the same month.
When the news of the bestowal of the duchy of Touraine reached Tours,
the capital of the province, it threw the inhabitants into a state of consterna-
tion, and ecclesiastics, citizens, and other indwellers having assembled,
went to the lieutenant of the bailie of Touraine, desiring that one of their
honours and benefits thus received, had, with
great solemnity, promised aud sworn, in pre-
sence of his grand council, and, by these pre-
sents, again promised and swore, on the word
of a prince, that as long as he lived he should
be true and loyal vassal, subject and obe-
dient, and, as such, should serve and obey
the king of France, and that he should not
make any alliances or confederacies with any
persons whatsoever, either in France or else-
where, without the good pleasure of his
majesty. The letters-patent conferring the
duchy are preserved in the Chambre des
Comptes at Paris. [A. Stuart's History of
the Stewarts, jip. 137-139.]
' Vol. iii. of this work.
TRIUMPHAXT RECEPTION IX TOURS, U24.
3i31
magistrates and the king's sergeant should go to Boiirges to learn it' the news
was true, and if so, what course the king wished them to follow so as to secure
the honour and welfare of their town and country. On their return, these
messengers reported that the news was true, and brought with them a copy
of the king's deed of gift ; but they quieted the fears of their fellow-citizens
by assuring them that the town and country would be governed mildly and
peaceably, and that before the Earl of Douglas came to take possession, the
king would send letters to the people, and some of his officers, including the
Chancellor and the bailie of the duchy, who would explain more fully the
king's reasons for giving away the duchy, and advise them what to do.
It was customar}' to receive the new lords of provinces with great ceremony
and a number of presents, and the inhabitants of Tours resolved so to meet
the Earl of Douglas. The presents consisted of six pipes or twelve hogsheads
of wine, six hogsheads of oats, fifty sheep, four fat oxen, and one hundred
pounds of wax in torches. The citizens deputed two of their clergy and four
notables to go to Loches to compliment the Duke in name of the town, and
formed a company of mounted citizens who should escort him. These
met the Duke at some distance from Tours and accompanied him to the
town. He made his entry on the 7th of ]\Iay by the gate of Xotre-Dame-
la-Piiche, being received there by the four magistrates of the town, and by all
the citizens armed. Martin d'Argouges, the chief magistrate, presented the
Duke with the keys of the town, and in a speech, prayed him to maintain
the inhabitants in their privileges, freedoms, and liberties. This was promised
by the Duke, and the magistrates took instruments of his consent in the hands
of three notaries provided for that purpose. Having received the keys, the
Duke retui-ned them to the keeping of the chief magistrate, and then entered
the town, which was cii ftte for the occasion with decorations of tapestry and
flowers, and was hailed with acclamations from the people. The Duke's
first progress was to the Cathedral, at the chief entrance of which he was met
392
ARCHIBALD, FIRST DUKE OF TOURAIXE, ETC.
by the archbishop and all the canons in their copes, and was presented by
the dean with a surplice, an amice, and a breviary. He took the oath.
and was received as a canon, and installed in the choir, in presence of Louis
de Bourbon, Comte de Vendome, Great Chamberlain of France, Jolm de
Bourbon, his brother. Prince of Carency, Francis de Grigneux, and many
other lords. Next day he was in the same manner installed as an honorary
canon of the church of St. Martin's of Tours.
After these ceremonies the Dukd, it is said, appointed Adam Douglas, his
cousin, governor of the town and castle of Tours, by letters dated 27th May.
To their new governor the inhabitants, after consultation with their magis-
trates, presented two pipes of wine and a hogshead of oats. The governor
had, as his lieutenant, a Frenchman called William Huillier.^
The Duke of Touraine did not long enjoy his French estates and
honours. Under the Duke of Bedford, the English army had laid siege to
the castle and town of Ivry, quickly reducing the town, but finding the
castle too strong and well victualled to yield without a struggle. After hold-
ing out for a month, the governor of the castle promised to surrender if not
relieved by the king of France by a certain day. Charles and his council
were resolved, if possible, to save the castle, and the Didce of Touraine and
Earl of Buchan were despatched in haste to raise the siege, the Duke's town
of Tours contributing one thousand pounds to the expenses of the expedi-
tion. On their way to Ivry they took Chateaudun, and were there joined
by a body of Frenchmen, under the Duke of Alenc^on, the JMarshal of La
Fayette, the Viscount of Narbonne, and others. The castle of Ivry, however,
had not been relieved by the French in time, and had therefore been handed
over, on the expiry of the period of truce, to the Duke of Bedford. The
allied French and Scottish army were at no great distance, but observinff the
strong position of the English army, they retreated to Verneuil. This town
^ Michel's Les Ecossais en France, vol. L pp. 1,38-140.
TEE BATTLE OF VEBNEUIL, 1424.
393
was loyal to the English, but the troops under the Duke of Touraine got
possession of it by a stratagem. The credit of the attempt is given to the
Scots, who bound the hands of a number of their own comrades, smeared
their hands, faces, and arms with blood, led them at the tails of horses, and
came to the town with loud shouts, and cries in the English tomrue that
a total defeat had been inflicted on the Duke of Bedford and his army.
Deceived by this story, the garrison of Verneuil at once yielded, and
promised fealty to King Charles the Seventh of France, the English in the
town being given passports to enable them to join their own party elsewhere.
Bedford, however, pursued the French to Verneuil, and sent a herald to
the Dulve of Touraine with the message to wait for him because he wished
to drink with him. The Duke, who is said to have derisively styled Bedford
"John with the leaden sword," replied that he had come from Scotland
expressly for that purpose. Both armies then prepared for action, many
knights being created on both sides, and among the Scots knighted was
James Douglas, the younger son of the Duke of Touraine.
On 17th August 1424 was fought the fatal battle of Verneuil, the issues
of which were so disastrous for the Scots. Jealousies are said to have sprung
up between the French leaders and their allies, and the defeat sustained has
been attributed to the rash disobedience of the Viscount of Narbonne to the
wishes of the Duke of Touraine, who was in chief command. On Bedford's
approach, the Duke of Touraine, against the opinion of the French leaders,
declined to advance to meet him, as he would lose the advantage of the
strong position which he had taken up. He preferred therefore to await the
attack of the English army. Xarbonne deemed this cowardly, and declared
that he would go himself, though no one followed him, and accordingly led
forward his contingent to action. Seeing that Narbonne's certain defeat
would tend to his disgrace, Douglas determined to risk an advance, and the
battle began. The shouts of the English frightened the Frenchmen, and many
VOL. I. 3d
394
ARCniBALD, FIRST DUKE OF TOURAIXE, ETC.
of them turned and fled, leaving their Scottish allies to sell their lives as
dearly as possible. It was a life or death struggle, for before the conflict
began the Duke of Bedford, it is said, sent to inquire the terms of the battle,
and was answered by the Duke of Touraine that they would not that day
make prisoners of the English, and neither should the English of them. The
Scots accordingly expected and received no quarter, and nearly all tliose
engaged in the battle were slain. To have fled and been taken was on these
terms as certain death as to be slain in the fight, and it is generally stated
that in this battle the Scottish allies of the Erench were all but exterminated.
The Duke of Touraine and his son were both slain, with the Earl of Buchan
and many other illustrious Scots. The bodies of the Duke and his son were
ransomed from the English, carried to Tours, and, on 24th August, buried,
without pomp or ceremony, in the same grave in the middle of the choir
of the Cathedral Church of Tours. In consideration of the services of
the Duke and his son, the king caused the wages of the officers of their
households to be paid, and also all others who had supplied them with
necessaries on the way. The debts of the Duke are said to have been 4357
livres 14 sous, 2 deniers tournois and 14 ecus, and those of his son James,
1690 livres 5 sous, 6 deniers tournois and 17 ecus. The king also directed
the Archbishop of Rheims to go to Tours and advise the inhabitants to pay
the debts of the late Duke or his governor.^
As already stated, Archibald, fourth Earl of Douglas and first Duke of
Touraine, married the Princess Margaret, eldest daughter of King Piobert the
Third.- She survived her husband, and, after his death, was styled Duchess
^ Michel's Les Ecossais en France, voL i. j>p.
146-150 ; Monstrelet's Chronicles, vol. i. pp.
509-512; Fordun.aGoodall, vol. ii. pp.463, 464.
2 On 3d November 1413 a safe-conduct was
issued by King Henry the Fifth of England
for the coming to England of Herbert Max-
well, son and heir of the Lord of Carlaverock,
and others, as hostages for payment by the
Countess of 500 marks (English) to John
Philip, in terms of an indenture made between
the Countess and her creditor at Raby shortly
before. [Rotuli Scotise, vol. ii. p. 20S.]
MARGARET, DUCHESS OF TOURAIXE.
395
of Touraine in addition to her other titles of Countess of Douglas and
Lady of Galloway. Shortly after the Duke's death, the duchy of Touraine
was given by the king of France to Louis of Anjou, king of Sicily, Lut the
heirs-male of the Duke continued to use the title.
The Duchess of Touraine, on 3d May 1426, received from her brother,
Kling James the First, permission to hold and possess the entire lordship of
Galloway during all the days of her life, in the same manner as it had been
held by her husband and his father.^ She held the lordship for a quarter of
a century, until January 1449-50, when she resigned it in favour of William,
eighth Earl of Douglas.- She resided at the Castle of Thrieve, where
charters granted by her were dated.^ One of these charters was a grant, by
the king's special licence, of certain lands in Kirkcudbrightshire, Eastwood,
Barschryve, Suthake,'* Barness, and others, which she " had purchased with
her own silver and gold," for a chaplainry in the Collegiate Church of Lin-
cluden, for the welfare of the souls of her father and mother, King Eobert
the Third and his queen Annabella Drummond, her brother King James, and
for the souls of Sir Archibald, Earl of Douglas, of Sir Archibald, Duke of
Touraine and Earl of Douglas, his son and her spouse, of Sir James of
Douglas, their son, and of herself.^ She also granted a charter of the lands of
Lochnaw to Andrew Agnew, her esquire, and made him constable of Lochnaw.'^
^ Registrum Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. No. 47.
Oq several occasions King James the First
made small gifts to his sister the Duchess
of Touraine. In 1425 he gave her the
sum of £26, 13s. 4(L ; in 1429 and 1435 he
remitted customs due by her of £13, Gs. Sd.
and £13, 123., and iu 1434 gave her the farms
of the barony of Old Roxburgh. [Exchequer
Rolls, vol. iv. pp. 3S1, 472, 597, 607.]
2 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland,
vol. ii. p. 64.
^ Registrum Magni Sigilli, voL ii. Nos. 86,
87, 133, 183, 255.
^ The ten pound lands of South-svick are
mentioned in the accounts of the Chamberlain
of Galloway in 1462 and 1469 as having been
given by the late Duchess of Touraine to a
chaplain officiating in Lincluden. [Ex-
chequer R,oUs, vol. vii. pp. 115, 604.]
^ Dated 22d September 1429. Registrum
Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. No. 133.
e 10th November 1426. /Z/id Noa. 183,184.
396
ARCHIBALD, FIRST DUKE OF TOURAINE, ETC.
After the death of her son, the tifth Earl, in 1439, and the murder of her
two grandsons in the year following, the lawful male line of the Duke of
Touraine being thus brought to an end, the Duchess addressed a letter to the
King of France claiming her terce out of the duchy of Touraine, and its rents
and revenues for the time past and future. The letter was sent by William,
lord of Crichton, Chancellor to King James the Second, who, with otlier
business of his royal master, bore a commission from him to represent the
claim of his aunt, the Duchess, She begs a good and speedy answer to
her prayer, as the rights she asked had been very dearly bought by her
with the blood of her husband and her children in the French king's
service.^
The claim was made by the Duchess in conjunction with another by her
nephew, William, eighth Earl of Douglas, and his Countess, Margaret, the
Fair Maid of Galloway, who was the granddaughter of the Duchess, Their
petition consisted of at least eleven articles, the exact terms of which have
not been ascertained ; but may be inferred from the categorical reply of the
French king, which is still preserved in the French archives. King Charles
the Seventh of France reminded the Duchess that the grant was made to the
heirs-male of the body of her husband, and that without the consent of the
French crown the duchy could not pass to any collateral heir, or other person,
while no arrears could be claimed, because, said the king, by the law and
custom of France the duchy had reverted to the crown on the death of the
1 Letters and Papers Illustrative of the
Wars of the English in France, temp. Henry vi.,
by Rev, Joseph Stevenson, vol. i. pp. 20, 21.
The letter is written from Douglas, and dated
14th May, without the year. The editor of
the Letters, etc., has placed it under the year
1425, but the true date must be between 1447
and 1450. The Duchess refers to her nephew.
King .James the Second, and his Chancellor,
William, Lord Crichton, which, with what
is stated above, render it impossible that
the letter could have been written in 1425.
Crichton received a safe-conduct on 2.3d April
144S to proceed to France, [Rotuli Scotia?,
vol. ii, p. 332.]
DUCHESS OF TOURAIXE CLAIMS TERCE FROM DUCHY. 307
first Duke of Touraine, and had remained in his own liands during the life of
tlie Earl of WigtowTi, seeing that Earl had never done homage to him for the
duchy, which the nature of that appanage, and the conditions under which it
was given, required he should do.
King Charles expressed himself deeply grieved at the death of the first
Duke and his children, as he had been well pleased if not only they but
all the other chivalry and nobility of France and Scotland had survived
VerneuiL But the fortunes of w\ar must be accepted as God is pleased to
send them. He expresses his affection for the house of Douglas, and would
do for the membei^ of it what lay in his power. He also put a high value
upon the services rendered by them to him, but would remind the claimants
that these had ah-eady been recompensed, not only to the Duke, but to the
lords of his company, who had received many and various benefits and
gratuities, while the Scottish soldiers entailed great expenses on the kingdom,
causing much suffering and loss to his subjects.
To the Countess of the eighth Earl of Douglas, who had requested any
moveables belonging to her grandfather in the French king's hands, he
replied that there were none such. He thanked the eighth Earl for the offer
of his services, of which, in need, he would be careful to take advantage.
But he repudiated all imputations of malice and cavilling with respect either
to the original gift or his present conduct, having done nothing but what
the law^ and custom of France required him to do, in proof of which he refers
to the parallel case of the duchy of Orleans.
Margaret, Duchess of Touraine, survived until at least January 1449-50,
when she resigned her lordship of Galloway. She is mentioned as deceased
in September 1456.^ Her sway as lady of Galloway is described as full of
gentleness.^ She is thought to have died at Thrieve, and was buried in the
chancel of the church of Lincluden, where her remains were placed in a
* Exchequer Rolls, vol. vi. p. 196. - The Agnews of Lochnaw, p. 65.
398
ARCHIBALD, FIRST DUKE OF TOURAIXE, ETC.
sarcophagus, and an elegant tomb was erected to her memory. It is
in the form of an arch ornamented with beautiful carving, and adorned in
iront with the armorial shields of several families. At the apex of the arch
there is a beautiful device of the Douglas heart encircled with the three
cups of Moray of Bothwell, Panitarius of Scotland, and the three Moray
stars. On the tomb are the inscriptions, one in French, "a I'aide de Dieu "
and another in Latin, thus translated-" Here lies Lady Margaret, dau^^hter
of tiie king of Scotland, sometime Countess of Douglas, lady of Galloway
and of Annandale." Eepresentations of the tomb of the Duchess and its
armorial decorations are given in the accompanying illustrations.
By his Duchess, Archibald, first Duke of Touraine, had two sons and one
daughter.^
^ Genealogists have usually assigned an-
other daughter to Archibald, fourth Earl
of Douglas, named Margaret, who, they say,
married WDliam, third Earl of Orkney.
No evidence, however, has been found for
this second daughter, and as the husbaud
ascribed to her married the only known
daughter of this Earl of Douglas, it is probable
there has been some confusion. In addition
to his chHdren by his Duchess, the Duke
of Touraine may have had several others
of illegitimate birth. On 20th April 1421,
the Earl of Douglas granted to Christian
Ramsay the lands of Balnacrefe and Gosford,
with the patronage of the Red Hospital,
to be held by her during her Hfe, and
then by the first-born heir-male begotten
or to be begotten between her and the said
Earl of Douglas; faiUng the first, by the
second, then the third, and so on successively.
The Earl of Douglas had a manor at Balnacrief.
This charter was confirmed by the Earl of
Wigtown on 6th March 1422-3. According to
the Auchinleck Chronicle, John of Douglas,
who took part with Donald of the Isles in a
raid on Inverkip, about the year 1452, was
a natural son of Archibald, Earl of Douglas.
[Auchinleck Chronicle, pp. 13, 55.] If thL he
correct he was probably the son of Christian
Ramsay. She appears to have been the
daughter of one of the Earl's grooms, who,
gaining the favour of his master, obtained
several grants of lands to himself and Chris-
tian, his wife. He also got the keepershij.
of Lochmaben Castle, and the offices of
Chamberlain and Chancellor of Annandale
in February 1420-1, which appointments
were renewed by the Earl on the eve of his
departure for France, and confirmed by his
son, the Earl of Wigtown. [Vol. iu. of this
work, pp. 54-56; also Appendix; Registrum
Magni SigiUi, vol, ii. Nos. 70, 71, and 143.]
?v.,.
■ ^^i^v liii^'^C^J^:::;^
f! 7}:'.v ^v >'/''-^\, , j'^/, /'/7 /•';•' I
-?.^
•r-
"'^'^is
i^' TrriN .i\ *- -J t
THE TOMB OF MARGARET, COUNTESS OF DOUGLAS,
IN LINCLUDEN COLLEGE.
*.-•:- -I.-: -■ .-OKI
J.
^J
. «T;^^ >^
1
i
r^^^.
INSCRIPTION ON THE TOMB OF MARGARET COUNTESS OF DOUGLAS
IN LINCLUDEN COLLEGE.
M '^^k lft%.
"^^iijSi^,
-.%
--^''-">-^-^~:^l!
/ .
/. ^•■•
W:
■'*■ ''^ - ^ I «|^ -s^ ?'<■'.
\
\ !
I
1/
Xi>^^
ARMORIAL STONES ON THE TOMB OF MARGARET COUNTESS OF DOUGLAS
IN LINCL'JDEN COLLEGE.
TK
v V-.-- X -f-
I
'■& « V ■■<■ V '.'■.'. J. j J|
W It^ 'TV .; \^*>:£ ^'
ARMORIAL BEARINGS OF THE DOUGLAS FAMILY
IN LINCLUDEN COLLEGE.
HIS CHILDREN. 399
1. Archibald, Earl of Wigtown, who succeeded his father, and of whom a
memoir follows.
2. Sir James of Douglas, knight, who frequently acted the part of a
hostage for his father in England, and is mentioned in the agreement
between his father and the Duke of Albany in 1409. He was
himself a captive in England in UlS and 1419, having probably
been taken by the English in their raids into Scotland during that
period, but was ransomed in 1419. He was proposed as a hostage
for King James the First in 1421, but as the king's release did not
take place at that time, he was not required. He afterwards
witnessed several charters by his fatlier and brother, and accom-
panied his father to France. He was knighted before the battle
of Verne uil, but shared the fate of his father, and was buried
with him in the same grave in the choir of the Cathedral Chui'ch
of Tours.
The Duke's daughter was —
Lady Elizabeth Douglas, who married— 1st, John Stewart, Earl of Buchan,
Chamberlain of Scotland, Constable of France, etc., and had issue
one daughter, Margaret, married, before 1436, to George, Lord Seton.
John, Earl of Buchan, was killed at the battle of Verneuil in 1424,
and Lady Elizabeth Douglas married, 2dly, Sir Thomas Stewart,
natural son of Alexander Stewart, Earl of ]\Iar. He obtained a
grant of the earldom of Mar on the resignation of his father, but
died in the lifetime of his father without issue. Lady Elizabeth
Douglas married, 3dly, William Sinclair, third Earl of Orkney, who
survived her. She is said to have founded the subterranean chapel
or crypt at the east end of Eoslin College or Chapel, built by her
husband. Above the door of the crypt is the following inscription
in Gothic characters : '' Forte est vinum, fortior est Rex, fortiores
400
ARCHIE All), FIRST DUKE OF TOUR A I NE, ETC.
sunt mulieres, super omnia vincit Veritas."^ The Countess of
Buchau and Orkney died about the year 1451.-
^ Spottiswood's Account of the Religious Houses in Scotland, printed iii Keith's Bishops,
p. 471. ^ E.xchequer Rolls, vol. v. p. 51G ; vol. vi. pp. 267, 2GS.
^' V^^\ \HQ^ '--^-^ ^i- ^J
^^> t
V-'c<- S.V.,^-'>^S?f^ y
401
VIII.— 1. ARCHIBALD, SECOND DUKE OF TOURAINE, FIFTH EAEL
OF DOUGLAS, EAEL OF WIGTOWN AND LONGUEVILLE,
LORD OF GALLOWAY, Etc.
LADY EUPHEMIA GRAHAM, his Countess.
1424—1439.
rriHE first Duke of Touraine and fourth Earl of Douglas was succeeded
in these and other dignities, and the extensive territorial possessions of
his family, by his only surviving lawful son, Archibald, who became second
Duke of Touraine and fifth Earl of Douglas. The four previous Earls of
Douglas were renowned warriors, but it was the fate or the fortune of this
Earl of Douglas to be less engaged in military than in civil affairs. As the
nephew of King James the First, the Earl took an active share in establishing
the king on his return to Scotland from his long captivity in Enghand. As
the first cousin of King James the Second, and the nobleman of greatest
influence in Scotland, this Earl of Douglas was appointed to the office of
Lieutenant-General of the kingdom, which was practically that of Regent.
This Earl of Douglas was probably born in or about the year 1.390, as the
marriage of his parents, the fourth Earl and the Princess ]Margaret, was
celebrated shortly before that year. He first comes into notice as one of the
hostages for his father in September 1405, and was uniformly one of the
number sent to England to secure the temporary release of his father. Tims
between the years 1405 aud 1413, the heir of Douglas must have passed a
considerable part of his youth in England, and probably was educationally
VOL. I. 3 F
402 ARCHIBALD, SECOXD DUKE OF TOURAIXE, ETC.
benefited by his sojourn there. He was the principal hostage, and it was
part of the agreement between the fourth Pkrl and the king of England,
that if the former died during his parole, his eldest son and heir should
remain in his stead.^ The position of a hostage inferred nothing of tlie
unpleasantness of captivity associated with the modern idea of imprisonment.
Beyond the restraints imposed by their being under official surveillance the
liberty of hostages was not infringed. They might wander over all England,
" through castles, walled cities, and other strongholds," without danger of
imprisonment on any cause saving that of their being hostages, but defraying
always the cost of their own maintenance.-
By the year HIS, the ransom exacted for the release of the fourth Earl
of Douglas having been fully paid, the Master of Douglas must have finally
returned from his duties as hostage. He had now reached the years of
maturity, and for a time attended on his father in the capacity of a squire
or shield-bearer.^ During the years 1417 and 1418 the custumars of the
burghs of Edinburgh and Linlithgow charged the young Douglas, in the one
case, with breaking the an-est of the custumars and taking custom of over
£50 ; and in the other, with refusing to permit payment of the custom due
on his wool, and the matter was referred to the Recent.*
As next heir of the Douglas estates under the entail of 1342, the Master of
Douglas frequently confirmed charters gi-anted by his father. The fourth Earl,
in 1410, had granted the lands of Tulliallan, in Clackmannanshire, to Sir John
^ Vol. iii. of this work, p. 47. the English king, and taken refuge in Scot-
2 In May 1408, during one of those periods land. [Rynier's Foedera, vol. viii. p. 527.]
of sojourn in England, Archibald, Master of
Douglas, was the means of j)rocuring from
King Henry the Fourth the pardon of an
Englishman accused of communicating with
the Earl of Northumberland and other English
subjects who had risen in rebellion against ^ Exchequer Rolls, vol. iv. pp. 278, 290.
^ In this character he witnessed a charter
by his father at the castle of Lochniaben
on 7th July 1414. [Registrum ]SIagni Sigilli,
vol. ii. No. 70.]
SENT TO FHAXCE, 1419. 403
Ediuonstoue, the husband of Lady Isabel Stewart, widow of James, second Earl
of Douglas and ]\Iar.^ These the jNIaster of Douglas confirmed on 1 0th August
1418, at Edinburgh, in favour of Sir John Edmoustone and his son David.-
The policy pursued by King Henry the Fifth of England in France, a
great part of which he had subdued by arms, had an important influence
upon the fortunes of the house of Douglas at this period. King Charles the
Sixth of France had yielded to his victorious adversary, who, by the treaty of
Troyes, not only carried off the French king's daugliter, Katherine, as his
bride, but obtained a declaration in his favour that he and his heirs for ever
were the lawful heirs of the crown of France.^ Further, as the king of
France laboured under a mental malady, which frequently incapacitated him
from the exercise of his regal functions, the king of England was proclaimed
regent of France, and assumed the reins of government. Against these pro-
ceedings the Dauphin of France, the lawful heir to the throne, strenuously
protested, and, though deprived by an Act of the French Parliament of all
right to the succession, he appealed for redress to his sword, and sent ambas-
sadors to all the nations in alliance with France to solicit their assistance.
Scotland was one of these kingdoms, and, along with other envoys, the
Duke of Vendome was despatched on this mission to the Scottish Court.
The liegent Albany summoned a meeting of Parliament to consider the
request, and in fulfilment of the ancient alliances between Scotland and
France, it was agreed to despatch a strong body of Scottish soldiers to the
Dauphin's aid. The Regent's second son, John Stewart, Earl of Buchan, who
was also the son-in-law of the Earl of Douglas, and the Master of Douglas,
were selected to command this expedition, and they were accompanied by
several Scottish barons of renowned knightly fame.'*
» Vol. iii. of this work. Dernely, Constable of Scotland, Sir Robert
- Liber Insule Missanira, p. lii. Stewart of Ralston, Sir William Swinton, Sir
2 Rymer's Fa^dera, vol. ix. pp. S95-904. Hugh Kennedy, and Alexander Lindsay,
* Among these were Sir John Stewart of brother of the Earl of Crawford.
404 ARCHIBALD, S ECO XT) DUKE OF TOURAIXE, ETC.
In connection with this expedition it is to be observed that the Master of
Douglas is styled Earl of Wigtown. The title was not previously borne by
him, and it may be inferred that he now received from the Eegent a confir-
mation of the dignity, although no charter or patent has been discovered.
After his succession to his father as Duke of Touraine and Earl of Douglas,
he continued to use the title of Earl of Wigtown along with his other titles
in charters and other documents. The title was probably bestowed on the
eve of this, the first important command intrusted to the Master of Douglas,
in order to add lustre and dignity to the expedition.
Seven thousand men-at-arms were equipped, and in vessels supplied by
the dauphin and his allies, the king of Castile and Infant of Arragon, they
were transferred in safety to the French coast. Henry the Fifth of England
made an ineffectual effort to intercept these succours on the voyage. He
sent peremptory orders to his brother, the Duke of Bedford, and others, to
impress as many vessels as possible, and despatch them on this errand ;^ but
the orders either came too late or were neglected. The landing was effected
at La Rochelle, and the Scottish troops were cantoned in the little town of
Chatillon, in Touraine. Here they lay on the outposts of the French posi-
tion, and made many brilliant and successful sorties against the English, in
which they took castles and regained several towns which had been lost to
the French. But because they were not successful in driving the English
out of the country altogether, they were denounced by the French people to
the dauphin as nothing better tlian drinkers of wine and eaters of sheep.-
* Dated in August and September 1419. of France," which contains the following : —
Kymer's Fcedera, vol. ix. pp. 791-794. " Behold us through the frosty air, begging, in
2 Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 459. The ■'^8'^' the scanty dole,
For all is gone. The hunirry Scot, and haughty
Spanish allies of the French were as obnox- Spaniard, in their turn.^
ioua as the Scots were, and both are referred Have strippe<l us to the skin, God wot I and left
to in a popular ballad, entitled, " The Com- ""* *» ^^^n'^nt and mourn."
plainings of the poor commonalty and labourers [Monstrelet's Chronicle, vol. i. p. 481.]
"^
VfCTOniES OF THE SCOTS IX FUAXCE, 1421. 405
The dauphin bore these murmurs patiently, and in a short time had a tan-
gible proof of their causeless discontent to present to the complainers, as,
in fact, the Scots were the first to secure a favourable turn for his prospects
respecting the crown of France.
The Scots had come to France in 1419, and for the first half of the following
year not only were they engaged in frontier duty in Anjou, Touraine, and Maine,
but they accompanied the dauphin as far south as Toulouse and Carcassone,
enabling him to make liimself master of the whole central provinces, with slight
exceptions. The first decisive conflict between the English and the allied
troops was fought at Bauge, on 21st March 1421. The former were com-
manded by Thomas, Duke of Clarence, brother of Henry the Fifth of England,
wliile the allied army was under the direction of the P'arls of Buchan and
AVigtown and the brave La Hire. The engagement that followed has been
compared to that fought at the bridge of Stirling, where Wallace defeated
Surrey and Cressingham. Between the combatants flowed a rapid river
spanned by a narrow bridge, which was taken possession of by the Scots.
I >etermined to force a passage, the Duke of Clarence, easily distinguished by
the gilt coronet which surmounted his helmet, surrounded by his chief
officers, rushed on the defenders, but was met with firm resistance. One
Scotchman, John Carmichael, shivered his. lance upon the English leader,
who was then wounded in the face by Sir William Swiuton, and brought to
the ground by a IjIow from the mace of the Earl of Buehan. The other
English commanders, among whom were the Earls of Somerset and Hunting-
»lon, were either slain or made prisoners, and the English troops, rushing
forward to avenge their loss, were routed.^
After this engagement the dauphin bestowed upon the Scottish leadei-s
titles and estates in France, the Earl of Wigtown receiving the earldom and
' Miohera Les Ecossais en France, vol. i. pp. 114- 121 ; Monstrelet's Chronicle, vol. i.
pp. 458, A^^^.
40G ARCHIBALD, SECOND DUKE OF TOURAINE, ETC.
title of Longueville in iS^ormaudy, and the lands and castleward of Dun-la-ioy
in Beny.^ From this time the Master of Douglas Nvas styled in charters and
other documents granted by or to him, Earl of Wigtown and Longueville, and
Lord of Dunlaroy,' Possession of the lordship of Dunlaroy may have been
obtained, but Longueville appears to have been nothing more than a titlf.
In the same year, 1421, the lands and title of Longueville were held by a
brother-in-law of the dauphin, and adherent of the English king, Gaston de
Foix, who received them as dowry with the daughter of Charles the Sixth.
The success at Bauge was followed up by the dauphin and his allies laying
siege to many of the neighbouring towns and castles. On one occasion thr
allied troops marched to the succour of Fresnay-le-Comte, then invested
by the English, and an engagement took place, in which the former were
defeated, and the Scots lost all the money — twelve thousand crowns — which
they had received as pay.^ For this, however, they were compensated by
other successes. The Earl of Wigtown gives evidence, in documents granted
by himself, that in the year 1421 he was in Le Mans, Tours, and Angers,
the centre of the dauphin's operations. One of these documents is an
acknowledgment by himself to the executors of Sir AVilliam Douglas ot
Logton, that he had forcibly and against their will extracted from the house
and chest of one of tliem, certain articles of silver plate, which he pro-
^ Xow Duu-sur-Auron, chief town of the offered up ia the Church of St. Mary at
Canton of Cher. [Michel's Les Ecossais en llouen. Perhaps he also lost his life in this
Fi-ance, vol. i. p. 142.] The Earl also, with action, as on the retour of his sou to the
the rest of his fellows, frequently obtained barony of Hawick in September 1427, Sir
presents of horses. [Ibid.] William Douglas of Drumlanrig is said to be
„ ,^ , ... . ^, . , ., dead six years. In the month of ^Nlarch fol-
^ vol. lu. of this work, p. ol.
lowing, the fifth Earl of Douglas confirmed ti'
3 Michel's Les Ecossais en France, vol. i. the son of Sir William the grant of the barouy
p. 118. In this engagement Sir William of Hawick, made by his father to his deceased
Douglas of Drumlaurig lost his banner in kinsman. [The Scotts of Buccleuch, by Wil-
flight, which was taken by the English and liam Eraser, vol. ii. i)p. 20, 27.]
RETURN OF THE EARL TO SCOTLAND, 1423. 407
inised to restore to the heir of Logton. Tliis is dated at Angers, lOtli
December 1421.^ The other document, tliough granted after the Pearl's
return to Scotland, specifies certain loans which he saw granted by Henry
Douglas of Logton to his brother, Sir AVilliam Douglas of Lochleven, at
Le Mans and Tours, at a time when the value of the French money was
undergoing rapid changes.- Such changes took place in 1421.^
The next notable conflict between the English and the Scottish troops in
France took place in the beginning of July 1422 at Crevant, and ended in
disaster for the Scots, three thousand of whom, it is said, were taken captive
or left dead on the field.* After this battle the dauphin, now Charles the
Seventh of France, sought to checkmate the device of tlie now deceased
Henry the Fifth of England in enlisting the fourth Earl of Douglas into
the English service in France, by soliciting that Earl's aid for himself. To
secure this he sent the Earls of Buchan and Wigtown back to Scotland,
with other ambassadors, who succeeded in persuading the Earl of Douglas to
embark in the sei-vice of Charles the Seventh. The sequel has already been
narmted in the previous memoir.
The Earl of Wigtown did not return to France with his father. He was
prevented, it is said, by sickness, but there were other reasons why he should
not accompany liis father and his younger brother in their perilous enterprise.
Important events were transpiring at home in which policy required that the
most influential house in Scotland should be represented. On the other
hand, indications were not wanting of the temper cherished by James the
First against those whom he undoubtedly, though wrongfully, supposed were
to blame for his protracted detention in England, indications which the fourth
Eai-1 of Douglas had probably perceived when he visited the king in 1421,
and which perhaps aided his resolve to seek, for a time at least, security in
' Vol iii. of this work, p. 57. ^ Monstrelet's Chronicle, vol. i. pp. 461,469.
- Ibid. p. .IS. •» Ibid. p. 500.
408 ARCHIBALD, SECOND DUKE OF TOUR A INK, ETC.
absence from Scotlaud. If so, the cruel vengeance of James tiie Fir.st
wreaked upon Murdach, Duke of Albany, his sons, and the aged, inoffensive
Earl of Lennox, justified the sagacity of Douglas, for there is good reason to
believe that had he, the first Duke of Albany's friend and "coadjutor in the
regency, remained in Scotland, he, though brother-hi-law of the king, would
have shared the fate of that king's murdered kinsmen.
There was less to be feared by the Earl of "Wigtown, who therefore
remained in Scotland, and represented his father in the welcome of the country
to her long-captive king. On 13th December 1423, and again on 3d February
following, the Earl received safe-conducts along with nearly all the Scottish
nobles and barons to proceed to Durham, the appointed place of meeting with
King James,^ and thence escorted the king into his own dominions. He also
took part in the coronation rejoicings at Scone, and is named among those
who were knighted by James on that occasion, 21st May 1424.-
In the following March the king held his second Parliament, and had
matured his plans for the effectual intimidation of the nobles and barons.
This he did by seizing and placing in ward his cousin, Duke Murdach, the
late regent, and twenty-six others, among whom was Archibald, Earl of
Wigtown, now, by the death of his father in France, second Duke of
Touraine and fifth Earl of Douglas. In May the Parliament Avas continued
at Stirling, when several of those imprisoned were brought to trial, and a
grand jury of twenty-one was empanelled, which included a number of tho>e
who were seized in March, and now liberated, apparently in order to secuie
the execution of the king's pleasure upon those he had designed to death.
The Earl of Douglas sat as one of this assize which condemned the Duke of
Albany, his two sons, and the Flarl of Lennox, who were executed immedi-
ately on the sentence being pronounced.^
^ Rotiili ScotijB, vol. ii. pp. 244, 245. - Liber Pluscardensis, vol. i. p. 370.
3 Fordun, ii Gomlall, vol. ii. pp. 4S2-484.
SUCCESSION TO HIS FATHER IX U24.
409
On the death of his father at the battle of Verneuil in August 1424, the
Earl of Wigtown succeeded to the title of Earl of Douglas, aud also to that
of Duke of Touraine. In the records of the municipality of Tours, within a
month after the battle of Verneuil, there is an entry respecting the'accession
of the new duke— an order of the magistrates for the payment of £1000 to
the Earl of Douglas for his happy accession.i This was only a vote in the
Earl's absence ^ providing for his future assumption of the dukedom. I5ut in
the montli of October 1424 or 1425, Charles the Seventh of France, misled
by a report that the fifth Earl of Douglas had died in Scotland, bestowed the
duchy of Touraine on Louis d'Anjou, King of Sicily.^ This prince was
betrothed to a niece of the French king, who had promised as her dowry one
hundred thousand livies. But finding his treasury exhausted, and believing
the Earl of Douglas dead, Charles gave the duchy of Touraine in pledge for
the payment of this sum.
It does not appear that the fifth Earl of Douglas took any steps to
rectify this error on the part of the king of France, further than assuming
and bearing the title and arms proper to the duchy as part of his honour.r,
but though he generally styles himself Duke of Touraine in charters and
other documents, the title was not officiaUy given to him in Scotland.
Michel says that as soon as this Earl Archibald, son of tbe Earl slain at
Verneuil, learned what had taken place in France respecting the duchy, he
at once, in concert with his mother and his wife, claimed the duchy of which
Louis dAujou was in possession ; and that to satisfy him Charles the Seventh
gave him otlier lands in compensation, with power to bear the title of Duke
of Touraine. But the authority on which this statement is based refers to
» Michel's Les Ecossais en France, vol. i. Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. No. 11.]
^' ■ ^ Letters-patent, dated at Angers, 21st
- The Earl was with King James at Mel- October 1424, old style. [Michel's Les
rose on 12th October 1424. [Registrura Ecossais en France, vol. i. p. 149.]
VOL. T.
?> y
410 ARCHIBALD, SECOND DUKE OF TOURAINE, ETC.
the later effort made by William, the eighth Earl of Douglas, and his
Countess, in concert with the widow of the first Duke of Touraine, to
recover the duchy, in the year 1448.^ After the battle of Verneuil, the fifth
Earl of Douglas never derived any revenue from the French possessions
bestowed on his father and himself, nor had he any connection witb them.
Sliortly after his establishment on the throne King James the First, on
the resignation of the Earl of Douglas, made a regrant of the lands of the
barony of Bothwell in conjunct-fee to the Earl and his Countess, Euphemia
Graham.- The adjacent barony of Strathavon M'as lield on a similar footing
by the Earl's uncle, James, Lord of Balvany, and his wife Beatrice, under
certain reservations to the Earl.^ Some modifications in regard to other
Douglas possessions seem also to have taken place in this Earl's time, as
in charters by King James the Second to William, eighth Earl of Douglas,
there are references to resignations and gifts made by Archibald, fifth Earl,
to King James the First, from the lands of the forests of Ettrick and
Selkirk.* These may relate to the gift by that king in 1430^ to the monks
of Melrose of the regality of their lands, which would curtail the jurisdic-
tion of the Earl of Douglas, and require the resignation by him of so
much as was involved. This, it is probable, would be readily accorded, as
both the Earl and his father had already bestowed upon the monks the
regality of their lands of Eskdalemuir,^ and he would be ready to fulfil
what was almost the latest wish of his father, to show kindness to, and
cherish the monastery of ]\felrose and its monks. This injunction the fourth
Earl conveyed to his son in a letter on the eve of setting out for France.''
In 1425 King James the First celebrated his birthday in tlie castle of
^ Michel's Lea Ecossais en France, vol. i. ■' Registrum Magui Sigilli, vol. ii. Xo. 142 ;
pp. 149, 150, notes. Liber de Melros, vol. ii. pp. 493-497.
- Registrum Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. No. 19. " Vol. iii. of this work, pp. 51-5.3.
^ Ihid. No. 40. ^ Ibid. No3. 308, 466. ' Liber de Melros, vol. ii. p. 492.
AA'IiAyOA'^' DISPUTE BETWEEN MELROSE AND HAIGS, U25. 411
St. Andrews, when the Earl of Douglas and other nobles are said by Bower
to have been present, and taken part in the rejoicings, which were continued
until the feast of Epiphany (Gth January).^ The Earl had shortly before
been called to adjudicate in the final settlement of a long-continued dispute
between the Haigs of Bemerside and the monks of Melrose respecting the
marches of the lands of Redpath. The Haigs were dissatisfied with the
award made by the fourth Earl of Douglas in 1418, narrated in the
previous memoir, and kept up the contention by driving away from the
disputed land or killing the cattle of the abbey, and wounding the servants
who resisted them in so doing. The churchmen retaliated with their own
peculiar weapons, and anathematised their opponents, — a procedure, how-
ever, which did not effect its purpose, and the dispute was again referred
to arbitration, the judge being the fifth Earl of Douglas. He w^as successful
in bringing about a reconciliation, and the marches were re-defined to the
contentment of all parties, by a jury of thirteen of the inhabitants of the
neighboui'hood.-
Little is recorded of the proceedings of the Earl of Douglas until the year
1429, when he attended the meeting of Parliament at Perth in April, and
was deputed as one of a number of Scottish Commissioners for the settle-
ment of a truce with England.^ The Earl did not take part in these
negotiations at this time, as the rebellion of the Lord of the Isles drew
James to the north of Scotland, and Douglas accompanied the king in
his northern expedition,* afterwards returning with him to Edinburgh and
^ Fordun, a Gooclall, vol. ii. p. 487. * He witnessed charters by King James the
2 Liber de Melros, voL ii. pp. oo9-545 ; First at Perth, on .Slst ilarch, and at Inver-
The Haigs of Bemerside, pp. 89-97. ness, on 27th July 1429. [Kegistrum Magui
^ There are two safe-conducts granted at Sigilli, vol. iii. No. 192S ; vol ii. No. 127.]
this time, dated respectively 11th May and The rebel Lord was defeated in Lochaber in
15th June 1429. [Kotuli Scotiie, vol. iL June of that year.
pp. 265, 26G.]
412
ARCHIBALD, SECOND DUKE OF TOURAIXE, ETC.
Perth.^ In November he was at his own castle of Bothwell, whence, a.s
patron of the church of Cambuslang, he directed a letter to John, bishop
of Glasgow, presenting Mr. Thomas Eoiile to the office of canon of the
Cathedral Church of Glasgow, in connection with the same charge which
was in process of being erected into a prebend.-
In the following January the Earl was again in Edinburgh,^ but towards
the end of the same month had returned to Bothwell.* He was again
appointed one of the Scottish commissioners for the renewal of the truce
with England,^ but was present at the meeting of Parliament held at
Perth in the beginning of the following March.^ During this year tlie Earl
obtained from the king a remission of customs due on twelve bas-s of
wool, in favour of a burgess of Edinburgh.^
Save the mere mention of the Earl's being in attendance at Court and
witnessing grants by King James,^ he is not again referred to until 1431,
when, for some cause, of which no adequate explanation has been fomid,
he and Sir John Kennedy were arrested,^ and placed in ward, the former
in the castle of Lochleven, the latter in Stirling Castle. The Earl's im-
prisonment, however, was but of short duration, as, at the instance of the
Queen and nobility and bishops he was released in the end of September tlie
^ He witnessed royal charters at Edin-
burgh, on 20th, 24th, and 30th August, and
at Perth on 6th October 1429. [Registrum
Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. Nos. 12S-130, 134.]
2 26th November 1429. Registrum Glas-
guense, vol. ii. p. 323. The presentee was
chaplain to King James the First. [Rotuli
ScotisB, vol. ii. pp. 265, 2G9.]
^ Registrum Magni Sigilli, voL ii. No. 142.
The Earl witnessed at Edinburgh, on 8th
January 1429-30, the charter of the regality
of Melrose previously referred to.
* Vol. iii. of this work.
5 24th January 1429-30. Rotuli Scotia,
vol. ii. p. 269.
'' Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland,
vol. ii. pp. 17, 2S.
<■ Exchequer Rolls, vol. iv. ])p. 507, .508.
'' He witnessed a royal charter at Perth nn
15th May 1430. [Registrum Magni Sigilli,
vol. ii. No. 152.]
^ Like the Earl, Sir John Kennedy was
nephew to King James the Fii-st, his mother
being the king's sister, Marj-.
IMPlUSOXMKyT IX LOCHLEVEX CASTLE, 1431. 113
.same year.^ Noue of the contemporary chroniclers state the reasons of this
aiTCst, which is all the more remarkable as they are generally careful to detail
with much minuteness the causes of sucli events when known to them, and
the sig'niticance of the omission is referred to hy ^[ajor.- There is nothing-
known regarding the life of this Earl of Douglas which can even hint at
a prohable fault on his part. He seems indeed to have demeaned himself
towards the king, wlio was his maternal uncle, with a judicious and prudent
reserve of manner, probably justified by the king's character. King James
was suspicious of all the nobility, his injustice and severity to whom are suf-
ficiently marked by such cases as Lennox, Buchan, March, and Strathern,
and his treatment of the Earl of Douglas is traceable to no other source.
Between the date of his liberation from Lochleven Castle and the deatli
of King James the Eirst nothing is recorded of the Earl save the granting
of some charters, which seem to show that he was occasionally with the king
at Court, but that lie chiefly resided at his own castles of Bothwell and
Etybredshiels or Newark.^ The last-named castle may have been built by
the fifth Earl of Douglas, as it is first referred to by him as a residence at
which he granted a charter.^ He gave a grant of lands in Sprouston in
lioxburghshire to the Carthusian friars of Pcrth,^ and confirmed to the canons
of St. Andrews the gift of two merks Scots, which his predecessors were
accustomed to receive from the small customs of their lauds of Wester
Collessie in Fifeshire. This gift has a peculiar interest for the Douglas
history, as it was made in free and perpetual alms for the maintenance
of the light Ijefore the image of St. Andrew, in the Cathedral Church
thereof, at the high altar, where stands that image which is commonly
' FoiJun, ii Goodall, vol. ii. p. 490. * Registrum Magni Sigilli, voL ii. No. 59.
- Majoris Historia, edition 1740, p. 305.
^ Vol. iii. of this work ; Registrum Magni •* 2d February 143.S. Vol. iii. of this
Sigilli, vol. ii. Nos. 199, 200. work.
Ali
ARCHIBALD, SECOyn DIKE OF TOU MAINE, ETC.
called the Douglas Lady. This gift had been made of old time by his
ancestors, of wliich the Earl declares he was fully satisfied by its long stand-
ing, and by authentic writs.^
A few years afterwards the Earl was involved in a dispute with the Earl
of Athole respecting the lands of Dunbarny and Pitcaithly in Perthshirt-.
These lands had been granted by AValter, Earl of Athole, to the fourth Earl
of Douglas, on whose death in Erance Athole resumed possession. Some time
afterwards the fifth Earl of Douglas demanded entry, but was refused, and,
to bring a somewhat sharp dispute to a termination, the king ordered Douglas
to resign the lands into the hands of his superior, and Athole to render them
into the king's hands. Douglas obeyed, the procuratory for resigning tlu-
lands being dated by him at Linlithgow on 22d April 1436.- So also did
Athole, and the king retained possession of the lands.^ After the king's
death, and the execution of the Earl of Athole for complicity therein, Douglas
appointed a bailie over tliem.'*
The death of King James the First, on the evening of 20th February
1436-37, had an important bearing on the subsequent period of this Earl's
life. At the coronation at Holyrood, a month later, of the young King
James the Second, then a boy of six years, the Earl of Douglas, who was
1 Registnim Pi-ioratus Sancti Andree,
pp. 406, 407. One of the witnesses is John
of Ealaton, provost of Bothwell, and, as he
did not become so until at least 1432, this
confirmation must be in or after that year.
An image of Isabella Douglas, Countess of
Mar and Garioch, is said to have been placed
by herself in the choir of the church of tlie
Priory of St. Saens in France, as a souvenir
of herself on leaving the country. She in-
herited the lands of St. Saens from her father,
it is said, and sold them on I4th March 1420
to a relative, Roger of Ediulmrgh. Ou 2Sth
July 140S she sold the remainder of her
possessions in that place, and then quitted
the country. The figure has since been lost.
[Les Ecossais en France, par Francisque
Michel, vol. i. p. 64.]
- Vol. iii. of this work.
"' Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, voL vi.
pp. 245, 240.
* Letters of bailiarj' over Dunbarny in
favour of George Pringle, November 1437.
Vol. iii. of this work.
LIEUT ES Ay T-UEyERAL OF SCOTLAXJ), 1437. 415
fii-st cousin of the young sovereign, was appointed lieutenant-general of tli(3
kingdom, and held the office until his death. ^ The custody of the king was
given by Parliament to his mother the queen.
The history of the earlier years of King James the Second, as related hy
Boece and his copyists, Lindsay of Pitscottie, Bishop Leslie, Godscroft, and
others, is so distorted and unreliable that it is extremely difficult to ascer-
tain the events that really took place. According to them the state of the
country rapidly degenerated into rapine and violence, to which the Earl of
Douglas largely contributed. The fact that Douglas was the lieutenant-general
of the kingdom is ignored, and Sir Alexander Livingstone, who was merely
governor of Stirling Castle, is described as governor of the kingdom, and
Sir \Villiam Crichton, the governor of Edinburgh Castle, is called chancellor
of Scotland. The country, it is asserted, was divided into rival factions,
caused by Crichton and Livingstone both aiming at the supreme power,
temiinating in actual civil warfare by Livingstone besieging Crichton in the
castle of Edinburgh. Crichton is then said to have sent messengers to the
Earl of Douglas asking assistance, who were disdainfully dismissed with
the answer that nothing would be more pleasing to Douglas than that
the rivals should destroy one another. Seeing his peril, Crichton came to
terms with Livingstone, surrendered the castle, and was restored and con-
tinned in the government. Shortly afterwards the Earl of Douglas died,-
Such, in brief, is the narrative of these historians. But from the few
authentic fragments of record of that period, it may be gathered that, very
far from withdrawing from the government of the kingdom to his own
' Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, and £10, 13.s. 4<l. [Exchequer Rolls, vol. v.
vol. ii. p. 31. Mention is made of payments pp. 12, 73, 13S.]
to the Earl by the Chamberlain of Scotland - Boethii Historia Scottorum, edition \7}~A,
of the salary of this office, at the tirst audit fols. 3.57-359 ; Lindsay of Pitscottie, i>p. .3-12 ;
after the king's death, in July 1437, £60, and Leslie's History of Scotland, i>p. 12, 13 ;
of arrears paid in 1440 and 1443 of £100, (iodscroft, edition 1044, pp. 130,144.
41G ARCHIBALD, SECOXi) DUKE OF TOUllAISK, ETC
castles and country, the Earl of Douglas spent most of his time in tla-
public service. During his rule Parliament was ordained to assemble twice
every year, and as evidence that tliis was done there remain on record Act>
of the Parliaments held in Xovember and December 1437, and March U3t<.
These Acts are of considerable importance. One prescribes measures to be
taken by the sheriffs throughout tlie country for the repression of crime, and
requiring them to intimate any case beyond their power to the lieutenant,
who was authorised to proceed against transgressors of the higher orders.
Another Act prohibited the alienation of any of the crown lands during tlie
king's minority, unless with the consent of the three Estates.^
One of the most important measures of this period was the securing of
a nine years' truce with England in connection with a commercial treaty of
the same duration. It was desired by this treaty to foster harmonious com-
mercial relations, while, in the interests of justice, a clause of extradition
was inserted. Provision was also made for the humane regulation of affairs
when, through shipwreck or stress of weather, mariners of either country
were cast ashore on the other's coast, or driven to take shelter in their
havens.2 Negotiations were commenced shortly after the Earl's appoint-
ment as governor, and they were completed on 31st March U38.-^
It may safely be affirmed that no contention such as is alleged to have
taken place between Livingstone and Crichton, occurred during the lifetime
of the Earl of Douglas. The well-known story of the origin of their quarrel
is that whHe the queen at first took up her abode with the young king and
the rest of her family in the castle of Edinburgh, she afterwards removed
to the castle of StirUng, being obHged to resort to the stratagem of
enclosing the king in a clothes-chest in order to get him out of the hands
of Crichton. It is certain that the queen did change her place of abode.
1 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, 2 Rotuli Scoti*. vol. ii. pp. 307-310.
vol. ii. pp. 31, 32, 53. 3 Exchequer Rolls, vol. v. pp. 19. S'J.
AT ROTHESAY CASTLE WITH THE KIXG, U38. 417
but from the fact that the castle of Stirling is afterwards called " her
castle," it is probable that it was assigned to her as the residence of herself
and family by the Estates, when they gave her the care of the young king.
She. however, remained some time in Ediuburnh, but lier removal to Stirlin>'
may have created jealousy in the mind of Crichton towards Livingstone.
The care of the king reposed in them jointly with herself by the queen-
mother, gave to the governors of these castles an importance which they
otherwise would not have had. They became instrumental in providing
for the king's support, and apparently by permission of the Lieutenant-
general or the Estates, they were permitted to deal directly with the rents of
the Crown lands, and other revenues.^ Thus their influence was increased,
and a rival ambition engendered, but so long as Douglas lived, neither dared
resort to violence respecting the king's person.
There is thus reason for believing that the story of tlie stratagem adopted
by the Queen for the removal of the King to Stirling is a pure myth. She
would be at liberty to dwell where she pleased so long as she satisfied
the Estates that the life of the king was not endangered, and in removing
from Edinburgh to Stirling there is no authentic proof that any impedi-
ment was placed in her way. There was also, it would appear, a further
design of leaving Stirling for the castle of Eothesay. The Earl of Douglas,
and also his steward, spent some time in Bute, seeing that the castle
was put in proper repair, and other things in needful order for the royal
reception. Indeed, it is possible to read the entries in the E.xchequrr
Rolls referring to this visit as if the young king had been in the Earl's
company in Bute, along with some of his household officers, and meant shoilly
to return thither.- This intention was frustrated at that time by the sudden
^ Exchequer Rolls, vol. v. pp. 63, 71. domini regis in partibus occidentalibiis,"' ami
- Ibid. pp. 84-89. Hence such expressions again, " in proximo aflventu domini regi,>
by the bailies of Bute as "usque adventum in partibus occidentalibus." [Ibid. p. 8li.]
VOL. I. ;3 G
418 ARCHIBALD, SECOND DUKE OF TOUEAIXE, ETC.
death of the Earl of Douglas, but these facts indicate that before that event
the king's person was the Earl's particular care, and frequently accompanied
him from place to place.
It was after this inauspicious event, when no Eegent or Lieutenant-
general or other responsible ruler in succession to Douglas was at the helm
of afiairs, that the struggle, if any such there was, arose for the custody
of the young king. The immediate sequel to the death of Douglas was
that the queen, finding herself in an isolated and trying position, and
alarmed for her own safety, as w"ell as for that of her son, sought security
in a private marriage with Sir James Stewart, the Black Knight of Lorn.^
She was with the king and the rest of her family resident at the time in
the castle of Stirling, and Livingstone, fearing the result of such a step with
regard to the king, or as a matter of policy, deprived the queen of her
liberty, and threw her husband into a dungeon. At a meeting of the Estates,
Livingstone declared that in taking these measures he was actuated solely
by loyalty, and his desire for the safety both of the king and his motlier.
Parliament approved his conduct, and in return prevailed upon the queen
to transfer the custody of the king from herself to Livingstone, and also
the sum of four thousand merks which had been voted to her for his
maintenance. The indenture by which this was accomplished was ratified
by Parliament, and a full discharge was granted to Livingstone and his
adherents for any fault which might be imputed to them in respect of the
seizure of the king and queen.'-
As a further proof that there was no commotion in the realm such as the
historians referred to report to have taken place in the lifetime of the Earl of
Douglas, it may be mentioned that while Bishop Cameron was still chancellor
1 A Papal dispensation, dated 21st Sep- the Stewarts, p. 443.]
tember 1439, was obtained in order to legalise - 4th September 1439. Acts of the Par-
the marriage. [Andrew Stuart's History of liaments of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 54.
HIS DEATH AT llESTALRIG, 1430. 419
of Scotland, Douglas aud Crichton were working harmoniously to^^etlier.
The latter was a witness to the protest made on 30tli :\Iay U3t<, at Edinbur<>li,
by Egidia Douglas, Countess of Orkney, before her noble kinsman the
Earl of Douglas, respecting the holding of courts within her lordship of
Nithsdale.i Moreover, about six weeks before his death, the Earl of Douc^las
was sojourning for a short time at his castle of Is'ewark in the Forest,
and among those in attendance upon him was Sir William Crichton, now
Chancellor of Scotland.'-
These facts form a significant commentary on the distorted history of
those times which has come down to us from earlier writers, and which, for
want of better, has been accepted by those of our own day. It is remarkable,
however, that even Tytler should overlook the inconsistencies of the narrative
he adopts,^ and in view of the fact that Douglas was formally appointed
by Parliament as Lieutenant-general or Eegent of the kingdom, and was
in actual exercise of the office and its duties, should give currency to the
statement that such important matters as the guardianship of the youn^r
king, and the appointment of a chancellor, could be proceeded with without
the Earl's presence and consent.
From Xewark the Earl had again journeyed to Edinburgh, and was
residing in its vicinity at Eestalrig, when he was attacked by fever, and died
on the 26th of June U39. His body was conveyed to Douglas and interred
in the church of St. Bride's. A splendid monument was there erected to his
memory, and is still preserved. It bears an effigy of the Earl, crowned and
clothed in robes of state, the left hand holding a baton of office, and the
1 Vol. iil of this work. Ilk, Chancellor of Scotland, Kobert of
2 Charter dated at Newark, 4th May 1439, Gledstanis, and John Tumbull of Langtou,
of the lands of Primside in Sprouston, to Constable of the Castle of Newark. VoL iii.
Andrew Ker of Altonburn. Among the of this work.
witnesses were Sir William Crichton of that - History of Scotland, vol. iii. pp. 169, 171'.
420 ARCHIBALD, SEC OX D DUKE OF TOURAINE, ETC.
right the cord which fastens the robe. Around tlie waist is a broad and
richly ornamented belt. The effigy reposes on a slab, displaying on its
edges a Latin inscription, which, translated, is as follows : — " Here lies Sir
Archibald Douglas, Duke of Touraine, Earl of Douglas and Longueville,
Lord of Galloway, Wigtown, and Annandale, lieutenant of the king uf
Scotland, died the 26th day of the month of June, the year of our Lord
1438." The year is a mistake for 1439.
In the recess of the arch is a sculpture representing a robed figure
kneeling in prayer. Above the figure is a scroll from which tlie words are
long since obliterated, with a shield evidently bearing the Douglas arms. The
monument is beautifully ornamented with sculpture work, and along the front
there are five human figures in slight but elegantly carved panelled niches.^
Archibald, fifth Earl of Douglas, married Lady Euphemia Graham, the
elder daughter of Sir Patrick Graham of Kincardine, and Euphemia,
Countess Palatine of Strathern, and sister of Malise Graham, first Earl of
Menteith.- The marriage probably took place in 1424, or early in 1425,
and to remove impediments from consanguinity, a Papal dispensation, dated
26th June 1425, was obtained, in which the Earl and his Countess are
mentioned as already married.^ In 1425 King James regranted the barony
^ Blore's Monumental Remains, No. 22. Lady Euphemia Graham. The marriage
To the left of these tigures there is a niche w-ith Matilda or Maud Lindsay is stated by
without any figure. It has been lately re- Boece, followed by Lindsay, Leslie, and
stored. In the opinion of the restorer, that Godscroft, to have been celebrated at Dundee,
blank niche had contained armorial bearings, with great pomp and magnificence. But,
perhaps those of husband and wife, as shown as will be shown in the following memoir,
in the monument to the seventh Earl of this marriage is erroneously ascribed to the
Douglas to be afterwards noticed. fifth Earl, and was that of his son William.
- Archibald, fifth Earl of Douglas, is said [Boethii Historia Scottonim, edition 1574,
to have been twice married, first to Lady fol. 359.]
Matilda Lindsay, eldest daughter of David, ^ Andrew Stuart's History of the Stewarts,
first Earl of Crawford, and, secondly, to p. 455.
./•
:¥
. - '7-
. , /
f^
■■ V ■
2 ^-/..k'
s.;
*i "fe^;:- .v'l^- ::J1TIJ"
-_■ 5..^ Jl&^^,-f-- Ul:.,.-.^.;-- jl^-r-r^'-- ■
u.-3a«"«^
MONUMENT OF ARCHIBALD, SECOND DUKE OF TOURAINE and FIFTH EARL OF DOUGLAS
IN ST BRIDES- DOUGLAS.
HIS corxTEss Axn children. vi\
of Ijotliwell to the Earl and Countess of Douglas in conjunct-fee. Lady
Euphemia Graham, Countess of Douglas, survived the Earl, and married,
in 1440, James Hamilton, Lord of Cadzow, afterwards created Lord
Hamilton, for whicli she also obtained a dispensation from Rome.^ After
her second marriage she still retained the style of Countess of Douglas,
and under that designation is frequently mentioned in charters.'- She
was also known as Lady of Bothwell, and as such continued to draw her
terce from the Douglas estates after their forfeiture in 1455.^ After this
event Lord Hamilton and the Countess received from King James the
barony of Drumsargart.^ Lady Hamilton died between November 14GS and
^lay 14G9/ leaving issue by both husbands.
By liis Countess, Euphemia, Archibald, fifth Earl of Douglas, is known to
have had three children, two sons and a daughter, although the five figures
on his tomb suggest a corresponding number of children, if any analogy
exists between this Earl's tomb and that of his uncle James, the seventh
Earl. The other two children may have died young, no record of thr-ir
existence being preserved other than the effigies on the tomb of their parents.
The three children were —
1. William, who succeeded his father as third Duke of Touraine, sixth
Earl of Douglas, etc. Of him a memoir follows.
2. David, who was beheaded along with his brother William in the
Castle of Edinbursfh in 1440.
' Andrew Stuart's History of the Stewarts, Seconel gave to Jauaes, Lord Hamilton. [Ex-
p. 464. chequer Rolls, vol vi. pp. 2'2t), 228, 373, 44.3 ;
- Registriim Magni Sigilli, voL ii. Xos. 601, vol. vii. pp. 2.5, 478, 497, 530.]
797, 985.
„ ^ . , , •* Ist July 1455. Original in Hamilton
-* Part of these lauds were in the Forest of
Charter-chest. Vol. iii. of this work.
Ettnck, as Wyuterburgh, Eltrief, Berybuss,
and Crag Douglas, which King James the ^ Exchequer Rolls, vol. vii. pp. 619, 621.
422 ARCHIBALD, iiECOXD DIKE OF TOi'RAIXE, ETC.
3. Margaret, better known as the iair Maid of Galloway. Her history
will be afterwards referred to in the memoirs of the eighth an. I
ninth Earls of Douglas, to both of whom she was Countess.
423
IX.— WILLIAM, THIKD DUKE OF TOUIiAINE, SIXTH EAEL OF
DOUGLAS, LORD OF GALLOWAY, Etc.
JAXET OR JANE LINDSAY, his CouiNtess.
1439— U40.
rpHE career of this Earl of Douglas, though begun apparently under the
fairest auspices, was destined to be brief, while his death was the most
ill-fated of any which befell his family. Owing to the shortness of his life,
and the meagreness of record for the history of the period, scarcely any-
thing authentic can be related regarding him. Godscroft, indeed, nan-ates
his story at some length, with various incidents and speeches. But these are
chiefly borrowed from the romantic pages of Boece, and have no founda-
tion in authentic history.
This Earl was born, it would appear, about the year 1425. This is sub-
stantiated by the general consensus of the writers nearest the Earl's own
time, who state that he was fourteen years of age when he succeeded to his
father in June 1439, and that at his death in the following year he
was fifteen years of age.^ One writer states that at his death he was
eighteen years old, which would make 1422 the year of his birth, but the
* History of the Houses of Douglas and Scocie, Abbotsford Club, 1S4"2, p. 237 ; Leslie's
Angus, ed. 1G44, p. 14S ; Fordun, a Goodall, Historic of Scotland, Bannatyne Club, 1830,
vol. ii. p. 490, note ; Extracta e variis Cronicis p. 13.
424 WILLIAM, Till HI) BUKE OF TOURAINK, ETC.
former year is more consisteut with the date of his parents' iiiarriaiif in
1424, or at least before April 142").!
When a child about tive years old, he received the rank of knighthood
on the occasion of the baptism of the twin sons of King James the First,
Alexander, who died in infancy, and James, afterwards King James the
Second. The ceremony took place at Holyrood in October 1430, when the
two young princes, the heir of Douglas, William the son and heir of James.
Lord of Balvany, and others, " of tender age," were made kuights.-
No magnate in Scotland possessed so great estates as the late Earl of
Douglas, or exercised such influence as he wielded, apart from his bemg
Lieutenant-general of the kingdom. On the death of his father, therefore, in
1439, the greatest earldom in Scotland, with all its political influence, came
to a boy of fourteen years. Yet, young as he was, he has been charged by
Boece and later historians with unbounded pride and arrogance, and the
entertaining of schemes of policy and ambition worthy of the most experi-
enced statesman. But the severe imputations made against his character.
which are chiefly grounded on an alleged extravagant retinue and liberalit}-,
are not substantiated. Such displays may readily be attributed to thf
inexperience and ostentation of youth.
Godscroft suggests that the large body of attendants with which the Earl
travelled was for protection, but he Idmself throws doubt on this \'iew. He
states that the Earl rode in public with a train of between one and two
thousand horsemen, increased his circle of friends and dependants by a liber-
ality and magnificence befitting his rank as Earl and Duke, created knights,
and had a council for guiding his affairs.--^ Yet it cannot be said that tliese
^ The authority which assigns the age of some cases the dates of this writer are
eighteen to Earl William at the time of his erroneous.
death is " Ane Addicioun of Scottis CornikJis - Fordiin, a Goodall, voL ii. p. 490 ; Liber
and Deidis," commonly known as the Auchin- Phiscardensis, vol. L p. 37(j.
leek Chronicle, ed. 1S17, pp. 24, o4 ; but in •" History of the Houses of Dougla- and
SPLENDOUIi OF HIS RETIXUE. 425
acts of tlie young Earl were more extravagant than those of other nobles of
his rank, against whom no evil has been alleged. The century in which
he lived, perhaps more tlian any other, was the age of feudalism in Scot-
land ; and the greater nobles, with their large vassalage, and powers of
regality over their lauds, were almost wholly independent of the Crown.
The historian of the Lindsays tells how the Earls of Crawford "affected a
royal state, held their courts, had their heralds or pursuivants, and occa-
sionally assumed the style of princes in the numeration of their ancestors
and themselves, as David i., David ii., Alexander i., Alexander ii., of the
name Earls of Crawford. They had also a ' concilium,' or petty parliament,
consisting of the great vassals of the earldom, with whose advice they acted
on great and important occasions."^ The behaviour, therefore, of the young
Earl of Douglas, however tinged with extravagance, was only in keeping
with the traditions of his rank, and the customs of his day, and inferred no
such treasonable purposes as have been ascribed to him.
According to Boeee and Godscroft, one of the Earl's first acts was to
despatch Sir Malcolm Fleming of Cumbernauld and Sir John Lauder to the
French Court, to do homage for the duchy of Touraine. The messengers are
said to have been well received, and to have given their oaths of fidelity on
behalf of the Earl. Godscroft also states that Earl William obtained himself
invested in the duchy, as heir to his father, and Bishop Leslie says that the
Earl received a new gift of the duchy.- But, as has been shown in a previous
memoir, it was William, the eighth Earl of Douglas, who made overtures to
Angus, edition 1644, p. 14S. Godscroft's -written to please King James v. [Boece, editidu
statements are apparently partly borrowed 1574, fol. 359, L 40, et sf/. : Pitscottie's
from Boece ; but the latter adds various de- History, edition 177S, p. lo.]
tails, as to the Earl's harbouring thieves and ^ Lives of the Lindsays, vol. i. p. 116.
murderers, his arrogance, and other circum- - Houses of Douglas and Angus, edition
stances. Boece's history has a strong animus 1644, p. 148; Leslie's Historie of Scotland,
against the Douglases, probably because it was Bannatyne Club, 1830, p. 13.
VOL. L 3 H
42G
WILLIAM, THIRD DUKE OF TOU RAISE, ETC.
the French kiug as to tlie ducliy of Touraine, and this story of Boece and
others is based on misinformation of the facts. Yet the sixth Earl like his
father, continued to use the title of Duke of Touraine,^ as he was clearly
entitled to do, having inherited the dignity in terms of the limitation in the
patent of creation.
Very soon aft<3r the young Earls succession to his father, he was called on
to take part in political affairs, and was a member of that General Council
which in September 1439 sat at Stirling, and sanctioned the agreement made
between the Queen and her captor, Livingstone, alreadv referred to in the
previous memoir.^ No evidence exists of the Earl's taking any further part
m public affairs during his life. On that occasion he may have acted not
merely as one of the committee of barons, but also as the near relation of the
king. Yet his presence at a General Council, in whatever capacity and the
influence he could exercise on behalf of any party he might adhere to, would
naturally make him an object of suspicion and apprehension to the two gi-eat
rivals, Crichton and Livingstone, each fearing that Douglas would take" the
side of the other.
That this was so is proved by the event, though the steps which led to
the fatal result cannot now be traced. Boece has constructed an elaborate
narrative of the proceedings of the time, and of the doings and sayings of the
young Earl of Douglas and his opponents, narrating with too transparent
minuteness of detail the reconciliation of Crichton and Livingstone in St.
Giles' kirk, Edinburgh, and the speeelies made on that occasion." He further
relates that in a Parliament which sliortly afterwards met at Edinburgh,
^ He styles himself Duke of Touraine, Earl Charter, dated ISth Febniary 1439-40 iu
of Douglas and Longueville, etc. , ia a charter Roxburgh Charter-chest.
of the lands of Primside, in the regality of
Sprouston, Roxburghsyre, .n favour of his ^ ,,,,, ,, ,,^ Rarhaments of Scotland,
esquire, Andrew Ker of Altonburn. (-)rigmal vol. ii. pp. 54, 55.
ins MURDER IX EDINBURGH CASTLE, 1440.
427
formal complaints were made against the Earl of Douglas as a principal
cause of all enormities and mischiefs, and that the lords of Parliament
resolved to cut off tlie Earl as a means of amendmg the disorders. " Pleasant
writings" were therefore sent to him inviting him to Edinburoh ^ There
is evidence of a Parliament held at Stirling in August 1440, which passed
certain measures for regulating the execution of justice, but no reference is
made to the Earl of Douglas.^ Godscroft accepts Boece's narrative and
seems to imply that Douglas did not recognise tlie authority of Crichton as
Chancellor, or of Livingstone as the king's guardian,3 while later historians
also have adopted views prejudicial to the Earl of Douglas, and concluded
that he was guilty of treason. But the records of the time are absolutely
silent on the subject, and impute no crime to the Earl.
Owing to the lack of authentic evidence, the facts of the tinal tragedy
can be stated only in the merest outline. Whether by summons fron^the
Parliament, or more probably a letter worded in friendly terms from the
Chancellor, the young Earl and his brother David proceeded together to
Edinburgh Castle. So unsuspicious of danger were they that Sir Malcolm
Fleming of Cumbernauld was their only attendant when they entered that
fortress. On the same day, 24th November 1439, the young Earl and his
younger brother David were an-ested, and, after a mock trial in presence
of the king, a boy of ten years, were condemned, hurried out to the castle-
yard, and their heads struck from their bodies. Three or four days later
Sir Malcolm Flemiiig shared the same cruel fate.^
Indelible disgrace must ever attach to the memory of Crichton as the
chief instrument in these infamous murders.
» Boece, edition 1574, fol. 3G1, 362 ; Lind- 1644, p. 148.
say of Pitscottie, edition 1778, p. 24. 4 Auchinleck Chronicle, pp. 24, .34 • Fordun
2 Acts of^ the Parliaments of Scotland, a Qoodall, vol. ii. p. 490, note ; Maioris His-
vol. ^ pp. 32, 33. toria, edition 1740, p. 322 ; Extracta e variis
Houses of Douglas and Angus, edition Cronicia Scocia?, p. 237.
428 WILLIAM, THIRD DUKE OF TOURAIXE, ETC.
A similar tragedy was acted, as we shall see, a few years later, wheu the
eighth Earl of Douglas was the victim. The shedding of the best blood
in Scotland, first by the chancellor in presence of the king, and afterwards
by the king himself, prompted by his chancellor, have left a stain on the
name and reign of the second James which never can be effaced. The
historians of that reign, from Boece to Burton, with no authentic materials,
have distorted history by dealing in romance and conjecture, or they have
left the period almost a blank in Scottish annals.
Boece, for example, who attributes to the sixth Earl various crimes, which
made his execution a political necessity, gives a circumstantial account of the
journey to Edinburgh, and by his narrative of the young Earl's frank response
to the Chancellor's invitation, and repudiation of all treachery, unwittingly
suggests that the Earl was altogether innocent of wrong. That romantic
historian, indeed, moralises on the subject, but the story even as he tells
it implies nothing on the Earl's part but a frank boyish confidence, which
would believe no harm of those around the youthful king, and so he rode
on to his doom. In the absence of all other evidence as to the cause of
the Earl's execution, it may be suggested that it was perhaps not wholly
premeditated, but that the opportunity afforded by the Earl's presence within
the castle, and in Crichton's power, was too great a temptation to be resisted.
John Major, who wrote in 1521, gives some ground for this view. Eefen-mg
to the death o'f the two young nobles and of Fleming, Major simply says, " I
have read in the annals that these men were not guilty of death, but that
this crime was perpetrated by the advice or stratagem of William Crichton,
chancellor of Scotland."^
1 Majoris Historia, edition 1740, p. 322. he also likeus to a "cockatrice and croko-
Godscroft, in his indignation at the craft and dile," " loea beast composed of many beasts.'
cruelty of Crichton, exhausts his vocabulary [History, edition 1G44, p. 151.]
of abuse of the " Venemous Viper," whom
DIVISION OF THE DOUGLAS ESTATES, HiO. 420
It has been alleged by recent hi,st<jii:ins that the young Earl's deatli
was connived at by his grand-uncle, James, Earl of Avondale and Lord
Balvany. This assertion will be more appropriately discussed in the memoir
of the seventh Earl ; and it need only be said here that there is no e\-idence
to warrant the statement. One reason given in proof of the assertion is that
the estates of Earl William were not forfeited. T.ut apart from the fact that
he was only a minor, he held his dignities and estates under a special entail.
Forfeiture, therefore, even if pronounced as part of his doom, would not
affect the collateral heirs who were substituted to him in the entail. In the
case of Sir Malcolm Fleming, who was executed four days after the Earl,
forfeiture was pronounced, but was formally protested against by Sir
Malcolm's son as "utterly false and unlawfid," and his estates passed to his
heir.i It may be added, that when in a similar manner the eighth Earl of
Douglas was murdered in 1452 by King James the Second in StirKng Castle,
his estates were not forfeited, even though the Parliament made a pretence of
saving the king's honour by declaring the Earl guilty of treason.
By the death of the sixth Earl of Douglas and his brother the great
territories of the family were for a time divided. Douglasdale and other
entailed estates passed, under the entail of 1342, to James, Earl of Avondale.
The lordship of Galloway, east and west, with Ardmanach, Balvany, Bothwell,
and all the Douglas lands inherited from Joanna Moray of Bothwell, devolved
on Lady ]\Iargaret Douglas, the only sister of Earl AVilliam. She was the
heir of line of the Douglas family, and commonly known as the " Fair ]\Iaid
of Galloway." Annandale, however, was the only portion of the wide Douglas
territories which was wholly alienated. That lordship was in 1409 granted to
Archibald, fourth Earl of Douglas, with a limitation to the heirs-male of his
own body, whom failing, to the Earl of March. George, eleventh Earl of
March, was in 1434 attainted, and his possessions annexed to the Crown.
^ Original protest, dated at Linlithgow, 7th January 1441.
430
WILLIAM, THIRD DUKE OF TOURAIXE, ETC.
On the death of the sixth Earl of Doiin-las, therefore, Annandale lapsed t.,
the Crown in place of the forfeited Earl of ]\Iareh, and was afterwards
administered by royal officers.^
Young as was William, sixth Earl of Douglas, he was married to Lady
Janet, otherwise called Margaret Lindsay, probably a daughter of Alexander,
second Earl of Crawford, but he had no issue by her. The Countess of
Douglas survived the Earl for many years. She was alive as his v/idow in
1473, when King James the Third granted to Janet, Countess of Douglas.
spouse of the late William, Earl of Douglas, certain lands in the lordship of
Brechin. The grant bears to be made in satisfaction of terce due from her
husband's lands, then in the hands of the Crown.-
^ Exchequer Rolls, vol. v. pp. 668, 671;
voL vi. pp. 448, 552.
2 Registrum Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. Nos.
1083, 1102; Exchequer Rolls, vol. vii. pp.
Lxiii-lxviii, 325, 411, 466, 554, 632. Tytler
[History of Scotland, vol. iii. p. 198] states
that Janet Lindsay was the Countess of
William, the eighth Earl of Douglas, and
that she was divorced by him that he might
marry his cousin, the " Fair Maid of Gallo-
way." But no evidence has been found to
support this suggestion.
431
VII.-3. JAMES, SEVENTH EARL OF DOUGLAS,
FIRST EARL OF AVONDALE AXD LORD RALYAXY,
CALLED "THE GROSS."
LADY . . . STEWART, hls First Wife.
LADY BEATRIX SIXCLAIR, his Couxtess.
1440—1443.
~D Y the untimely deaths of William, sixth Earl of Douglas, and his brother
David, as narrated in tlie previous memoir, the male line of the
fourth and fifth Earls of Douglas came to an end. The succession then
opened to the younger brother of the fourth Earl, James, the second son of
Archibald, third Earl of Douglas, on whose male descendants the entail of
1342 had settled the Douglas estates. Previous to his succession, he had, in
1437, been raised to the peerage by the title of Eakl of Avondale and Lord
Balva2s^y, being previously known as James Douglas of Balvany.^ At the
time of his accession to the earldom of Douglas he was advanced in Hfe, and
very corpulent, on account of which ho was popularly called " The Gross."
In his youth James Douglas seems to have been impetuous and turbulent.
During the Hfetime of his father, the " Grim Earl," he was probably kept in
check ; but when the paternal restraint was removed, his natural disposition
had full play, and his tirst recorded exploit is one of violence. His sister,
1 Balvany was an estate in the county of James Douglas by his brother Archibald.
Banff, which belonged to his mother, the [Registrum Magni SigiUi, vol. ii. Nos. 4:\
heiress of Both well, and which was given to 49.]
432 JAMES, SEVEXTII KAEL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
the Duchess of Eothesay, after the death of her husband the Duke, in Wivi.
continued to receive the annuity assigned to him from the customs of the
reahu. In 1403 she married Sir Walter Haliburton, but during hi^r widow-
hood her brother James dealt with the custumars on her behalf. He did sf.
not only by receiving the sum due, but by extorting from the oftirial (the
custumar of Linlithgow) an extra amount.^ Even after his sisters second
marriage, James Douglas occasionally acted as her receiver, or on behalf of
her husband, but no further violence is recorded.-
The next exploit recorded of James of Douglas was the burning of tlie town
of Berwick. This had a patriotic aspect, as, according to his own account,
it was done in revenge for breaches of truce by the English ; but it shows the
savage character of the reprisals between the two countries. Henry rerc\ .
Earl of Northumberland, frustrated in the plot he had formed against tht-
English king, had fled to that town, and was there joined by others, described
as adherents of the Scots, to proceed against whom King Henry the Fourth
summoned the military force of Yorkshire to meet him at Newcastle-on-
Tyne.^ The mandate shows that the Earl of Northumberland was in
Berwick in the beginning of June, and when towards the end of that montli
the king advanced to Newcastle, the Earl retreated into Scotland. After he
left, the Scots gave the town to the flames, burning the whole place except
the churches and monasteries.* The English king then besieged and took
the castle of Berwick, which was held for Northumberland.
That Berwick was burned the same year in which the Earl of Northum-
berland fled to Scotland, is shown by a mandate for payment to the citizens
of one thousand marks to aid in restoring their habitations,'' and that Jame-
1 Exchequer Rolls, vol. iii. p. 567. * Walsingham, ed. 1574, p 417 ; Otter-
- Ibid. pp. 615, 620; vol. iv. pp. 2, 54. burn, quoted by Pinkerton, vol. i. p. S3, note.
' Fcedera, vol. viii. p. 400. 10th June '•' December 1405, Rotiili Scotiie, vol. ii.
1405. p. 176.
THE BURNING OF BERWICK, UOo. 433
Douglas was the leader of the Scots on the occasion, is proved by his own
testimony. He was warden of the Marches, apparently of the eastern
borders, and as such was charged by Henry the Fourth with breach of
truce, and violating the oath he had recently sworn to keep the peace between
England and Scotland. The Warden replied in a spirited letter, charging
the English with many more offences against the truce than could be
attributed to the Scots, and which, he says, had been patiently borne by
the Scottish king. He refers to tlie burning and capture of Scottish vessels
and imprisonment of Scotsmen, attacks upon the Isle of Arran, the burning
of the royal chapel at Brodick, and other aggressions during the truce, for
which redress had once and again been demanded but none received. He
vindicates his own conduct in regard to the last truce, and is prepared to
defend it before any commissioners who may be appointed ; whHe he further
aUeges that even that truce had been violated by the English invading and
harr)-mg Lauderdale, Teviotdale, and part of Ettrick Forest. A gUmpse of
the warden's own character appears in the hint that the king's informant
had said more in the writer's absence than he dare avow in his presence,
and that liars shoidd be little allowed with such a worshipfid king.^
The truce here referred to was probably that for the concluding of whicli
King Henry the Fourth issued a mandate to his son John, on 8th July 14u0,
and which was to endure till the following Easter.^ If so, it was destined
to be violated still more seriously on the part of the EugHsh by the captm-e
of James, Steward of Scotland, who, in March 1406, had, under the protec-
tion of this very truce, embarked for France, but was seized by the English
and imprisoned in the Tower of London. The exact year of the Prince's
capture has been variously stated, but an incident in which James of Douglas
1 Vol. iv. of, tMs work, p. 67. The year death of King Kobert the Third, and after
of the letter is not given, but it was evidently the burning of Berwick iu that year,
written on 2Gth July 1405, pre\-ious to the 2 Padera, vol. v-iii. p. 403.
VOL. I. ^ 2 J
434 JAMUS, SEVENTH EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
took part tends to fix the date. The Prince took boat at the little port of
North Berwick and sailed to the neighbouring Isle of the Bass, where he
remained for some time until a vessel took him on board to sail to Trance.
Among the knights and nobles who attended him to North Berwick was Sir
David Fleming of Biggar and Cumbernauld, a trusted knight, who had more
than once been ambassador to England. He had been intimately connected
with the Douglases, having acted as bailie for the third Earl over part of his
large estates. Whether in this capacity or otherwise he had given offence
to James Douglas does not appear, but while Sir David, after parting from
the Prince, was riding homewards with his company over Lang Herdmanston
Moor, near Haddington, they were suddenly attacked by Douglas and an
armed force. A sharp combat ensued, in which Sir David wl's slain and
some of his companions made prisoners, though they were soon liberated.
This slaughter has been ascribed to political causes, on the authority of
an English historian, who does not seem to have been in possession of all the
facts. Wyntown assigns no motive, but Bower asserts that Douglas was
instigated to the deed by Sir Alexander Seton, lord of Gordon, and^nephew
of Sir David.^ This puts the tragedy on the footing of private revenge, which
was probably the real cause, as, apart from Seton's alleged instigatio'n,' one of
Douglas's own kinsmen, Archibald Douglas, younger son of James, 'second
Earl of Douglas, had been deprived by the king of his estate and office, which
were bestowed upon Sir David Fleming in the August preceding his death.^
The Scottish historians who record the tragedy, state cir^cumstantiaUy
that Fleming was slain on his return from witnessing the embarkation of
1 Wyntown's Cronykil, B. ix. c. xxv. ; For- the grant had been made without the kii^.'s
dun.^Goodall. vol. ii. p. 439. consent, he cancelled it by confemng the
The barony of Cavers, with the heredi- lands and office upon Sir David Flemzn.. by
tary office of Sheriff of Roxburgh, was con- charter dated 10th August 1405. [Extract
ferred by IsabeUa Douglas, Countess of Mar, Charter in Cavers Charter-chest ; vol. H>. of
upon her nephew, Archibald Douglas. As this work.]
DEATH OF SIR DAVID FLEMING, UOG. 435
Prince James, which they apparently place among the events of the year
1404-5. But the Prince's voyage must have taken place in the year
1405-6, for Fleming received the charter of Cavers in August 1405, in
October following was a witness to a royal charter at Dundonald,^ and was
dead before 18th March 140G. As Bower assigns the 14th February as the
date of his death, he was probably slain on that day in the year 1406.- This
fixes the date of Prince James's capture by the English in the spring of the
year 1406, a date which is now generally accepted, although the inaccurate
chronology of Bower has given rise to some confusion.
A short time previous to the death of Sir David Fleming, a safe-conduct
was issued by the English king for a number of Scottish barons who were to
act as hostages for the fourth Earl of Douglas, taken captive at Homildon.
Among those named were James of Douglas, the Earl's brother, and Henry,
second Earl of Orkney. The latter had been a hostage in the previous year,
and had returned to Scotland, liis brothers taking his place. He was selected
by King Eobert the Third to accompany Prince James to France, and was
taken with the Prince, but w^as set free as he had two safe-conducts.^ There
is no e\'idence that James Douglas ever went to England as a hostage for his
1 Antiquities of Aberdeen and Banff, vol. iv. the Earl in August and September 140.^
pp. 87, 171. [Foedera, vol. viii. pp. 410, 41.5], as if he had
2 Exchequer Rolls, vol. iii. p. 615 ; Fordun, not been set free. In a letter printed in the
a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 439. Exchequer Rolls, vol. iv. Preface, pp. cxcvii-cc,
3 Wyntown's Crouykil, B. TX. c. XXV. ; Rotuli 1407 has been proposed as the true date.
Scotia?, vol. ii. p. 177. The first safe-conduct But this is unnecessary, as the documents as
was dated 30th January 1406 ; the second, an they stand are perfectly consistent with the
extension of the first, on 13th March 1406. view that Orkney in 1405 was a hostage
The movements of the Earl of Orkney were for the Earl of Douglas, was released for a
a puzzle to Pinkerton, who accepted Bower's time on his brother's security, and in the be-
atatement that the Prince was taken captive ginning of 1406 received two safe-conducts
in 1405, and therefore found an apparent for return to England, in terms of which he
discrepancy in two safe-conducts issued to was set free when captured with Prince James.
436
JAMES, SEVENTH EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
brother. A safe-conduct was issued on 1st November 1406, in which the
name of James Douglas appears, but no further reference is made to him in
any later document of a like nature.^ The Earl himself was in England
during 1406, and that James Douglas did not proceed thither seems e\ddent
from his witnessing a charter by Thomas Maitland of Halsington and
Ormiston, dated 5th January 1407.-
In that charter, which is a grant to Eobert Dikison, laird of Huchonfield,
of the lands of Ormiston in Peeblesshire, James Douglas is styled warden of
the Scottish ^Marches. He must therefore have remained in that office from
the year 1 405, or before it, and he continued warden for some years. Eor his
services as warden he more than once claimed from the Government sums due
to him for expenses, and when the money was not immediately forthcoming,
he occasionally took it by force.^
During the regency of the two Dukes of Albany, charges of depredation
on the customs were made against James Douglas, But the sums he
expended in an of&cial capacity, of which the repayment was irregular, give
some show of reason to his exactions. Thus when in 1409 the castle of
Jedburgh was demolished, he, as warden of the Marches, was employed in
guardiui^ the masons who threw down the walls, wliich, owini? to the hardness
of the mortar, was a task of much labour.'* The expenses were necessarily
heav}', but the Eegent refused to defray them by taxing the community, and
ordered the amount to be paid from the customs of the kingdom. As a result.
^ Rotuli Scotia?, vol. ii. p. ISl.
■^ Original charter in Traquair Charter-chest.
•'' During the year 1407 he received from
the custumars of Edinburgh, by order of the
Duke of Albany, the sum of £46, 13s. 4d.
Besides this sum he received £23, Ss. 2d. for
his expenses incurred about the burning of
Berwick, and he also appropriated an addi-
tional sum of £26, 13s. 4d., alleging that the
Governor had caused to be taken from him
40 merks for the relief duty of his lands of
Aberdoiir. In the following year the cus-
tumars took credit for these sums on the
same grounds. [Exchequer Rolls, vol. iv.
pp. 42, 44, 81.]
* Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 444.
PROVIDED TO LANDED ESTATES BY HIS BROTHER.
437
a payment of £20 Wcos paid in 1409 or 1410, to Douglas as his expenses
connected with Jedburgh Castle, but accounts rendered to Exchequer about
the same date charge him with taking from the custumars of Linlithgow an
additional sum of £146, 13s. 4d.i
On another occasion he seized, in the town of Linlithgow, the customs
collector, whom he incarcerated in tlie castle of Abercorn until he paid his
captor £8. At other times Douglas confined merchants and burgesses of
Linlithgow in the same fortress, and compelled them to pay various sums,
occasionally of considerable amount.^ Li vain did the despoiled custumars
record his misdeeds, and the auditors of Exchequer consult the Eegent;
Douglas pursued his course, sometimes varying it by compeUing the customs
officers to pass his wool without taxing it.^
James Douglas received from his brother, the fourth Earl of Douglas, a
considerable extent of territory, including Balvany, from which he for I time
took his principal designation. At what date he received that and other
grants of lands has not been ascertained, but he was in possession of the
strong castle of Abercorn in 1408. Besides Abercorn, James Douglas held
from his brother, the Earl of Douglas, the lands and baronies of Avoch,
Edderdor, Stratherne, and Brachly, in tlie shire of Inverness; Bocharm,'
Balvany, and others in the shire of Banff; and the baronies of Aberdour
and Eattray in Buchan."^ Other lands received by him from his brother
were the barony of Petty, one-third of the lands of Duftus, with all his
lands in the thanedoms in the lordship of Kylmalaman in the shire of
Elgin, and some smaUer lands in Inverness.^ These were all ancient posses-
sions of the Morays of Bothwell, except perhaps Eattray and others in
' Exchequer Rolls, vol. iv. pp. 113, 115. James Douglas, but for what cause does not
^ Ibid. pp. 103, 216, 244, 270, 296. appear. [Rotuli Scotia, vol. ii. pp. 200,
3 Ibid. pp. 301, 365. During this period 217.J
two safe-conducts to pass into England, in * Registrum Magni SigiUi, vol. ii. No. 43.
May 1412 and April 1416, were granted to ^ Ibid. No. 49.
438 JAMES, SEVENTH EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
Aberdeen, which had belonged to Sir Archibald Douglas, the Kegent of Scot-
land, slain at Halidon. James Douglas is found in possession of the lands dI
Aberdour in 1408,^ and probably he was then lord of the others also.
James Douglas of Balvany was present at the general' council held ;U
Inverkeithing on 19th August 1423, which appointed ambassadors to nego-
tiate finally for the release of King James the First. He was selected, but
did not act among those who actually conducted the negotiations to their
successful issue,^ though he met the Scottish monarch at Durham, and accom-
panied him to his own kingdom.^ This was in April 1424, and on the
meeting of the king's first Parliament in May, Douglas was appointed one of
the auditors of the taxation for the ransom-money to be paid to England.'*
In the following March, King James struck his final blow at the House of
Albany by arresting Duke Murdach, his sons, and twenty-six of the principal
Scottish barons, including the Earl of Douglas, and consigning them to prison.
Most of the imprisoned barons, however, were liberated, and James Douglas
of Balvany, who had not been arrested, and his nephew, in the following
May, sat side by side in the Council Hall at Stirling, as jurors on the trial of
the unfortunate Duke of Albany, who was condemned and beheaded.^
Douglas of Balvan}- seems to have been in favour with King James the
First. In the year following the death of Albany, the king confirmed to
him and Beatrix his spouse all the lands already named as possessed by
him ;^ also the lands of Strathavon or Avondale and Pettinain in Lanark-
sliire and Stewarton in Ayrshire.^
^ In 140S, James Douglas, lord of Aber- ^ Rotuli Scotia?, vol ii. pp. 244, 245.
corn and Aberdour, granted lands in the last * Acts of the Parliaments of Scotb.nd,
named barony to William Fraser of Philorth vol. ii. p. 5.
and others. Antiquities of Aberdeen and ^ Fordun, a Goodall, voL u. pp. 4S2, 4S3.
BanfiF, vol. ii. pp. 375-377. " Registrum Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. Xos. 3S.
2 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol i. 39, 43, 49.
p. 5S9 ; RotuU Scotia?, vol. ii. pp. 240-243. ^ Ihid. Nos. 40, 72, 77, 78.
CREATED EARL OF AVON!) ALE, ETC.,c. 14.37. 439
James Douglas of Balvany was created Earl of Avondalo and Lord
Balvany, the title of Avondale being obtained from the barony of Strathavon
or Avondale in the parish of that name.i No patent of creation is known
to exist, or any formal record of it, but the year 1437 has been assigned as
the date of that creation.^ If so, the dignity must have been conferred by
King James the Second in the beginning of his reign, when Archibald, fifth
Earl of Douglas, was appointed Lieutenant-general of the kingdom. The
presumption that he was made earl about the same time that his nephew, the
fifth Earl of Douglas, was appointed Lieutenant-general, is strengthened by
the fact that in this year also the Earl of Avondale was Justice-general of
Scotland, and the two appointments were probably made simultaneously.
As Earl of Avondale and Justice-general of Scotland he presided in a
circuit court held at Jedburgh, on 28th JSTovember 1437, in which a question
between Sir William Douglas of Drumlanrig and Jonet Murray, relict of
James Gladstanes, as to the ownership of the East Mains of Hawick, was
decided in favour of the former.^ On this, or some other occasion, the
progress of the King's justiciary court seems to have been objectionable to
the proprietrix of Xithsdale, Egidia Douglas, Countess of Orkney, who in the
following May protested to the Earl of Douglas in presence of the Earl
of Avondale and others of the Council against the unjust spoliation of her
lands of Xithsdale. The Council granted that she should have full justice
in next Parliament, and that if in the interval justiciary or chamberlain
com-ts were held in her territory, they should not prejudice her rights. The
lady, however, replied by protesting that if any such courts were held
I After the forfeiture of the title by the tion in a MS. printed in Fordun, a GoodaU,
Douglas family the same place after^vards vol. ii p. 541.
furnished the title of Lord Avondale to
Andrew Stewart, chancellor of Scotland. 3 Original Writ peneis William Fraser,
- This date is assigned as the year of crea- LL.D., Edinburgh,
440
JAMES, SEVENTH EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
she would interrupt their proceedings.^ Douglas also held the ortice of
Sheriff of Lanark.'-
The Earl of Avondale was also employed in other departments of the
public service. He was appointed one of the Scottish conservators of tlie
important nine years' truce concluded on 30th March 1438 between Scotland
and England.^ Along with his nephew, the Earl was in Lute, and there held a
meeting with the lord of the Isles, Alexander, Earl of Eoss, evidence of which is
found in the accounts of the royal chamberlains of Bute and Arran, rendered
in 1440 and 1444. £24, 7s. Sd. was paid for the expenses of the Earl uf
Avondale, and in addition seven bolls of bear, and twenty-eight mart cattle
were furnished by the king's husbandman on the occasion. The reason of
the conference between the two Earls is not recorded, but it may be surmised
that it was connected with their judicial functions, Avondale being Justice-
general of Scotland, while Eoss was Justiciary north of the Eorth.^ Some
time during 1438 or 1439, John Bullok, bishop of Eoss, is recorded as
travelling between the Earl of Eoss and the king's council as to the concord
and pacification of the country,^ and the same subject may have been the
subject of discussion between the two justiciars.
1 Original Protest, dated .30th May 143S,
in Crookston Charter-chest. The duties of
Douglas as justieiarj- led him oq one occasion
to Coldingham duriug a dispute between Sir
Alexander Home of that Ilk and David Home
of Wedderbum as to the office of bailie. The
prior of Coldingham had conferred the office
on Sir Alexander Home, an appointment
stoutly resisted by his rival, who referred the
case to the decision of the justiciary. Douglas
held an assize and pronounced in favour of
David Home, but this did not end the dispute,
which with his other grievances is detailed by
Home himself in a long letter to the prior of
Durham, on r2th March 1442-3. [The Priory
of Coldingham, Surtees Society, pp. 147-150.]
' In the year 1435 he is debited with lines
.levied from those accused of forestalling the
markets in the burghs of Lanark and Eugleu
(Rutherglen) for three years previously.
Exchequer RoUs, vol. iv. p. 670.
2 Piotuli Scotiie, vol. ii, pp. 307-310.
* The Earl of Ross was Justiciary in 143S-9.
Familie of Innes, p. 73 ; Exchequer Eolls.
vol v. pp. 84-87.
* Ibid. pp. 101, 102.
SUCCESSIOX TO THE EARLDOM OF DOUGLAS, 1440.
441
The Earl was at Stiiiiug about the date of the Geueral Council
held there in August 1439,^ which sanctioned the agreement between
Queen Joanna and Sir Alexander Livingstone, but he is not named in
connection with the proceedings. In November of the following year, by
the untimely deaths of his grand-nephews, William, sixth Earl of Douglas,
and his brother David, the Earl of Avondale succeeded to the earldom and
entailed estates of Douglas, and became seventh Earl of Douglas. It has
been asserted that the earldom of Douglas was bestowed upon Avondale,
thus suggesting that this was the price of his connivance at the misdeeds
of the party in power. But the WTiters who allege this have overlooked the
fact that under the entail of 1342, the lands of Douglas were provided to
Sir Archibald Douglas (the third Earl) and the heirs-male of his body. James,
Earl of Avondale, was the second son of the third Earl of Douglas, and on the
failure of the heirs-male of his elder brother, the earldom and entailed estates
were inherited by him not as a grant from the Crown, but by virtue of the entail.
The Earl of Avondale has further been accused of conniving at the deaths
of his youthful kinsmen on the ground that he did not revenge their murder,
and that he was afterwards on terms of intimacy with their murderers,-
but this charge may also be set aside. Apart from the Earl's advanced age
and corpulence, which appears to have been excessive, but which perhaps
would not have hindered his taking vengeance, the estates of Douglas came
to him in a diminished form, as the territory of GaUoway, Wigtown, and
other lands passed to the sister of the sixth Earl, the " Eair Maid of
Galloway," as heir of line.' The new Earl was thus less able to cope with
1 He was at Stirling ou 13th August and
4th September 14.")9. In the same year he
received from William Fraser of Overtoun a
grant of the landa of Glenwhim in Peebles-
shire. [Regiatrum Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. Nos.
203, 204, 246.]
VOL. T.
- Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. iii.
p. 188.
^ The Earl seem.-^ to have made an attempt
to exercise his right over the lands of Buittle
in Galloway, which were included in the
entailed estates, by obtaining a sasine of the
3 K
442
JAMES, SEVENTH EARL OF DOUG LAS, ETC.
Chancellor Crichton, who vindicated his act as done in the name ot' the
king. That vengeance was only deferred may be presumed from the
fact that a few years later, on the consolidation of the Douglas estates
by the marriage of Margaret of Galloway with William, eighth Earl of
Douglas, the whole power of the Douglases was brought to bear against
Crichton, who was deposed from his office. There is also no evidence
whatever that the seventh Earl of Douglas, during his short tenure of
the earldom, took any part with those in power. He indeed appears as
a member of a numerously attended General Council held at Edinburgh
in April 1441,^ but this does not infer complicity, and the energy with
which he is said to have devoted himself to arranging the consolidation
of the Douglas lands seems to iniply that under an apparently pacific
policy he cherished schemes of retaliation to be completed when he had
the power.
"Whatever the Earl's intentions were, he did not hold the estates
sufficiently long to realise them, as he died within three years of his
accession. There is some discrepancy as to the actual date of his death.
The inscription on his monument in St. Bride's Church at Douglas gives
the day of his decease as 24th ]\Iarch 1443, while the annotator of the
Extracta e variis Cronicis Scocie states that he died on 10th ]March in that
lands from Chancery, but the sasine was
rejected and broken by the real tenants, the
Douglases of Dalkeith, on 14th June 1441.
[Registrum Honoris de Morton, vol. ii.
p. 210.]
* Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland,
vol. ii. pp. 56, 57. The only other references
to this Earl of Douglas after his accession
which have been found are of a private nature.
He received the rents of Inchyra, in Perth-
shire, for two years previous to 1441, as to
which the king was to be consulted. [Ex-
chequer Rolls, vol. V. p. 111.] About the
same time he received from Roger Broun,
son of the deceased Richard Broun of Har-
tree, a letter of reversion of the lands of
C'ultermains, mortgaged for 100 merks.
Dated 17th January 1440-41. [Acts of the
Parliaments of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 294.]
^.^ <^&
i-^- ■ :^:::^
^-\0
K>i
T
■rrr
\- ■' - .-..'■ 4l:'' ".'' .ji*i, •, ' * ""•*»,.
^"^=^^-^'^'>^: , ^ r: ■ --' : f v^ ~^ ■ ''>'^- ^^^ ^ ■> ■ '-v fen
' - V\ « --
•jis-j X jrai / ^ »* ,"-
-^ • I IC '1^ J-^ '-^
^■:^?f
i?m
MONUMENT OF JAMES SEVENTH EARLOF DOUGLAS
IN ST BRIDES,- DOUGLAS
'XL-rl^l^Lj~"LJr%'^
-^yr '-^
i
j 0ift>\3illwQ^nmogem5^heT:esmct\a)efiati I
(ome?) ;xmirre:be f7ijcf0 q^mCcjeit^ Corner cnmu&uD \
. IpfieS ciiubgerirb Wie^ h baQ:iBmbrTi;^ 1^0x19 lag k
ARMORIAL BEARINGS AND INSCRIPTION
ON THE MONUMENT OF JAMES SEVENTH EARL OF DOUGLAS
IN S'- BRIOES,- OOUC LAS.
HIS MARRIAGES.
443
year.^ An account rendered to Exchequer on 31st July 1443, states that the
rents of the baronies of Eattray and Aberdour were then in the king's hands
by the death of James, late Earl of Douglas. His death took place, it would
appear, at Abercoru, evidently his favourite residence, and his body was
borne to Douglas, and interred there. A monument erected to him and his
Countess still stands on the south side of the chancel of the old church at
Douglas, to the west of the priest's door. It bears their effigies in recumbent
postures, while in a row on the lower part of the monument are representa-
tions, in relief, of their ten children in standing attitudes.
James, seventh Earl of Douglas, appears to have been twice married,
first to a daughter of Eobert, first Duke of Albany, and secondly, to Beatrix
Sinclair, daughter of Henry, Earl of Orkney. Although the name of the
regent's daughter has not been ascertained, the marriage is authenticated by
her brother Murdach, second Duke of Albany, styling James Douglas of
Balvany his brother.- She appears to have pre-deceased her husband about
1424, and without issue.
The maiden surname of the second wife of this Earl is not given in any
of the numerous charters in which she is mentioned,^ but it is stated in the
1 Godscroft's History, edition 1644, p. 159;
Extracta e variis Cronicis Scocie, p. 238, note.
These dates would imply that Earl James
died in March 1443-4, but the Auchinleck
Chronicle [pp. 4, 35] with greater accuracy
states that he died on 25th March (New
Year's Day) 1443. This agrees with the
authority in the text and also with the state-
ment in the Chronicle itself [pp. 5, 36], that
William was Earl of Douglas in August 1443.
The same Chronicle and the annotator of the
" Extracta, etc.," state a fact which, if true,
shows that the Earl's obesity was excessive,
and may have caused his death, — " Beand
bowellit he (the Earl) had mair nor iiij stane
of talch (fat) in his wombe."
- He is so styled on three occasions at least,
on 19th August 1423 in an .Vet of General
Council at Inverkeithing [Acts of the Parlia-
ments of Scotland, vol. i. p. 589], on 2Sth
August 1423, in a precept for infefting ilenry
Ramsay of Colluthie in Leuchars [History of
the Carnegies Earls of Southesk, by William
Eraser, p. 510], and on 4th March following
in a charter of Pittendriech [Hist. M.ss. Com-
missioners, 9th Report, Part ii. p. 185].
3 Registrum Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. Nos. 39,
40, 72, 77, 78, 246, 301.
444 JAMES, SEVENTH EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
inscription on the monument in St. Bride's as Beatrix Sinclair. On the lower
part of the monument, between the effigies of the sons and daughters, there is
the hgure of an angel bearing a shield with the Douglas and Sinclair arms
impaled. This marriage must have been celebrated before 7th March 142o-6,
35 on that date King James the First granted certain lands to James Douglas
of Balvany and Beatrix his spouse in conjunct-fee.^ She survived her husband
many years, and in June 1455 was forfeited for the share she took in aidin^^
her sons, the Earls of Douglas, Moray, and Ormond, in their rebellion against
King James the Second. She seems to have escaped into England, and died
before 1463, as in a sasine dated 8th February of that year, affecting lands
in Leith, she is described as the late Beatrix, Countess of Douglas.^
By his wife, Beatrix Sinclair, James, seventh Earl of Douglas, had six
sons and four daughters : —
1. William, who succeeded his father as eighth Earl of Douglas, and of
whom a memoir follows.
2. James, Master of Douglas, also styled of Heriotmuir, who succeeded
his brother William as ninth and last Earl of Douglas. Of him also
a memoir follows.
3. Archibald, Earl of Moray, of whom a short notice follows.
4. Hugh, Earl of Ormond, of whom a short notice follows.
5. John, Lord of Balvany, of wdiom a short notice follows.
6. Henry, who is mentioned in the monumental inscription in St. Bride's,
and is said by Godscroft to have become Bishop of Dunkeld. This,
however, conflicts with what that writer says of another son whom
he calls the youngest, George, and who is not commemorated on
the tombstone. Godscroft narrates that when the eighth Earl of
Douglas went to Ptome in 1450, he took with liim from Paris his
youngest brother, George, who was there at the schools — a young
^ Registrum Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. No. 39. 2 ciiarters of St. Giles, p. 100.
HIS CHILDREN. Uo
man of great promise — but he died while on the journey to
Kome. Godscroft adds that George Douglas had been nominated
Bishop of Dunkeld, and was to have been inaugurated at Eome.
He died, it is said, before the fifteenth year of his age.^ These
two names, Henry and George, probably refer to one and the same
person.
The daughters of the seventh Earl of Douglas were —
1. Margaret, described by Godscroft as wife of the Lord of Dalkeith, and
usually stated to be wife of James, Lord of Dalkeith, father of the
first Earl of Morton. She was, however, the wife of his brother,
, Henr}- Douglas of Borg, who, during his brother's insanity, pro-
bably acquired some right over Dalkeith.^ She survived her hus-
band, and was still alive in U69. Henry of Douglas and his wife
had issue at least three sons, Hugh, James, and John Douglas,
the first of whom in 1474 renounced his rights over the barony of
Dalkeith, his brothers being witnesses to his deed.^
2. Beatrix, who manied Sii- William Hay,* Constable of Scotland, and
^ History of the Houses of Douglas and Orimoncl granted in September 1450, by Hugh
Angus, edition 1G44, pp. 157, ISl. Douglas, Earl of Ormond, to his "brother, "
2 Cf. Registrum Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. William, Lord Hay. [Antiquities of Aber-
Nos. 22S, 515 ; Kegistrum Honoris de Morton, deen and Banff, vol. i. p. 428.] This was pro-
voL iL pp. 207-209. Heury Douglas received bably soon after the marriage, as, in March
from his father, to himself and his wife, the 1450, King James the Second confirmed to
lands of Borg in Galloway, and others in William, Lord Hay, and Beatrix, his spouse,
Annandale. [IJegistrum Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. the lands of Inchyra in conjunct-fee, and
Xo. 1138.] From these and other lands his the.se lands remained in her possession after
wife drew her terce after his decease, though her husband's death, which took place on 20th
Borg was forfeited in 1455. September 1462. [Registrum Magni Sigilli,
^ KxchequerRoUs, vol. vi. pp. cxii, 1 96-042; vol. ii. No. 328; Exchequer Rolls, vol. vii.
vol. vii. p. 603: Registrum Honoris de pp. 206, 207.] The first Earl of Errol is usually
Morton, vol ii. pp. 221-224. said to have died in 1470, but his death is dis-
* This is proved by a lease of the lands of tinctly recorded at the date given in the text.
446
JAMES, SEVENTH EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
first Earl of Errol, Beatrix, Countess of En-ol, was alive, iu widow-
hood, in 1490.^ She and her husband had issue.
3. Janet, who is said to have married liobert, first Lord Fleming of
Cumbernauld, and had issue.
4. Elizabeth, described on the monument in St. Bride's as the fourth
daughter. She is said to have married Sir John Wallace of Craioie."
^ Countess Beatrix granted certain alms in
14S1 to the Friars Minorites of Dundee, and
promised to repair an altar in their church in
honour of the three kings of Colan (Cologne),
in return for which the Friars agreed to cele-
brate a mass daily in favour of her husband,
herself, and family. Miscellany of the Spald-
ing Club, vol. ii. pp. 324-328.
- Regarding Janet and Elizabeth Douglas,
no particulars have been ascertained. Robert,
Lord Fleming, and Sir John Wallace of Craigie
seem to have been adherents of the family of
Douglas, but no trace of their relationship has
been discovered.
SEAL USED BY JAMES, EARL OF AVONDALE, AS JUSTICE-GEXERAL OF SCOTLAND, 14:;
ARCHIBALD DOUGLAS, EARL OF MORAY. 447
Archibald Douglas, Earl of Moray.
Elizabeth Ditnbar, Countess of Moray, his Wife.
1445—1455.
Archibald Douglas, Earl of Sloray, was a twin witli James, but by a formal state-
ment on the part of their mother, in 1447, was declared to be the younger brother.^
He had previously been deemed the elder of the two, as appears from the first public
document in which his name occurs. On 26th April 1442, as the second son of James,
Earl of Douglas, he received a crown precept of sasine of the lands of Kintore to himself
and EUzabeth Dunbar his spouse, who, with Janet Dunbar, her elder sister, was a
daughter and co-heiress of James Dunbar, Earl of Moray.- Janet and Elizabeth had
resigned the lands, and they were now regranted as above, with a remainder, failing
the heirs of Archibald, to the other sons of James, Earl of Douglas, whom failing,
to the heirs of Elizabeth Dunbar. This peculiar entail shows that the Douglases
had determined to annex the earldom of Moray. The result was the setting aside
of the elder heiress, and the securing of the earldom to Archibald Douglas and his
wife Elizabeth, an end all the more easily accomplished by the influence of Archibald's
eldest brother William, eighth Earl of Douglas, who in 1443 had been appointed
Lieutenant-general of the kingdom.
Archibald Douglas first appears as Earl of Moray in the records of Parliament on
28th June 1445, and was in attendance at Parliament or on the king at intervals
until May 1450.3 He was also one of those appointed, on the part of Scotland, as con-
servators of a truce with England concluded in November 1449.* In June of 1450 he
was apparently in the north of Scotland.^ but nothing is known of his movements during
the latter half of 1450, when his two elder brothers went to Rome. He probably
employed himself in superintending the works on his castle of Darnaway, afterwards to
I 26th Augiist 1447. Confirmed 9th Nos. 308-311, 314, 328, 344, 346.
January 1450. Regiatrum Magni Sigilli, vol. ^ Rotuli Scotiae, vol. ii. p. 340.
ii. No. 301. ^ He granted a precept for infefting one of
- Antiquities of Aberdeen and Banff, vol. his vassals, John Haliburton of Gask, with
iii. p. 231 ; cf. Index voL p. Lxxiii. his wife Catherine Chisholm, in lands in the
^ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. ii. Aird in Inverness-shire. [VoL iii of this
pp. 59-64 ; Registrum Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. work, p. 75.]
448 JAMES, SEVENTH EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
be referred to. In 1451 he is named as an heir of entail, along with his brothers
James, Hugh, and John, in the remarkable series of charters granted in July and
October of that year to William, Earl of Douglas.^
In May 14-51, he is named in a safe-conduct from the Englisli king, directed to the
Earl of Douglas and his brothers, but there is no evidence that tlie Earl of ^loray took
advantage of it, and the Earl of Douglas did not. On the murder of the latter at
Stirling in February 1452, the Earl of Moray does not appear to have been present
with his brothers James and Hugh when they defied the king, but it was probably in
that year that he ravaged Strathbogie, while the Earl of Huntly was employed in
suppressing the rebellion of the Earl of Crawford.- Huntly, it is said, marched north
to defend his territory and to retaliate, and it was on this occasion, according to Gods-
croft, that the skirmish took place in which Huntly was defeated and his men driven
into a morass at Dunkinty, near Pittendriech, and which gave rise to the rhyme —
Where left thou thy men, thou Gordon so gay ?
In the bog of Dunkinty mowing the ha}'."
The date of the harrying of Strathbogie is not precisely given by historians, but it
seems to have taken place in 1452, and not during the later rebellion of the
Douglases. Archibald Douglas certainly fell under the king's displeasure in this
year, as the title of Earl of Moray was, temporarily at least, conferred upon Sir
James Crichton of Frendraught, ehlest son of the Chancellor, and husband of Janet
Dunbar, the elder co-heiress of ]\loray/ although the earldom seems to have remained
with Douglas. The Douglases were restored to favour in August 1452,^ and the
Earl of Moray was exercising his rights as Earl in August of the following year.-'
The events of the year 1454 are difficult to trace, but, towards its close or in
the beginning of 1455, King James the Second found himself powerful enough to
crush the House of Douglas. The progress of the war between the king mid tht^
insurgents will be more fully treated in the memoir of the ninth Earl of Dougla^i, but
the fate of the Earl of iloray may be learned from a letter written by the king himself.
* Registrum Magni Sigilli, voL ii. Xos. 468- * Auchinleck Chronicle, pp. 11, 49.
419, paHsim; 503; Acts of the Parliaments ^ Godscroft MS. at Hamilton Palace ; Tyt-
of Scotland, vol ii. pp. 68-72. ler's History of Scotland, vol. iii. p. oOi*.
note M.
^ The Chiefs of Grant, by William Fraser.
LL.D.. vol iii. p. '22. Precept to Duncan
^ History of Douglas and Angus, edition Grant of Freuehie as his bailie in Inverallan.
- Pitscottie, edition I77S. p. 69; Lives of
the Lindsays, vol. i. p. 136.
1644, p. 198. in Strathsi)ey.
ARCHIBALD UOUGLAS, EARL OF MORAY. 441)
The Earl of Douglas had retreated into England, while his three brother^;, the Earls
of Moray and Ormond, and John Douglas of Balvany, assembled the Douglas adherents
on the Borders and continued the struggle against the king. They were, however,
met by a strong body of troops, composed of the Scotts, Beatsons, and other men ol'
Liddesdale, Eskdale, and Annandale, united, it is said, under the Earl of Angus, as
Warden of the East Marches, and a conflict ensued at a place on the Esk called
Arkinholm, near Langholm, on 1st May 1455, in which the royivl forces were
victorious. Archibald Douglas, Earl of Moray, was slain on the field of battle, and
his head borne in triumph to the king, then engaged in the siege of Abcrcorn.^
In June 1455, when Parliament forfeited James, Earl of Douglas, his mother, and
three brothers, it was charged against the Earl of Moray that he had treasonably
fortified the castles of Lochindorb and Darnaway."- Of the truth of this, as regards
the old island fortress of Lochindorb, there is no other evidence, but in March following
the Thane of Cawdor was instructed to demolish that ancient stronghold.^ In per-
forming that work the Thane expended £24, which was repaid from Exchequer, and
tradition states that the iron door of his own keep of Cawdor, which was built about
this time, was carried from Lochindorb Castle.*
As to Darnaway, there is abundant evidence that the Earl of Moray was engaged
in building and adding to his residence there, but with the view of beautifying rather
than of fortifying. It is to his taste for architecture and magnificence that the great
haU of Darnaway, long ascribed by tradition to the famous Randolph, owes its con-
ception, origin, and completion in part. Douglas had devoted 100 marks to the work,
and paid £20 of that sum, and when in 1455 the castle came into the hands of the
Crown, King James the Second ordered the building to be completed in the same style
in which it was begun. The balance of the 100 marks was paid for roofing the hall,
and other sunis were disbursed for carpenter work.^
Besides architecture, Archibald Douglas, Earl of JMoray, and his Countess seem to
have had a taste for other arts. It was at the Earl's favourite residence of Darnaway.
and to please his fair spouse, that the poem of the Howlat was written by Richard
Holland, as the latter himself states in his concluding stanza.*" Internal evidence
1 Letter from King James ii. to Charles ^ The Thanes of Cawdor, Spalding Club,
VII. of France, Sth July 1455. Pinkertoa's p. 21.
History of Scotland, vol. i. p. 4S6 ; cf. Regis- ■* Ib'al. ; Exchequer Hulls, vol. vi. j.. 4SG.
tnim Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. Xoa. 032, C33, 674. '•• Ibid. pp. 220, 3S0, 4S3.
2 Acta of the Parliaments of Scotland, "^ The Buke of the Howlat, Bannatyne
vol. ii. p. 7G. Club, 1823.
VOL. I. 3 L
450
JAMES, SEVEyriJ EAIIL OF DOUGLA.% ETC.
hows that h,s«-orkwas compose.l about Uo3, or after the reconciliation between
the kmg and the Donglases, and before the final ontbreak in 1455 The scene .
m the forest of Darna.ay. and the writer shows his attaehnrent to t „ s f
Douglas by some of the finest and n.ost touching lines in the poem
Eljzabeth, Countess of Moray, the "Dow of Dunbar," in'whose honour the
'Howlat was composed, did not escape the misfortune which befell her husband
am,Iy. Evdently in the hope that she would do so, or with the view o ,,r er „•
her rnheruance, the Countess, only nineteen days after the battle of 1^2
entered mo a matr.mon.al arrangement with the Jiarl of Hnntly and his son by w ic '
she agreed to marry the younger Gordon and endow him with her poss s L' Ste
wa. to retain Da^away, while Lochindorb was to be delivered up' H nt'y .and
her husband was to secure her in undisturbed possession of her earldom » 2 Ws
trrr/o: ~;t '"''" ''' >""' ""-" -^^ '°° =™' '» ^= -^^^^l -
the earldom of Moray was annexed to the Crown. The marria..e however was
completed, but a few years later the Countess was divorced under "the p.ea'f d
er h,rd husb.and .s.r John C„I,uh„un of Colquhoun and Lnss, and was stUl a" t
1472.- She received dunng her life a small pension from the Crown
The marriage-coutract with the Gordons, already quoted, shows that Archibald
Doughs, Ear of Mor.ay, and his Countess had .,t least two children, a son named
James and a d.,ughter Janet, but their history has not been ascertained.
'^ MisceUany „, the Spalding Club, vol. ,v. before March ,4.3!,, and her thud marriage
STK.i,.., , , previous to 1463. [The Chiefs of Colquhoun,
The lady s divorce from Gordon took pLice by William Fraser. vol. i. pp. 47.50.]
UUGII DOUGLAS, EARL OF ORMOXD.
4.11
Hugh Douglas, Earl of Ormond.
1445—1455.
4. Hugh Douglas was created Earl of Ormond in 1445, and owed the diguity
to his eldest brother William, eighth Earl of Douglas, who having married the
" Fair Maid of Galloway," heiress of all those Douglas possessions in the north of
Scotland which came into the family through Joanna Moray of Both well, to support
his own intluence, bestowed various lauds upon his younger brothers. To Hugh
Douglas were given Ardmauach. from part of which he derived his title, probably also
Avoch, Brachly, and Petty. He likewise possessed Rattray, Aberilour, and Crimond,
in the shire of Aberdeen, and Dunsyre, in Lanarkshire.^
Hugh Douglas sat as Earl of Ormond in the Parliaments of 1445 and 1449. Some
time between those dates, for there is confusion among historians as to the year, he
signalised himself by a military exploit against the English. Notwithstanding the
truce, hostilities had broken out between the two countries, and the Earl of Ormond took
part in an expedition into Northumberland, led by his brother, the Earl of Douglas.
This inroad is said to have taken place about June 1448, and in the following October
Ormond himself gained a decisive victoiy over an English force. Lord Percy, sou of the
Earl of Northumberland, and two other English leaders advanced into Scotland with an
army of six thousand men, and encamped near the river Sark. Here they were attacked
by four thousand Scots under the Earl of Ormond and others, and a contlict ensued, in
which it is said 1500 Englishmen were slain, 500 being drowned, while their leaders
were taken prisoners. -
According to Godscroft, the Earl of Ormond was left in charge of the Douglas
estates by his brother, the Earl of Douglas, on the latter's departure for Rome in
November 1450. He is named in the safe-conduct to the Earl and his brothers in the
following year, but whether he went to England is doubtful Perhaps he did. for he
and his brother James are frequently found actiug together, and they both joined in the
defiance to the king after tiieir brother William's death iu Stirling Castle. The Earl
of Ormond's seal also was appended to that cartel which was attached by night to the
^ Exchequer llolls, voL vi. pp. 102, 212,
265 ; vol. vii. p. 300 : Antiquities of Aber-
deen and Bantf, voL iv. pp. 77, 119.
- This battle took place ou 23d October
144S, according to the AuchiDleck Chronicle,
PI). 18, 40.
452
JAMEiS, 6EVESTII EARL OE DOUGLAS, ETC.
door of the hull iu which the Scottish Parliament met on 12th June 1452. Though
not named in the submission made by Earl James in August of that year, the Earl of
("»rmond seems to have shared in the disturbances of the time.
During the year 1454, the Earl of Ormond hehl the office of sherift" of Lanarkshire,
apparently for that one year only.^ In the following year his family were in full rebellion,
and at the fatal field of Arkinholm, where his brother Archibald was slain, he was
taken prisoner. Sentence wa.s pronounced against him, and he was executed, while
his possessions were annexed to the Crown."-
Nothing has been discovered concerning the wife of the Earl of Ormond, but
he left a son, Hugh, who entered the Church, and became Dean of Brechin. Hugh
Dou'das is first mentioned in an agreement between the fifth Earl of Angus ami
himself, dated in 1493 ; and in a similar document, three years later, his relationship
to the Earl of Ormond is stated. In these writs the Earl of Angus promised to
use his influence with King James the Fourth for permission to Hugh to prosecute
his claim of heirship to any land not actually in the king's hands. The lands of Avon-
dale are referred to in the first writ, while the second treats of Glenwhim, Pettinain, or
other lands belonging to the late Earls of Douglas, or to the Earl of Ormond, his
iather. On the other side, the Dean of Brechin bound himself to resign any such
lands acquired by him in favour of the Earl of Angus, reserving a liferent.^^ This
agreement fortified Angus in his possession of the Douglas estates, as Hugh appears
to have been the last heir-male of his family. Hugh Douglas, Dean of Brechin, was
in 1409 presented by the Abbot of Arbroath to the vicarage of Inverness. He witnessed
charters dated at Brechin in 1504, and Arbroath in 150G, and is named in a writ of
1510, but may then have been deceased.^
Hugh, Earl of Ormond, may also have left a daughter. In a charter, dated in
1496, affecting the lands of Birgham and Cockburn, in Berwickshire, it is provided
that Archibald, Earl of Angus, is to have these lands, by the advice of John Ogilvie,
Baron of Fingask, and Hugh Douglas. Dean of Brechin, his brother, a relationship
which may be accounted for by supposing that Ogilvie had married a sister of the Dean.'^
1 Exchequer Rolls, vol. vi. pp. 160, 161.
^ Ihid. pp. 212, 265, 377, 465, 480, 524.
3 Vol. iii. of this work, pp. 139, 160.
■* Registrum Nigrum de Aberbrothoc, pp.
:{24, 370 ; Pcegistrum Magni Sigilli, vol. ii.
Nos. 2842. .^j59.
' Vol. iii. of this work, p. 159. The same
relationship might, however, arise by John
Ogilvie's father, James Ogilvie of Luntrethin
and Airlie, marrying the Dean's mother. Ogil-
vie is usually said to have married Elizabeth
Kennedy, and she may thus be the unknown
wife of Hugh, Earl of Ormond.
JOHN DOUGLAS, LORD OF BALVASY.
4.) 3
John JJouglas, L(jku of Balvanv.
1450—1463.
5. Of John Douglas, Lord of Balvauy, little is known previous to the year 14-31,
when he is named with his brothers as an heir of entail in the numerous charters granted
to William, eighth Earl of Douglas. He is said to have been left iu charge of tlie Douglas
estates iu 1450, during the absence of the Earl at Rome, but Godscroft states that the
Earl of Ormond was left in charge.^ Holland, in his Buke of the Howlat, implies
that John of Balvany was in 1453 only a youth. He possessed the lands of Balvany,
Boharni, and Botriphnie in Bantfshire.
According to Boece, he took part with his elder brothers, James and Hugh, in the
disturbance at Stirling after the death of the eighth Earl of Douglas, but this is not
corroborated by authentic evidence.- In the following year he is named with his
brothers in the safe-conduct to England in May 1453.^ King James the Second, iu his
letter to Charles vii. of France, states that John Douglas of Balvany joined with his
brothers the Earls of Moray and Ormond in their rising in Eskdale, and adds that iu the
flight from the battle of Arkiuholm, Balvany withdrew into England.* in the forfeitiu:e
of his family by Parliament he was included, the act charging Balvany generally with
treasonable practices, and particularly with aiding his mother, the Countess Beatrix, in
fortifying the castle of Abercorn. In July 1455 a proclamation was issued forbidding
assistance or refuge to be given to Balvany and his brother the Earl of Douglas, ur
their mother, on account of their treasonable intercourse with the English.'
For some years after this date nothing is known of the movements of John Douglas
of Balvany or his brother the Earl. According to some historians they or their
adherents are credited with an unsuccessful invasion of Annandale iu October 1458,
^ Pitscottie, edition 1778, p. 54 ; History
of the Houses of Douglas and Angus, p. 183.
'-' Pitscottie, p. 6G : The Auehinleck Chron-
icle states that James, Earl of Douglas, the
Earl of Ormond, and Lord Hamilton, were the
only Lords who were at Stirling [i)p. 10, 47].
' Rotuli Scotire, vol. ii. p. 362.
* This coincides with a safe-conduct to
Beatrix, Countess of Douglas, lohn Douglas,
and Margaret Douglas, of Scotland, granted
apparently on 16th June 1455 [Rotuli Scotiai,
vol. ii. p. 374]. It is doubtful it this date
is correct, as it is six weeks after Arkiuholm
and four days after the forfeiture. Rymer
gives the date as 16th June 1454. [Fcedera,
vol. xi. p. 349.]
' Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland,
vol. ii. pp. 43, 77.
•45i JAMES, SEVENTH EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
but the evidence for this is doubtful.^ The Earl of Doiighis had entered the service of
the English king, but whatever part he or his brother may have taken in the wars of
the Roses, the peace between England and Scotland i)revented hostile action against
the latter country. The death of King James the Second of Scotland, however, while
his son was still a minor, and the accession of au ambitious sovereign to the Englisli
throne in the person of King Edward the Fourth, le<l to a diversion in fiivour of the
Douglases. In June 1461. Balvany joined his brother the Earl in a mission on behalf
of the English king to the Earl of Eoss, lord of the Isles, which ended in a treaty at
London in February 1462. In terms of this engagement the Earl of Ross in the
following year raised the standard of rebellion in the north of Scotland, but this rising
was soon quelled. This failure may have been partly owing to the fact that Douglas
did not succeed in bringing support to his ally.
In October 1462, King Edward the Fourth issued a protection to all who should
aid the Earl of Douglas in his schemes of war on Scotland. Whether engaged in the
enterprise or not, John of Balvany was in Scotland during the year 1463, and there
met his death. He may have been endeavouring to rally the Borderers to the
Douglas standard, when he was taken captive by a band of the men of Eskdale or
Liddesdale, and carried prisoner to Edinburgh. He was confined in the Castle for
twelve days, under a guard of six men, and afterwards beheaded. A price of twelve
hundred merks had been set upon his head, and that sum, or part of it, was paid to
his captors in the end of the year 1463, after his execution.-
John Douglas, Lord of Balvany. so far as is known, died without issue.
1 Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. iii. 12th July 14G4, records a payment for the
p. 278, founding on Law's MS. Chronicle, but expenses of John of Douglas in the castle of
the passage in the ms. is evidently a misdated Edinburgh — (Js. a day given to six persons
reference to the battle of Sark in 144S. Of. guarding him for twelve days. [Exchequer
Auchinleck Chronicle, pp. 18, 40, and Ex- Rolls, vol. vii. p. 285.] The continuator of
chequer Rolls, vol. vi. p. Ix, note. Bower states that Balvany was beheaded, but
2 Receipt for 500 merks of the reward, gives a wrong date. [Fordun. a, Goodall,
paid to John Scot and eight others, on ISth vol. ii. p. 515.] A ms. addition to an early
March 1463-4, for the capture of the late copy of Wyntown, under the year 14(5.";,
traitor, John Douglas, formerly of Balvany records that " Jhone of Dowglace was slayne
[Scotts of Buccleuch, by William Eraser, vol. ii. in Edynburgh, and erle James his brother
pp. 63, 64j. An account rendered to Ex- was chasyt in Inglaud." [I'inkerton's History,
chequer for the year from 27th July 1463 to vol. i. p. 503.]
\5.i
VIII.— 2. WILLIAM, EIGHTH EAEL OF DOUGLAS, SECOND EAIIL
OF AYONDALE, LORD OF GALLOWAY, Etc.
LADY MAPtGAEET DOUGLAS, THE FAIIi MAID OF GALLOWAY,
HIS Countess.
1443—1452.
"TAMES, seventh Earl of Douglas, was succeeded in the earldom by his
^ eldest son William, who became eighth Earl. Through his inherited
position and his own personal qualities, he soon rose to be not only one of
the most distinguished of his great race, but the foremost peer in Scotland.
During his possession of the earldom the Douglases reached the full zenith of
their power, while his untimely death was the beginning of their decline and
fall. The meagre history of the reign during which he lived prevents a just
estimate of his cliaracter, though, according to the chroniclers of tliat time,
he was the most prominent figure in Scotland ; but the pictures drawn by
them of this Earl are too deeply prejudiced to be altogether trustworthy.
The territories of his family were the most extensive in Scotland, and the
power thus placed in the Earl's hands was very gi'eat. Xo other Scottish
noble ever gained such an independent position in the realm. The struggle
betM-een the Scottish Crown and the feudal aristocracy of Scotland may ha
said to have been fought between King James the Second and this Earl, and
from the moment when Douglas fell by the royal dagger in Stirling Castle,
and his honours and estates passed into weaker hands, the conflict was
virtuallv decided in favour of the former.
4oG WILLIAM, EIGHTH EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
This Earl was probably born alwut the year 1425. He was one of thoM-
knighted on 16th October 1430, at the baptism of the princes Alexander and
James, the twin sons of King James the First, and is descril)ed as then of
tender years. Of his history nothing further is recorded until 1443, the year
of his succession to the earldom. Then, according to Boece and other
historians, he suddenly appeared before King James the Second at Stirling,
and by his pleasing manners produced such a favourable impression on the
young monarch that he was appointed lieutenant-general of the kingdom.
The Earl's visit to Stirling was made, it is said, for the purpose of explaining
certain lawless acts ^ done by men for whom he was accounted responsible, for
which he made an ample submission, and great professions of service.'
An equally probable reason for the Earl's attendance on the king is to be
found in the Earl's accession to his title and estates, which took place in
March 1443. His appearance at Court therefore, and the submission recorded
by Boece, may only refer to the homage offered by the Earl to the king,
as his feudal superior. For the young king's favour, however, Douglas may
have been indebted to the aid of Sir Alexander Livingstone of Callendar,
one of the guardians of the young king. The Earl was already meditating
^ These acts were au attack made upon Sir against the Douglases, and attribute all tlit-
William Ruthven, Sheriff of Perth, by John evils in the kingdom to their agency. The
Germ Stewart, a well-known Athole High- statements made by these historians are there-
lander, in which both parties were slain, and fore to be accepted with caution, and where
the seizure of Dumbarton Castle by Patrick their facts are correct, their conclusions are
Galbraith. The Auchinleck Chronicle (pp. 4, not trustworthy. It may also be doubted
5, 35), the most reliable record extant of the whether Boece has not in this case, as in
reign of King James the Second, though it others, confused separate events, as his ac-
refers to these events as taking place in the count of a later submission by Douglas i.s
summer of 1443, does not connect them in similar to this.
any way with the Earl of Douglas. Bishop
Leslie does not record either event. Boece's - Boece, edition 1574, fol. 364 ; Pitscottie's
and Pitscottie's narratives are full of animus History, edition 1778, pp. 30-32.
RETRIBUTIVE MEASURES AGAiyST CRICIITOX, 1443. 457
marriage with his kiuswoman, the " Fair Maid of Galloway," that the lord-
ship of Galloway and the other Douglas estates which she inherited might
be again united with his own. Her mother, Euphemia Graham, widow of
Archibald, fifth Earl of Douglas, had married Sir James Hamilton, Livingstone's
grandson, and a coalition with Hamilton and Livingstone would serve many pur-
poses. They would promote the Earl's matrimonial designs, while his influence
would strengthen Livingstone's faction against that of Chancellor Crichton.
That this last motive weighed strongly with Douglas is proved by what
followed. No sooner had he gained a footing at Court than he used his
power against the Chancellor, whose murder of the sixth Earl of Douglas was
yet unavenged. If Boece be right in assigning the Earl's visit to the king
to a date after the seizure of Dumbarton, on 15th July 1443, he must have
lost no time in prejudicing the king against Crichton, for on the 20th August,
at the royal command, the Earl laid siege to the Chancellor's stronghold of
Barnton. Douglas was at the head of a powerful army, and was also accom-
panied by the members of the king's council and household. After some
delay in preparing for an attack, Douglas displayed the royal banner, where-
upon the castle capitulated, and was levelled to the ground.^ The display of
the royal banner by Douglas may be taken as confirming the statement that
he was lieutenant-general of the kingdom.
This was only the prelude to more severe measures against the Chan-
cellor. On 4th November following, a Parliament was held at Stirling, at
which the king presided in person, having determined to assume the govern-
ment. The Chancellor had been summoned to appear, but failing to do so,
he was deposed from his office of Chancellor, while he and his adherents
were proclaimed outlaws, and their estates confiscated.- Crichton, howevtr,
* Auchialeck Chronicle, pp. 5, 36. £arl of Douglas submit himself at this Parlia-
2 Ibid. ; cf. Acts of the Parliaments of Scot- ment, but the order of events stated in the
land, vol. ii. p. 33. Bishop Leslie makes the text is the more probable.
VOL. I. 3 M
458 WILLIAM, EIGHTH EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
retaliated upon the author of his disgrace by harrying the lands of Douglas,
and burning the granges of Abercorn and Strabrock.^
In the following year the Earl of Douglas obtained from Eome a dis-
pensation to marry his kinswoman, Margaret Douglas, Lady of Galloway.
Boece and Pitscottie state that this marriage was much desired by James,
seventh Earl of Douglas — that in the face of great opposition he persevered
in his endeavours to procure a dispensation, and that the marriage took place
before his death.- It is probable that the aged Earl desired the union, but
he was dead nearly a year and a half before the dispensation was granted,
and the marriage had not then been celebrated.^ The consent of the friends
and relatives of both parties is narrated in the Papal writ, and the marriage
probably took place soon after the receipt of the dispensation.
With the command of the widespread Douglas territories thus placed in
his hands, the power of Earl William in the realm was greatly augmented.
Independently of the royal favour which he possessed, he secured for himself
a party in the state by obtaining honours for his relatives and friends.
His brothers Archibald, Hugh, and John were respectively created Earls
of Moray and Ormond, and Lord of Balvany. Sir James Hamilton was
made a Lord of Parliament, and other adherents of the Douglases also
received that rank.'*
These dignities were apparently conferred during the Parliament which
met in June 1445, but previous to that date, and throughout that whole year,
the hand of Douglas can be traced in the history of the period. During the
^ Auchinleck Chronicle, pp. 6, 37. 1444, and the terms of it forbid the supposi-
- Boece, edition 1574, fol. 364 ; Pitscottie's tion that the parties were married. [Andrew
History, p. 30. Boece, however, assigns a Stuart's History of the Stewarts, p. 467.]
nearer relationship to William and Margaret
than was actually the case ; they were second ' Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, 2Sth
cousins and not cousins, as he states. June 1445, vol. ii. p. 59 ; cf. The Frasers of
■* The dispensation was dated •24th July Philorth, by Lord Saltoun, vol. ii. p. 41.
SIEGE OF EDI X BURGH CASTLE, 1M5. 45 U
progress of the feud between Douglas and Cricliton, James Kennedy, bisliop
of St. Andrews, joined Crichton. In revenge for this the Earl of Crawford,
James Livingstone, a son of Sir Alexander Livingstone, and Sir James
Hamilton, with others, laid waste the bishop's lands, and even attempted to
seize the bishop himself. This outrage is said to have been prompted by
Douglas, with whom Crawford is alleged to have been in league. But if so,
the alliance was broken by the death of Crawford at the battle of Arbroath,
fought between the Ogilvies and Lindsays in January 1446.^
Meanwhile Douglas was besieging Crichton, who had fortified himself in
Edinburgh Castle. The king himself was present at the siege of that fortress,
■which was terminated by Crichton's capitulating on good terms for himself.-
His surrender may have been prompted by hearing that one of his principal
adherents, James Douglas, Earl of Angais, had been forfeited by Parliament
for rebellion.^
The history of Scotland for the next three years, so far as record is
concerned, is almost a blank. It is probable that the country was in a state
of comparative rest, only broken by the battle of Arbroath already referred
to. The proceedings of the Earl of Douglas, so far as they can be traced,
support this view% as his name occurs only in connection with personal and
private matters and not with State affairs, while the historians of the period
record nothing eventful. In the year following the siege of Edinburgh Castle,
the Earl received a grant of £100 from the king, part of which at least was
paid to him, and two years later he received a remission of custom on his
1 Auchinleck Chronicle, ])p. 7, 8, .38, 39. to Edinburgh because of the siege going on
2 /j;^ pp g 3-- there. The Rolls of Parliament confirm this,
and Angus was probably forfeited during the
3 1st July 1445. Acts of the Parhaments progress of the siege. Crichton and Douglas
of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 59. According to the were witnesses together of a royal charter at
Auchinleck Chronicle, the meeting of Parha- Edinburgh on 3d .July 1445 [vol. iii. of this
ment at Perth ia June 1445 was transferred work].
460 WILLIAM, EIGHTH EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
wool.^ In the spring of that year, H46, lie was with the king at Stirling,
and he was at Edinburgh in July."-
In September of the same year, the Earl was at Newark with his brothers
James, and Hugh, Earl of Ormond. There he granted a- charter of some
interest, as it involved the surrender on his part of certain privileges which
the Crown had bestowed on the monks of Melrose, but which were disputed
by the Douglases as lords of Ettrick Forest. King James the First, in 1430,
had erected the lands of the monks in the forest into a regality and had
freed them and their tenants from citations and indictments before the
royal courts. This privilege was confirmed in 1442, by King James the
Second, and, as the Earl of Douglas in his charter narrates, questions of
jurisdiction had arisen in consequence. The monks and their men claimed,
in terms of the royal grant, to be free from the courts held by the
Earl's officers within the forest bounds. These questions the Earl set at
rest by granting to the monks full freedom from his own jurisdiction as
lord of the forest.^ Douglas was still at Newark in the following March,
on the first of which month he held his baron's court in the great hall
of the tower.*
In the beginning of August of that year, 1447, the Earl was at the island
^ Exchequer Rolls, vol. v. pp. 218, 311. ^ Liber de Melros, vol. ii. pp. 572, 573;
2 Registruni Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. No. 28S. cf. pp. 494, 571. The Earl's charter is dated
On 10th May 144G, the Earl granted to 26th September 1446.
Thomas Cranston of that Ilk, lands lying to ^ On 1st March 1446-7, before the Earl in
the west of the town of Sprouston. [Original full court at Newark, Oswald Abernethy
charter in Roxbur^'h Charter-chest at Floors.] declared he claimed no other overlord of his
On 23d July 1446, the Earl, as overlord, con- lands of Teinside and Harwood in the barony
firmed a charter by WOliam Inglis of Meunar of Hawick, and Andrew Ker received a pre-
of the lands of Branxholm and others in cept of dare comtat as heir of his father
favour of Sir Walter Scott of Buccleuch. Andrew Ker in the lands of Primside in
[The Scotts of Buccleuch, by William Eraser, Sprouston. [Original writs in Roxburgh
vol. ii. p. 34.] Charter-chest.]
IMPORTANT FAMILY ARRAXGEMEXT, 1447. 461
stroughold of Thrieve,^ but towards the end of the month lie was in Edin-
burgh, where he took part in an important family arrangement which settled
the succession to the Douglas estates, failing heirs-male of the Earl himself.
In presence of himself and the Countess of Douglas, apparently in this
case his mother and not his wife, his two younger brothers, Archibald, Earl
of Moray, and James Douglas of Heriotmuir, twins, bound themselves to
submit to the determination of the Earl and his mother, as to which of the
two was the older. Each bound himself to abide by the decision, and they
further agreed to submit to any distribution of his property the Earl might
make, should he die without lawful issue. To this document the seals of
the Earl, his mother, and two brothers were affixed.^ In October of the
same year the Earl was residing at his own ancestral castle of Douglas.^
In the spring or early summer of the following year, 1448, Douglas was
again called to active service by the outbreak of hostilities with England,
1 At Thrieve, on 6tli August 1447, the James Lindsay, parson of Douglas, Robert
Earl made a grant to the prior and convent Fleming of Cumbernauld, Thomas Cranstoun
of Whithorn of the burgh of WTiithorn, with of Cranstoun, Sir John Wallace of Craigie,
the tolls of the island of Portquhitherne, the Sir James Auchinleck, and others. Of these,
tenth of the fines of the Sheriff-Courts of Crawford, Fleming, and Wallace of Craigie
Wigtown, and £10 of annual-rent from the M-ere connected with the Douglases by mar-
barony of Carnismule. [Registrum Magni riage, Crawford being a relation by marriage of
Sigilli, vol. ii. No. 3S3.] William, sixth Earl of Douglas, while Fleming
and Wallace were, it is said, brothers-in-law
^ Agreement dated at Edinburgh, 25th of the principal parties. This arrangement
August 1447. The mother's decision was was thus evidently a wholly private and
given in favour of James Douglas of Heriot- family affair.
muir, as will be more fully related in the ^ On 4th October 1447, at Douglas, the
following memoir. Those who witnessed Earl, with consent of Gavin, Provost of Both-
this important document were chiefly friends well, erected the church of Hawick into an
of the family, and among them were Alex- additional prebend of the collegiate church
ander Earl of Crawford, Alexander Lord at Bothwell, to which he presented his
Montgomery, Lawrence Lord Abernethy in secretary, James Lindsay. [Registrum Epis-
Rothimay, John Lord Lindsay of the B>Tes, copatus Glasguensis, vol. ii. p. 306, 367.]
4G2 WILLIAM, EIGHTH EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
The theatre of war was chielly confined to the Borders. The English, uudo!
the younger Percy and Sir Eobert Ogle, burned Dunbar in May, wliilc
Dumfries was burned in June by the Earl of Salisbury. In retaliation tlir
Earl of Douglas, with his brother the Earl of Ormond, and others, burned
Alnwick, and a few weeks later, with a force, it is said, of forty thousand
men, penetrated as far as Warkworth, and gave it also to the flames. Duth
expeditions were so skilfully conducted that though the Scots inflicted great
damage, they retired with comparatively little loss.'^ It was no doubt in
connection with this renewal of Border warfare that the Earl, in December
of the same year, assembled the freeholders and oldest borderers at Lincluden,
and set down in writing the laws of the Marches as used in the days of his
grandfather and uncle.-
During the same year, 1448, while England and Scotland were thus at
war, the latter country was negotiating a closer alliance with France. Iving
James the Second despatched William, Lord Crichton, who had been
restored to the office of Chancellor, and others to France, to renew tlu-
ancient league between the two kingdoms, and arrange his marriage with
Mary, daughter of Arnold, Duke of Gueldres.
The instructions of Chancellor Crichton for the negotiations with Fi-ancL-
1 Auclimleck Chronicle, pp. 27, 39, 40. the battle of Sark. [IhlJ. pp. IS, 40.]
The number of the force here said to be led - Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. i.
by Douglas corresponds to the number of pp. 714-716. The Earl of Douglas apparently
armed men which, according to Godscroft, exercised justiciary powers over Cumfric--
[edition 1644, p. 207], the Earl could raise shire at this time, as in July 144S an assize
on his own territories alone, but the host fixing the marches of certain lands belonging
actually commanded by him is probably over- to the Abbey of Sweet-heart and Maxwell ot
estimated. Two hundred men were taken KirkconnelJ, was presided over by Alexander
prisoners in the retreat, and only ten were Mure, justiciar of the Earl of Douglas, acting
slain. The Scots, however, had an equivalent under the Earl's commission. [The Book ut
number of English captives, and in the fol- Carlaverock by William Eraser, vol. ii.
lowing October, the English were defeated at p. 431.]
CLAIMS THE DUCHY OF TOUEAIXE, 1448. 463
included a matter of some interest to the Earl of Douglas. As already stated
in the memoir of the Earl's uncle, Archibald, first Duke of Touraine, his
widow, the Princess Margaret, wrote to the king of France claiming her terce
from the duchy of Touraine,^ and her royal nephew, King James the Second,
intrusted to his chancellor the urging of this claim upon the French Court.
In addition to the demand made by the Princess, William, Earl of Douglas,
and his Countess, preferred a claim upon the lands of the duchy. The reply
of King Cliarles the Seventh, to which reference has already been made,
is generally to the eftect that neither the Duchess of Touraine, nor her
nephew, nor his wife, had any claim upon the French Court. In regard
to the Earl of Douglas, the French king states he will always esteem the
p]arl as his special friend, but as the duchy of Touraine was granted only to
the first Duke and to the heirs-male of his body, which the Earl was not,
he had no riglit. As for the Earl's wife, although a daughter of the second
Duke of Touraine, the king states that there is nothing in France belonging to
her grandfather to which she could lay claim. Thus the articles presented
by Crichton on behalf of Douglas were dismissed, and all connection between
the house of Douglas and the duchy of Touraine ceased.
The marriage negotiations with the Court of Burgundy on behalf of King
James the Second were still proceeding in February of the year 1449, when
some Burgundian chevaliers visited Scotland. It is said they were attracted
by the recent Scottish victories, and were received with much honour by
the king. In default of a raid on England, a tournament was arranged to
I Aiitfa, p. 396. Crichton apparently did is dated 23d April of that year [Rotuli Scotia?,
not present his letter of instructions until vol. ii. p. 332], and the delay in his journey
September 144S [Letters and Papers illus- is sufficiently accounted for by the hostilities
trative of the Wars of the English in France on the Borders in May, June, and July, as
temp. Henry VI., by Rev. J. Stevenson, vol. i. narrated in the text.
p. 221], but his safe-conduct through England
4G4 WILLIAM, EIGHTH EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
be held at Stirling iu presence of the king, at which the Burgundians wcii.'
encountered by Sir James Douglas, brother to the Earl, and two otluT
Scottish cliampions. The Scottish combatants, it is said, kept the spectators
waiting for 'more than three hours, and then arrived with a numerous
following, the Earl of Douglas, who accompanied them, being attended l»y a
train of between four and six thousand men.^
The month of September in this year, 1449, witnessed the downfall of thf
family of Livingstone. Eor some cause, now unknown, the king suddenlv
arrested the various members of the family, who, in the Parliament of
January 1450, were forfeited, and some of them beheaded.^ Some writers
have attributed this sudden reverse of fortune to the influence of Douglas,
but they misdate the event by three years. Douglas, however, obtained
a slight accession of territory by the forfeiture of the Livingstones and their
party.^ It is also stated that one of their adherents, Archibald Dundas,
brother to James Dundas of that Ilk, fortified Dundas Castle, and held it
for some time against the king, \\^len it was surrendered, the buildini;
was demolished, and the contents shared between the kinc, the Earl of
Douglas, Lord Crichton, and others.^
In the same Parliament a number of excellent laws were passed aft'ectiug
every class of the community. The poor people who tilled the soil were to
be protected in their possessions or leases notwithstanding any change of
ownership in the property. Other enactments provided for the pre^'entiou
and punishing of crimes, for enforcing of which the sheriffs were mado
^ Chroniques de M. de Coussy, quoted in thehalf of Dundas, forfeited by James Dunda^;
"Lea Ecoasais en France," etc., par M. Fran- to which, on 22d May 1450, were added Cultti
ciaque Michel, vol. i. p. 207. and Ogilface in Lanark and Linlithgow, I'ur-
2 Auchinleck Chronicle, pp. 25, 2G, 42. ^''*'^ ^^ '^^°''' Livingstone, and Blainnakki.
in Lanarkshire, forfeited by Duudaa. [Regis -
3 On lOth February 1449-50, the Earl re- trum Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. Xos. 31G, 317, 3.')7.1
ceived the half of Echlin and Dalmeny, and ■» Auchinleck Chronicle, lU supra.
LIEUTENANT-GENERAL OF THE KINGDOM.
465
responsible to the lieiiteuant-general. This latter of&cer, there is reason to
believe, was the Earl of Douglas, who, during this year, 1450, was at the
height of his power. Boece and others imply that in this year, owing to
the assumption by the king of Bishop Kennedy and others as advisers, the
influence of Douglas began to wane. These historians also charge him
with great cruelty and oppression.^ But, apart from the fact that he
must have aided in passing the laws referred to, authentic records of
this period show that Douglas was constantly at court and with the
king. From January to August 1450, he is a witness to nearly every
royal charter, and in most of them side by side with Bishop Kennedy
and Chancellor Crichton. Moreover, the Earl procured the king's ratifi-
cation of the agreement made in 1447, as to the seniority of his brother
James, thus securing the succession to his estates. He also received
grants of lands to himself, one charter, erecting the town of Strathavon
1 Ooe story told by Boece [ed. 1574:, fol. 371,
1. 5; Pitscottie, ed. 1778, p. 53] to this efifect is,
that about 1449 Sir Richard Colvile, a knight,
killed Sir James Auchinleck, a friend of the
Earl of Douglas, who, in revenge, harried
Colvile's lands, besieged his castle, and slew
himself. This is given as an example of the
Earl's cruelty and oppression. Godscroft states
that it was Sir Richard Colvile of Ochiltree
who was thus treated [Houses of Douglas
and Angus, edition 1644, p. 180]. But
the story may well be doubted. The only
Colvile of knightly rank who has been dis-
covered in extant records is Sir Robert Colvile
of Ochdtree and Oxnam. He and Sir James
Auchinleck were both vassals of Douglas ; Sir
James certainly deceased about the year of
his alleged murder, but Colvile was alive and
VOL. I.
rendering feudal ser^•ice to the ninth Earl of
Douglas in 1453. [Indenture between him and
Andrew Ker of Altonburn, 10th June 1453.
Vol. iii. of this work ; cf. Registrum Magni
Sigilli, vol. ii. Nos. 2G7, 302, 417, 1371.]
Colvile therefore could not have been slain by
Douglas. The Auchinleck Chronicle [pp. 24,
41] simply narrates that on 20th Aprd 1449,
Sir James Auchinleck was slain by " Richert
Colvile,"' who some days afterwards gave uj)
the Castle, and with three companions was
beheaded. The Earl of Douglas, it is added,
threw down the castle. No clue is given as
to what castle is referred to, and " Richert
Colvile " may have been a petty assassin, who
was punished by Douglas in his judicial
capacitj'.
3 N
466 WILLIAM, EIGHTH EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
into a free burgh, being granted for the singular favour and affection the
king had towards the Earl.^
Towards the end of August, the Earl's name no longer occurs as a witness, as
he withdrew from court to prepare for a journey to TiOme, to which the papal
jubilee was attracting visitors from all parts. The Earl set out at the head of a
princely train of attendants, including liis brother James and nineteen otlicrs of
varied rank,^ all of whom, it is said, he maintained in vestments, defraying' also
tlieir expenses during the journey. At Eome he received a flattering recep-
tion, being honoured beyond all the other visitors to the city. According to
Boece, the Earl had become so rich through extortion, that he sought to visit
other countries to advance his greatness, but a less romantic chronicler informs
us that he went abroad with the leave and by the goodwill of his soverei^ai.^
The safe-conduct to Douglas and his party was available for three years,
but he returned to Scotland on the 7th of April following his departure. On
his way he passed through England, and was treated with special distinction,
Garter King of Arms being ordered to conduct him to the English Court,
and to attend upon him during his stay in the country.*
^ Registrum Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. Nos. gentlemen, and eighty men-at-arma. Thctirst
301, .340 ; Nos. 297-3S9, passim : Acts of the part of their journey appears to have been by
Parliaments of Scotland, vol. ii. pp. 03, 64. sea, perhaps to Flanders, as an entry in the
The Earl was also one of the conservators of E.xchequer Rolls of the custumars of Edin-
the truce with England made in this year. burgh (1450-51) refersto a shipof Hugh lirok j
[Rotuli ScotiaB, vol. ii. p. 340.] About the in which the Earl of Douglas departed. [Ex-
same time he lent £100 to the king, which chequer Rolls, vol., v. p. 439.]
was duly repaid, and he also received an ^ Boece, edition 1574, fol. 371 ; Pitscottie's
additional sum as a royal gift. [Exchequer History, edition 1778, pp. 53, 54 ; m.s.
Rolls, vol. V. pp. 383, 3S4, 393.] Chronicle, c. 1521, by John Law, Canon of
' Their names are given in a safe-conduct St. Andrews, preserved in the Edinburgh L'ni-
granted by the English king for passage versity Library,
through his dominions, dated 12th November * 27th February (1450-51). Issues of the
1450. Rotuli Scotiie, vol. iL p. 343. The Exchequer, Rolls Publications, 1837, pp- 408.
Earl's train consisted of six knights, fourteen 469.
RETURX FROM JUBILEE AT ROME, 1451. 467
It is stated that disturbances at home accelerated his return, as he had
left his estates in charge of his brother John, Lord of Balvauy,^ whose
conduct gave rise to complaints ; that tlie king, as a punishment, ordered the
Earl of Orkney, who is described as chancellor, to collect the rents of
Galloway and Clydesdale for the royal exchequer, but to whom payment
was refused; and that thereupon the king marched into Galloway, besieged
various fortresses and castles, receiving the submission of Lochmaben, and
razing the castle of Douglas to the ground.-
Much of this statement is erroneous. Annandale, of which Lochmaben
was the principal stronghold, with Lochmaben itself, were then in the king's
own hands, and administered by the royal officers,^ and Douglas Castle was
still standing in July 1451 and in August 1452. But complications had
arisen in the Earl's absence, the most reasonable statement of which is given
by Law. He relates that while the Earl was at liome a report arose, which
was confirmed by the result, that William Turnbull, bishop of Glasgow, Sir
William Crichton, the Chancellor, and Sir George Crichton, were plotting
against the life of Douglas ; and that by their advice the king besieged the
Earl's strongholds, killed many of his free tenants, received others to his
peace upon oath, and with the aid of the conspirators, assembled an army,
attacked Crag Douglas (a fortalice on the Yarrow), and on its surrender
levelled it with the ground.^ It is probable that the attack on this tower
was marrnified into the destruction of Douglas Castle.
^ Pit3Cottie, ut supra, p. 54. This may be rebellion are mingled in inextricable confusion
doubted, as Balvany was then comparatively in the pages of Boece.
young. Leslie says the Earl of Ormond was ^ Antea, p. 430; cf. Exchequer EoUs,vol. v.
his brother's overseer. pp. 357, 520, 668.
- Boece, edition 1574, fol. 371; Pitscottie'a * Law's ai.s. Chronicle. The words of this
History, edition 177S, pp. 54, 56. The Earl writer seem to imply that Douglas himself
of Orkney did not become chancellor till 1454. was beset within the fortalice, but other cir-
The events affecting the Douglases and their cumstances render this improbable.
4G8
WILLIAM, EIGHTH EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
It is obvious from the account here given, that during the Earl's absence
King James the Second had been prejudiced against him. Of Crichton's hostility
there can be little doubt, and Turnbull was probably under the Chancellov's
influence.^ Douglas, however, hurried home, and soon regained his creilit
with the king. He is said to have presented himself at the Parliament held at
Edinburgh in June 1451, and submitted himself to the royal will. Influenced
by the charm of the Earl's manner, or by the request of the Queen and the
three estates, who espoused the Earl's cause, the king restored him to favour,
remitting all offences up to that date, and according to the writer who records
the fact, " all gud Scottis men war rycht blyth of that accordance." ^
So complete was the reconciliation between the King and the Earl that
the latter's influence was established on a firmer basis than ever. This is
shown by the numerous charters now granted to him, in which his whole
lands, territories, of&ces, and castles, which he had formally resigned, were
confirmed not only to himself but to a series of heirs, consisting of his four
brothers in succession and their heirs-male, thus apparently securing the
1 The statement of the ms. chronicler is
corroborated by the fact that while Douglas
and Bishop Kennedy disappear at the same
date from attendance on Court, as indicated
by charters, the latter witnessing no royal
writs till the close of 1451, Turnbull, who had
been Privy Seal, and Chancellor Crichton,
remained with the king, and are his most
constant attendants during Douglas's absence.
Others who witness the king's charters are
chiefly members of the royal household, and
the names change continually. Cf. Registrum
Magni Sigilli, vol, ii. Xos. 3S9-447, et seq.
■^ Auchinleck Chronicle, pp. 9, 45. This
statement, made by one who usually notes
facts without adding opinions, goes far to
render very doubtful the many charges made
by Boece and others against the Earl of Dou-
glas. The Earl's name is inserted in two
safe-conducts to England, on 17th April and
12th May 1451 [Rotuli Scotiaj, vol. ii.
pp. 345-G], but it is evident he did not avail
himself of these. An imperfect sentence in
the Auchinleck Chronicle implies that though
the Earl did not go into England, nor take
part in arranging the truce completed in Sep-
tember of this year, he sent his seal in token
of his assent to it. He was named as one of
the conservators.
RESTORED TO THE KING'S FAVOUR, 1451.
4G9
estates and family of Douglas for many generations.' A remarkable clause
in three of these charters provides that Douglas shall enjoy the lands as freely
as his predecessors, notwithstanding all statutes to the contrary, and also
notwithstanding all crimes committed by him, or by his uncle the late Earl
Archibald, or any cause of forfeiture or treason up to the date of the charter.-
Although Douglas was thus restored to the favour of King James the
Second, and reinstated in his possessions, he resented the efforts which had
been made to prejudice the king against him, and resolved to strengthen
himself against similar attacks in future, by entering into a confederacy witli
the Earl of Crawford. A recent writer, referring to the fact that at the
Parliament at which the king restored to Douglas his possessions, he also
bestowed lands on the Earl of Crawford, assumes that previous to this date
the two Earls were in close alliance, and that the king was not alive to the
danger with wliich the power of Douglas threatened the Crown, nor aware
1 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, and SmaUholm, in floxburgbshire ; Boltou
vol. ii. pp. 67-73 ; Registrura Magni Sigilli, in Haddington ; Eskdale with Stablegorton ;
vol. ii. Nos. 403, 464, 466-472, 474-4S2, 503, Aberdour and the castle and rock of Dun-
504. Taking these charters as they stand in darg, county of Aberdeen ; Bothwell and its
order of date, the following enumeration of castle, with Cormanock, in Lanarkshire ; the
the lands may give some idea of the vast office of SherifiF of that county ; Glenwhim in
territorial influence wielded by the Earl per- Peeblesshire. These were all granted on the
sonally :— Trabeath in Ayrshire ; C'ulter and Earl's resignation, between the 6th and Sth
Crawfordjohn in Lanarkshire; the Forests July 1451, and were followed on 26th Octo-
of Ettrick and Selkirk ; Galloway east of the ber by grants of the earldom of Wigton, or
Cree ; the wardenry of the Western and Galloway west of the Cree, and the lands
Middle Marches ; Brondon in Roxburghshire ; of Stewarton and Dunlop in Ayrshire. It is
Lauderdale, with Romanuo and Kingsmea- to be noted that all this extent of territory
dow ; Galloway as above, with Buittle and owed allegiance to the Earl only, apart
the Castle of Thrieve ; Preston in Gallo- from the estates possessed by his younger
way ; the earldom of Douglas and Castle of brothers,
the same, with the Ferm of Ruglen, county of
Lanark ; also Abercorn and its castle in Li a- - Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland,
lithgowshire ; Sproustown, Hawick, Bedrule. vol. ii. pp. 6S, 69, 72.
470 WILLIAM, EIGHTH EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
that a league, ofiensive and defensive, existed between Douglas and Ciawfoid.
against all men, not excluding the king. The same writer, however, admit <
that the date of the bond is not known on any sufficient authority.^
That there was a bond of alliance between the Earls' of Douglas and
Crawford may be granted, as it is referred to by every historian of the period,
but it may be doubted whether it was not an unwritten bond, and if any
formal document existed, even Boece does not imply that it was made pre-
vious to this year.2 Had such been the case, the Earl of Crawford would
have made some demonstration when the territory of Douglas was
threatened during his absence at Rome. In this connection it may be of
some importance to note that Crawford, though he succeeded to the earldom
in 1446, nowhere appears as a witness to royal charters until 1451, when his
name occurs several times between January and August.^ It was therefore
probably during this attendance at Court that he and Douglas agreed to
coalesce in opposition to Crichton and TurnbuU.
Tlie Earl of Eoss is also said to have been a party to the coalition, but
the editor of the Exchequer EoUs has shown conclusively that Eoss was
then a mere youth, and though about the time of Douglas's death he raised
a rebellion in the north, the same writer, on good grounds, attributes this act
to private revenge, and not to any league with Douglas.'*
According to Boece and others, Douglas, after this coalition, grew
^ Exchequer Rolls, vol. v. pref. pp. xci-xciii. ^ Cf. Registrum Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. Xos.
- Tytler, who, in his History of Scotlaud, 407-491, pas-nm. Craw-ford appears as a wit-
adopts many of Boece's statements, asserts ness to the family agreement of the Douglases
that Douglas had a league with David, third previously narrated, but evidently as a kins-
Earl of Crawford, who fell at Arbroath in man, and no weight therefore is to be at-
January 1446, and immediately after that tached to the act as imply inn- a treasonal>le
Earl's death, renewed the bond -vWth his sou, confederacy.
Alexander, fourth Earl, and with the Earl of
Ross. No evidence of this has been discovered, * Exchequer Rolls, vol. v. preface, pp. xci:.
and even Boece implies otherwise. xciii.
CHARGES ALLEGED AGAINST THIS EARL. 471
extremely insolent, and planned an unsuccessful attack upon Chancellor
Crichton, which Crichton retaliated by driving Douglas from Edinburgh.
Boece also narrates tlie execution by Douglas of Sir John Herries of Terregles
for raiding in Annandale, although, as alleged, in opposition to the king's
mandate.^ Lindsay of Pitscottie, on his own authority, relates an incident
of the beheading of IMaclellan of Bomby, in the castle-yard of Douglas Castle,
while Sir Patrick Gray, his nephew, was dining with the Earl.'^ This story is
not related by Boece, which suggests that the episode, with all its savage
details, had not been invented till after his day. If such a deed had been
done by Douglas, it could not have escaped the notice of the credulous
romancer who records other and minor charges against this Earl. Pitscottie
is the earliest relater of that story, but no reliance can be placed on the
unauthenticated statement of an author who did not write for upwards of a
century after the event, and who is contradicted in an essential part of the
tradition by other authors. Pitscottie places the scene of the tragedy at
Douglas Castle, in Lanarkshire, while others localise it at Thrieve Castle, in
Galloway. This important contradiction casts discredit upon the whole
improV)able story. The recorded movements of the Earl of Douglas also, and
his evident attendance upon the king up to within a short time of his death,
are opposed to the statement of Pitscottie that Maclellan's fate enraged the
king, and led to the ruin of Douglas himself. Authentic records only show
that the Earl of Douglas, after the Parliament of June 1451, received on
26th October a grant of Wigtown and other lands, and was then probably
present at the Parliament which met at Stirling at that date. At the same
place he witnessed a royal charter on 9th November of that year, and on 26tli
December and 13th January following, he was with the king at Edinburgh.^
1 Boece, ed. 1574, fols. 372-3. 504, 507, 522, 523, 18G3 ; cf. Registrum de
2 Pitscottie's History, ed. 1778, pp. 61-64. Passelet, pp. 257, 258 ; Acts of the Parlia-
^ Fiegistrimi Magni Sigilli, vol ii. Nos. 503, ments of Scotland, voL ii. p. 39.
472 WILLIAM, EIGHTH EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
These were the last public acts of this Earl of Douglas, the liual tra'^cdv
of whose life took place in the ensuing month of February. The circum-
stances which led to this event are involved in obscurity. Boece states that
the royal summons wliich brought Douglas to Stirling was prompted by the
king's council to put an end to the Earl's enormities.^ Pitscottie implies
that the Earl was openly endeavouring to win the southern barons of hi.s
own neighbourhood away from their allegiance, and that he or his adherents
were boasting of the power gained by the coalition with Crawford." These
writers thus suggest that the fate of Douglas was premeditated. But other
and more trustworthy historians narrate the event in such a way as to throw
doubt on this view. Following the simplest and most probable account
— that of the Auchinleck Chronicle — with which, in the main, other writers
agree, the facts of the Earl's death seem to be these. He was summoned to
Stirling by a special messenger from the king, bearing not only the royal
mandate, but a special safe-conduct, signed by the king and the lords of Ids
council.^ The messenger. Sir William Lauder of Hatton, brought the Earl of
Douglas to Stirling to the king, who received him graciously, and invited him
to dine and sup next day. Douglas found the courtiers talking of his bond
with Crawford and Eoss, and probably guessed the king's purpose, but accepted
the invitation. After supper the king invited the Earl to a private conference,
remonstrated with him against the bond, which he charged him to break,
^ Boece, edition 1574, fol. 373. Exchequer Eolls, vol. v. p. xc\-iii.] The ehi-
- Pitscottie'a History, edition 1778, pp. 60, borate assurance given to Douglas for hi^
61, 64. safety certainly argues either that he was
^ The messenger, it is said, was William suspicious of the sudden summons, or that
liauder of Hatton, a friend of Douglas, to whatever the king's intentions, those of his
which fact his selection as envoy was probably council were hostile. The summons, how-
due, though it would appear he himself was ever, was sudden, as Douglas had been witb
then under sentence of forfeiture. [Cf. Regis- the king in Edinburgh only a month pre-
trum Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. Xo. 544, and viously.
SLAIX AT STIRLING BY KIXG JAMES II., 1452. 473
urging his duty as a subject. But Douglas, perliajis heated by wine,
refused, and the interview waxing warm, the Earl defiantly declared that he
would not break the confederacy. Starting to his feet, the king exclaimed,
"False traitor, if you will not, I shall I" and stabbed Douglas twice with his
dagger, in the neck and in the body. Ere the Earl could recover himself, Sir
Patrick Gray rushed into the chamber, and struck him on the head with a
pole-axe, whUe others in attendance also stabbed the fallen Earl, whose dead
body bore no fewer than twenty-six wounds.^
The account here given says nothing of the king's motive fur summoning
the Earl to Stirling, but another writer states that the safe-conduct to Douglas
was given under the great seal. His account of the conference is that the
king accused Douglas of assisting the Earl of Crawford, then a rebel ; and
because Douglas refused to renounce the league with Crawford before
communicating with the latter, the king struck him with his dagger, beinuf
advised to do so by Sir Patrick Gray and Sir William Cranstoun, two of the
royal household.- This statement throws some light on the sudden summons
sent to the Earl. The rising of the Earl of Crawford, which was quelled
on the 18th of I\Iay following, is usually assumed to have taken place after
and on account of Douglas's death, in consequence of the alleged bond betwixt
them, whereas it would appear that Crawford had for some reason been pro-
claimed a rebel, and that the king feared he might be assisted by Douglas.
Corroborative evidence of this view is supplied by Parliament in an Act
passed to exonerate the king from the charges made against him of killing
the Earl of Douglas while under the protection of a safe-conduct. The three
' Auchinleck Chronicle, pp. 9, 46. on his behalf : his own passion seems to
- Extracta ex Cronicis Seocice, Abbotsford have inspired the murder. The writer of the
Club, 1S42, p. 242. It is not necessary to as- Extracta, etc., also records that the body of
sume that the kin^ was advised to this course Douglas was buried quietly in the place of
— such a plea might be put forward afterwards the Friars Preachers at Stirling.
VOL. I. 3 0 .
47-t WILLIAM, EIGHTH EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
Estates met ou 12tli June 1452, v.'lieu Douglas was dead, Crawford attainted,
and while the ilisturbances wliich followed on the Pearl's death were still "oin"-
on, and declared the king innocent ou three grounds. First, because if the
Earl had a safe-conduct he had renounced the benefit of it ; secc^idly, becausi^
it was plainly proved that he had entered into conspiracies with other noblts
against the king, and that rebellions were arranged and committed by Jiim,
his brothers, and their accomplices. The second reason alleges no u-rlUcii
proofs, while the terms of it seem to refer to the disturbances which took place
after the Earl's death, and for which he was not responsible. The last gTound
of exoneration is that the Earl of Douglas brought about his own death
by his obstinacy and his resistance to the many gentle persuasions of the
king and others that he would please the king and aid him against rebellious
subjects.'^ This last reason for the king's innocence, if true, corroborates
the view already indicated, that Crawford had become a rebel, and that the
king was afraid that the well-known friendship and the family ties which
existed betwLxt him and Douglas would lead the latter also to rise against
the CroA\'n. It was this and not any formal league which alarmed the king
and council, and by the latter's own showing there is no ground for the
charge made against Douglas that he was the head of a confederacy which
threatened the throne itself.
But whatever colour the obsequious Parliament of King James the Second
put upon his deed, and whatever may have been the fault of the Earl of
Douglas, his murder while in the king's house as a guest, and under the
royal protection, was an aggravation of such a crime. A distinguished
author has said that the countenance of the king was marked on one side
with a broad red spot, which gained him the surname of James with the
Fiery Face, and that they might have called him James with the fiery
temper, for he had a hot and impetuous disposition. In proof of this, refer-
^ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, 12th June 1452, vol. ii. p. 73.
COMPLICITY OF CHANCELLOR CRICIITON. 475
ence is made by the writer to the slaughter of the Earl of JJouglas as a stain
upon the reputation of the king.^
There is a consensus of opinion among historians that the invitation
which the king sent to Douglas contained an assurance of his personal safety.
These writers also add that it was so formal and solemn as to have had tht-
great seal of Scotland appended to it. As Crichton was chancellor at the
time, and the great seal in his keeping, it could only have been used with
his consent. We have seen in the memoir of the sixth Earl the cordial
invitation by which Crichton allured him to his fate, and how little assur-
ances of safety were regarded by unscrupulous men when bent on accom-
plishing a x-iolation of them.- According to the popular accounts of the
timiult, immediately after the murder the king's letter of safety was publicly
paraded in the streets, and the king branded with perjury.
Being evidently uneasy under his crime, the king did not wait for the
exoneration which he hoped to obtain from his pliant Parliament. He
selected a confidential messenger to proceed to King Charles the Seventh of
France with a letter of credence, and to inform him of what had taken place.-
The commotions in Scotland which were the immediate results of the
death of this Earl, will be referred to in the next memoir, as they were
directed by his brother James, who succeeded him as ninth Earl of Douglas.
1 Sir Walter Scott, in Tales of a Grand- ished. The eldest son of the incendiary of
father, sixth edition, vol ii. pp. 123-159. Frendraught was created Viscount of Fre.i-
2 The Crichtons appear to have been a draught and Lord Crichton in 1642. But
treacherous race. Two grandsons of the treason soon overtook these new titles as it
Chancellor, William, third Lord Crichton, had done the old, the fourth Viscount being
an.1 his brother George, were forfeited for forfeited for that offence in IG'JO.
treason in 1483. Another descendant of the
ChanceUor appears to have inherited that = Letter dated 12th April 1452. Steven-
feature in his character of playing false to son's Letters and Fapers lUustrative of the
invited guests, by burning his own tower of Wars of the EngUsh in France, vol. i.
Frendraught, in which several Gordons per- pp. 315, 316.
476
WILLIAM, EIGHTH KARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
William, eiglitli Earl of Doiv^las, as already stated, married his .-.ecund
cousin, [Margaret, daughter of Archibald, second Duke of Touraine and fifth
Earl of Douglas. This was done partly as a matter of family policy to
consolidate the Douglas estates, partly by the ladys own desire, as
Godscroft says she refused to marry any other of the name of Douglas.^ Dy
his wife, who was probably very young when he married her. Earl AVilliam
had no children. She survived her husband, and is said to have l)eeu
married to his brother, the ninth Earl, in whose memoir she will be again
referred to.
1 Houses of Douglas and Angus, edition 1644, p. 158.
477
VIII.— 3. JAMES, XIXTH (and Last) EAEL OF DOUGLAS,
THIRD EAEL OF AVDNDALE, Etc.
LADY MAEGAlfET DOUGLAS, THE FAIR MAID OF GALLOWAY,
HIS Countess.
1452—1488.
ryiHIS Earl, the last of the great House of Douglas, was, it is said, originally
-*- intended for the Church, but this statement is not supported by evidence.
On the contrary, the few notices of his career which occur previous to his
succession to the earldom and estates of Douglas, indicate that he inherited
the military spirit of his family, and was trained to arms.
The date of his birth is not known. He first appeal's as a witness to his
brother William's charter to the monks of ]\Ielrose in 1446.^ A few montlis
later, under the designation of James Douglas of Heriotmure, he entered into
an agreement with his twin brother, Archibald, Earl of Moray, submitting
the question of their seniority to their motlier's decision. The terms of this
docmnent have already been narrated in the previous memoir, and the sequel
may now be stated. On the day after the signing of the agTcement, the
official of Lothian made a formal declaration in terms of an oath taken by
certain good women and Beatrix, Countess of Douglas, that her son James
1 Newark, 26th September 14-40. Liber de the following year, when the charter to the
Mebros, vol. iL p. 572. .James Douglas was Prior of Whithorn was granted. [Rcgistnim
also with his brother the Earl at Thrieve in Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. No. .3S;l]
478 JAMES, XTXTH EAUL OF DOUGLAS, F/I'C.
was the elder of the twins, and this declaration was confirmed by tiie frimd.
of the family. From that time he was designated Master of Douglas.^
James, Master of Douglas, displayed his activity in military aftairs l.v
accompanying his elder brother in the raid on the English Border in J uii'..
1448, and he is said by (Jodscroft to have taken the chief part in buruin-
Alnwick.- He received the custody of the castle of Ilailes from Archibnld
Dunbar, who had seized the place,^ and he conceived and endeavoured tu
carry out the idea of building a fortalice on the isle of Fidra, near Xurth
Berwick, in order to secure for himself the command of the Firth of Forth ;
but he was compelled to abandon this project. +
Pteference has already been made to tlie visit of three Burgundians to
Scotland in February 144 9, and to their cordial reception by the Scottish
court. Tliese were James Lalain, eldest son of the Lord of Lalain, his uncle
Sir Simon Lalain, and Herve Meriadec, a Breton, squire of the Duke ot
Burgundy. Tlie historian who records the festivities on the occasion states
that they were all of high spirit, and desirous of exercise in arms. Durin«'
their sojourn the strangers were enabled to test the prowess of the Scots, as
three champions came forward, the :\raster of Douglas, John (or James)
Douglas, a brother of the Laird of Lochleven, and John Eoss of Halkhead,
1 Agreement dated 2otb, and Declaration refers, when it states that Archibald Diuil.ar
dated 26-th August 1447 : ratified by King betrayed the house of Hailes, because Duubar
James ii. Dth January 1449-50. Registruni Castle was in keeping of the younger Hepburn.
Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. Xo. 301 ; cf. Nos. ,355. whom Archibald bound, placed in a dungeon.
^^^' and seized Hailes Ca.stle. [Dunbar's pMeni--.
- History, edition 1644, p. 171. written between UOO and 151:].]
Auchiuleck Chronicle, pp. G, 39. Boece * In 1449. the custumars of Edinburgli
[edition 1574, f. 365, 1. 7S] states that Dun- take credit for £5, 12s.. the j.rice of 14 bolK
bar attacked the ca.tle by night, took it and of wheat delivered to the castle of E.UnburJ,,
slew the garrison, but was in turn besieged by for provision at the time of the sieije of tl..^
James Dougla-s, to whom he surrendered the rock of Futheray (Fidra), while James, .Ma.te.
fortress. It may be to this event that the poem of Douglas, wished to build it. E.vcheqiu-r
called the " Fly ting of Dunbar and Kennedy," Rolls, vol. v. p. 347.
TOURXAMKXT AT ST/nLIXG, 1449. 479
all described as of high lineage, powerful and well formed in body uud liuibs^,
and greatly renowned for valour. Before the combat the strangers requested
kniglithood from the hand of the king, who presided, and this being granted,
Sir Simon Lalain opposed himself to Eoss, James Lalain to John Douglas,
while Herve ^Meriadec measured himself against the ]\Iaster of Douglas. The
first two pairs of combatants were fairly matclied, l)ut the Breton squire struck
the Master to the ground with two blows of his axe, and then went to aid his
compatriots. But the king, throwing his baton into the lists, arrested the
combat, -which threatened to begin anew, for Douglas, wlien he was raised the
second time, approached his opponent and endeavoured to strike his face,
which displeased the king.^ The histoiian adds that the retainers of Douglas,
seeing him on the ground, leaped the barriers t^ aid him, but on the king
ordering them to be seized, they took to tliglit.
In the autumn of 1450,- James, Master of Douglas, accompanied his
brother the Earl to Rome, and they also returned together to Scotland.^ In
May 1451 a safe-conduct was granted by the English king to the Earl of
Douglas, his brothers James, Archibald, ond Hugh, also to Lord Hamilton, and
a large train of knights and squires. As stated in the previous memoir, the
Earl did not use this safe-conduct, but the ^Master of Douglas passed into
England. It is related that a truce being arranged in this year with England,
he at once went to London, his reasons for which were not known, and tliat
1 Chroniques de Matthieii ile < 'oussy, Xos. ."loS. 401.] At the latter place, on 11th
(juoted in Michel's Les Eeossais en France, April 14.")(), lie also received from Lord Hali-
etc, vol. i. p. 207. De C'oussy names the burton a giant of the lands of Hollows, in
brother of the Laird of Lochleven John Berwickshire. [Oridnal Charter and Precept
Douglas ; the Auchinleck Chronicle [pp. IS, in Earl of Home's Charter-chest.]
40] refers to him as James, and it also calls • He granted a charter and precept at
Herve de Meriadec "Larde of Longa well." .Jedburgh, on 2Sth and 20th April 1451, in
- Between these dates, James, ^Llster of favour of Sir Alexander Home of that Ilk,
Douglas, witnessed charters at Edinburgh and of the lands of Hollow. [Originals in the Earl
Dirleton. [Registrum Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. of Home's Charter-chest.]
480 JAMES, NINTH EARL OE DOUGLAS, ETC.
he was with the king of Eiighmd a long time, and much made of.^ 'i'his
statement is corroborated by an Englisli record, which shows that Garter
King-of-Arms was commissioned by King Henry the Sixth to l)rini; Sir
James Douglas to the royal presence, wherever the king might be, and to
attend Douglas to Scotland.- It has been supposed that Douglas was
engaged in treasonable negotiations, yet as Garter's mission to the north com-
prised not merely attendance on Douglas, but the delivery of letters to Kin-
James the Second from the English king, and as the herald had also been
travelling with letters between the English and Burgundian courts, hi>
attendance upon Sir James Douglas rather suggests that Douglas him-elt'
was a messenger from the King of Scots.^
Boece, followed bv later historians, states that Sir James Doufdas, with
his brothers the Earls of Moray and Ormond, and their constant adherent,
James, Lord Hamilton, attended the eighth Earl of Douglas on his fatal visit
to Stirling, on 20th February 1452.^ More accurate writers, however, do not
corroborate this, and the events which followed the death of Earl "William
are much confused by historians. The king, immediately after that deed,
^ Auchinleck Chronicle, p[t. 8, 4-4. The carried Duns off, and the amount was still >lii--
truce was concluded on 17th September 1451. at the time of the forfeiture in 1455. [Ex-
[Rotuli Scotiie, vol. ii. pp. 849-354. J chequer Eolls, voL v. p. 5S2 ; vol. vi. p. 95.]
- According to the Pells Issue Rolls, 11th * Boece, edition 1574, fol. 373, 1. 56 ; (^od--
December, 30 Henry vi., £13 was paid to croft [edition 1G44. p. 193] relates a tradition
Garter for this service, in which he spent 76 not told by any other author, that Hamilton,
days. Issues of the Exchequer, Rolls Pub- when pressing forward to follow the Earl lut"
lications, 1837, pp. 472, 473. Garter also Stirling Castle, was thrust back by his unck-
spent 147 days in travelling between Bur- Livingston, an affront he at first resented,
gundy, England, and Scotland, with letters. but, on learning the Earl's fate, he was grate-
^ Douglas had returned to Scotland before ful for his own safety. But this story is con-
30th January 1451-52, as at a Justiciary tradicted by the fact that James Livingston.
Court held at Dunbar on that day, he became Hamilton's uncle, was then keeper of Urquhart
surety for a fine of £10 inflicted on David Caatle, in Inverness-shire. [Exchequer RoIL.
Duns. The fine was never paid, as Douglas vol. v. p. 639.]
HOSTILE RISING OF THE DOUGLASES, 1452. 481
visited the south of Scotland, though whether in hostile guise there is no
evidence to show.^ It was not until 17th March,- nearly a month after
Earl William's death, that the Master of Douglas, now Earl, and his brother
the Earl of Ormond, made any hostile demonstration. On that day they
and Lord Hamilton came to Stirling with a force of six hundred men, and
after a blast of twenty-four horns, all sounding at once, proclaimed the king
and his council dishonoured covenant-breakers. They displayed the letter of
safe-conduct, with its seals, at the market cross, and then, attached to a
board, it was dragged at the tail of a horse through the town, with expres-
sions of contempt for the royal authority. This act of defiance was followed
by the spoiling and burning of Stirling.^
From this point the sequence of events can only be surmised. Boece,
followed by Godscroft, represents Douglas and his adherents as burning
Dalkeith after their raid on Stirling, and attacking the castle, from which
they were repulsed. But no evidence of this has been found, and as it was
charged against Douglas in 1455, it probably took place at a later period.
The king, however, was not inactive. He summoned to his aid Sir Alex-
ander Seton or Gordon, recently created Earl of Huntly, who raised the
royal standard, and marched against the Earl of Crawford. The Earl's
troops and those of the king met near Brechin on 18th May, and after an
obstinate struggle, the royal forces were victorious.* In the following month
1 The roj-al presence at Lochmaben on 2d ^ Auchinleck Chronicle, pp. 10, 47. The
March 1452, and at " Gedword " (? Jedburgh) king, it is said, was at this time at Perth. He
about the same date, is proved by charters was at least probably absent from Stirling ; on
granted there. [Registrum Magni Sigilli, the 24th of March he was at Edinburgh, and
vol. ii. Noa. 529-531.] the Great Seal Record shows him resident there
from 12th April to 9th July 1452. [Regis-
2 The Auchinleck Chronicle has 27th trum Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. Nos. 53.3-592.]
March, but it corrects itself by naming the * Auchinleck Chronicle, pp. 27, 48 ; Lives
day, St. Patrick's Day in Lent. of the Lindsays, vol. i. pp. 135-138.
VOL. I. 3 P
482 JAMES, XIXTH EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
I'arliameiit met, and besides justit'ying the king I'ur killing Earl William,
attainted the Earl of Crawford, and made the son of Chancellor Crichton
Earl of Moray, in place of Archibald Douglas.^
According to Boece and Godscroft, the Douglases wel-e summoned tu
appear before this Parliament, but no other historian states this. If such
a summons was issued, it was treated with scorn. In his exasperation at
his brother's death, Earl James and some of his adherents made overtures
of allegiance to the English king, who appointed commissioners to receive
their homage.- They further signified their contempt for King James and
the three Estates, by causing to be affixed, during the night, to the door oi
the Parliament hall, a placard renouncing their allegiance, and declaring
their contempt for the council. This document bore the seals of the Earl,
his brother the Earl of Ormond, and Lord Hamilton.^
These somewhat weak displays of the Earl's wrath were apparently
disregarded by the king and Parliament, and though, as stated, Crawford
was attainted, no such process was directed against Douglas.* It is said,
however, that an army of thirty thousand men was mustered on Pentlaml
Moor, at the head of which the king marched southward to Selkirk, Peebles,
Dumfries, and elsewhere, but did no good, only destroying the country and
harrying a number of his own adherents.^
^ Auchinleck Chronicle, pp. 11, 48. 49. seems strange that, as the king had the sup-
* On 3d June 1452, repeated 17th July, port of Parliament, such a sentence was not
King Henry the Sixth appointed the Bishop of passed. It is evident either that the charges
Carlisle and others to receive to his allegiance of treason, etc., made against Earl William
James, Earl of Douglas, and others, in terms were not true, or that the manner of Lis death
of certain articles signed by the Earl, and re- was considered so indefensible that the ^^xas-
cently transmitted to the king through Garter peration of Earl James and his atlherents
King-of-Arms. Rotuli ScotiiP, vol. ii. p. 358. was considered ijardonable.
^ Auchinleck Chronicle, pp. 10, 48. * Auchinleck Chronicle, pp. 11,49. If the
* It may have been that Douglas was con- llecord of the Great Seal is to be relied on as
aidered too powerful for forfeiture, but it a true index of the king's movements, he re-
SUBMISSION AT DOUGLAS CASTLE, 1452. 483
Whether such a result was contemplated by this demonstration or not,
an agreement or submission was signed at Douglas Castle by the Earl of
Douglas on 28th August 1452. The Earl bound hmiself to take no steps to
recover the earldom of Wigtown, until he obtained leave from the queen,
and similarly as to the lands of Stewarton, which were at the king's disposal.
Of the remaining articles the third and fifth are the most important, as in
these the Earl promises to the king, on behalf of himself, his brothers,
and Lord Hamilton, to forgive for evermore all malice and feud against
any of the lieges for any cause, and specially those who had taken part in
the death of his brother William ; also to revoke all leagues and bonds, if any,
made by hmi contrary to the king, and to make no such league in future.
The other clauses refer to the Borders, and also bind the Earl, he having
assurance of his life, to yield maintenance and honour to the king. To this
important document were affixed the seals of the Earl and Lord Hamilton,
who swore on the gospels to observe the agreement, while they also signed it.^
A month later, the Earl received a safe-conduct for two years, to pass
into England or elsewhere, with a hundred persons in his company.- This
was probably applied for previous to the submission, and the Earl did not
avail himself of it. He was at Thrieve on 1st November 1452,^ and at
Lanark in the following January. There he entered into a further agree-
mained at Edinburgh until 9th July 1452, but of his work. Mr. Tytler [History of Scotland,
between that day and 5th August there is a vol iii. pp. 505-507] has printed the agree-
blank in the record. It is possible, therefore, ment from Sir Lewis Stewart's Collections in
that the march referred to took place between the Advocates' Librarj-.
those dates. If so, a certain connection be- ^ oo^ September 1452. Rotuli Scoti:o,
tween it and the submission on 2Sth August p. 359.
may be supposed. ^ At Thrieve, on that day, the Earl granted
1 The terms of this agreement here given a precept for infefting Lord Hamilton in the
are taken from a copy preserved by Godscroft lands of Drumsargart (C'arabuslang). [Original
in his MS. History at Hamilton Palace, but Instrument of Sasine, Sth November 1452,
which does not appear in the printed edition in Hamilton Charter-chest.]
484 JAMES, X IN Til EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
ment with King James the Second. The king had consented to aid Dou^das
in his desire to consolidate the Douglas estates and retain Galloway, Ijv
maiTying the widow of his lirother WilHam, Margaret, Countess of Douglas,
the " Fair Maid of Galloway," and had made application to the Pope on tlie
Earl's behalf; and Douglas, evidently in return for this, and also in view of
the king's promise to re-enter him to the lands of Wigtown and Stewarton,
gave his oath to render full manrent and service to his sovereign. This he
promised to declare publicly in next Parliament after the fulfilment of the
king's letters to liim. The obligation was conceived in the usual terms of a
bond of manrent, and bound the Earl to renounce all leagues contrary to the
king, and to assist the latter to the utmost of his power. It was granted }\v
the Earl alone. Lord Hamilton apparently having gone to England.^
The papal dispensation obtained by Douglas to enable him to marr}- his
kinswoman and sister-in-law, is dated within a few w^eeks after this obliga-
tion, and its terms prove that King James did join in the petition to the
Pope, although Boece asserts not only that the king resisted the dispensation
but that it never was granted.'^ The writ also refers to the relations between
the deceased Earl William and his bride, and gives as the chief reason for
granting the dispensation, a settlement of the wars and dissensions among
^ A safe-conduct to England for nine months 1402, and it is ascribed to a supposititious
was granted to Lord Hamilton and several James, Earl of Douglas, in the time of Kiug
others in his train on 3d January 145'2-3. Robert the Third. Godscroft also states that
[Rotuli Scotiag, vol. ii. p. 359.] The bond the writ is to be found "in the Registers"
by the Earl of Douglas is dated at Lanark [ms. at Hamilton Palace]. Neither Boece
16th January 1452-3. The copy quoted is nor Pitscottie records this submission of
preserved by Hume of Godscroft in his lis. Douglas, though they relate at great length
History. The bond was printed for Sir the submission and restoration of the Earl
Robert Gordon in the Sutherland Peerage of Crawford.
Case, 1771 [Appendix No. x.], as from Sir - Boece, edition 1574, fol. 374, 1. 60.
Lewis Stewart's collections. There, however, Godscroft makes a similar statement [edition
the date of the bond is given as 16th January 1644, p. 199].
MARRIES THE FAIR MAID OF iJALLOWAY, 1453. 48^
the nobles of Scotland.^ The marriage of Earl James and tlie Comitess
probably took place soon after the arrival of the papal letters in Scotland.
Crodscroft states that King James the Second failed to fulfil his promise
as to Wigtown, but this is a mistake. In April 1453 the Earl, along with
two others, was appointed to negotiate a new truce with England, and in the
commission he is styled Earl of Douglas and x\.vondale, Lord of Galloway ;
but in a safe-conduct granted to him a mouth later, he is described as Earl
of Douglas, Wigtown, and Avondale, which shows that the king had kept his
word.- The truce with England was sealed at Westminster b} the Earl as
Commissioner, and he also entered into a formal engagement to proclaim the
truce in the Debateable Land on the Scottish Border.^ About the same time
he received a safe-conduct for four years, permitting himself and his brothers,
the Earls of Moray and Ormond, and Lord Balvany, to go abroad, if they
chose, and especially to \-isit Eome,* but whether Douglas personally made such
a journey is doubtful. He and Lord Hamilton joined in a petition to the
English king for the liberation of Malise, Earl of Strathern, who had been one
of the hostages for King James the Fii-st of Scotland, and had been detained
in Pontefract Castle for a quarter of a century. A mandate for his release
was issued on 17th June 1453, his son Alexander taking his father's place.^
Other English records contain references to the Earl of Douglas in the
year 1453, but give no distinct clue to his movements.^ It is said that during
1 The dispensation, which is peculiar in its * A similar ^vrit, to endure for three years,
phraseology, is dated '26th February 1452-.3, was granted to Lord Hamilton. [Rotuli
and is printed at length in Andrew Stuart's Scotia;, vol. ii. p. 362.]
<Tenealogy of the Stewarts, pp. 444, 445. ' Earl Malise was Lord Hamilton's brother-
- (Commission to Douglas, dated at Stirling in-law.
17th April 1453; safe-cuaduct, dated 22d ** An entry in the Pells Kecords of 19th
May ; truce sealed at Westminster, 23d May February 1453-4, refers to a visit by Garter
1453. [Rotuli Scotic-e, vol. ii. pp. 362-368.] King-of-Arms, to request certain appoiut-
^ Ibid. pp. .363-368 ; Fcpdera, vol. xi. pp. ments with the Earl of Douglas, and attend-
o27-338. ance on the king while an answer was pre-
486
JAMES, NINTH EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
this year Douglas paid a visit to the Earl of Eoss at Knapdale, and madr
presents of wine and cloths, receiving presents in return.^ The Earl acted
as Sheriff of Lanark for some period not specified, but his last account a.s
sheriff was rendered in June of that year at Stirling." In the folluwinu
spring tlie Earl was at Douglas Castle, and there granted a charter to his
kinsman and secretary, Mark Haliburton. This document is dated 2Stli
March 1454, and was accompanied by an obligation, that should Haliburton be
disturbed by Margaret, the Earl's Countess, in his possession of the lands, tlu'
Earl would provide others of equal value in Lothian, Clydesdale, or Galloway?
pared for the Commissioners and the Earl of
Douglas, then in these parts. This, however,
may refer to an earlier date.
* The Auchinleck Chronicle [pp. 1.3, 54]
records this visit apparently under the year
1455, and states that it took place on 12th
May. But as it is said to have taken place
in the same year as the siege of Black-
ness, which, according to the Exchequer
Rolls [vol V. pp. 610, 616, 623, etc.], was
an event of 1453, the editor of the Rolls
assigns the date of Douglas's \'isit to May
1453, and assumes that the raid by Donald
Balloch of the Isles on Inverkip, Arran, and
Bute, was made at the instigation of Douglas.
The same writer assigns the raid to this year,
1453, because the Exchequer Rolls of that
year refer to the taking of the Castle of Bro-
dick, and the fee of the castellan ceases in
that year. The raid was made, it is said, on
10th July, but the Exchequer account which
refers to the taking of the castle was rendered
on 4th June 1453, and could not refer to a
later event. Either, therefore, the Auchinleck
Chronicle must be wron? in the month assigned
to the raid, or it must have taken place a
year earlier. If, amid so much opposition of
authorities, a suggestion may be hazarded, it
seems probable that Donald Balloch's raid, if
instigated by Douglas, took place in 14.")2.
while Douglas and the king were still unre-
conciled, and that the meeting of tiie Earls i»f
Ross and Douglas was in May of that year
also. For as Douglas was clearly at West-
minster on 23d May 1453, and the negotia-
tions for the truce doubtless occu])ied sour-
days, it is diflScult to believe that the Earl
could be at Knapdale on the 12th of that
month. The date 1455 is also inadmissible,
as Douglas was then in England.
2 The Earl's account as Sheriff is not pre-
served, but is referred to in the account of hin
successor in oflBce, Lord Hamilton. An arreai^
of £420, lis. Id. stood against the Earl, who
may not personally have rendered his account.
[Exchequer Rolls, vol. vi. pp. 101, 10,3, 150.
160.] The Earl was also Sheriff of Wigtown,
Uxid. p. 189.
3 Original Charter and Obligation in
Charter-chest of Marquis of AUsa. Fifth
SIEGE OF IXVEBAVOX CASTLE, 1455. 487
Nothing has been discovered regarding the movements of Douglas during
the year 1454, but it is asserted that about that time the king became appre-
hensive of the power of Douglas and of his hostile intentions. Several
historians say tliat the king meditated leaving Scotland rather than encounter
Douglas in battle/ although some indicate that this was a mere ruse on the
part of the king, for the purpose of inducing Douglas to fight at a moment
unfavourable for himself. The king was evidently uneasy under his crime in
assassinating the late Earl, and also in the face of that formidable power,
which, if skilfully directed, might have decided that James Douglas would
be the future king of Scotland, in place of James Stewart.-
Tn this uncertainty, the king resolved to act with vigour. In the be-
ginning of March 1455 he suddenly laid siege to and demolished the Castle
of Inveravon, near Linlithgow, belonging to the Earl of Douglas.^ The narra-
tives of Boece, Pitscottie, and Godscroft in reference to the movements of the
king, though containing some statements of fact, confuse the events of 1452
and 1455 to such a degree that dependence on these historians is impossible.
These writers imply that Douglas was the tirst to raise the standard of rebel-
lion, and so to provoke the king's attack upon Inveravon. But the sudden-
ness of the attack, as narrated by a trustworthy writer, and corroborated by
other evidence, renders this doubtful. The simplest explanation of the king's
conduct is that afforded by himself in his letter to the King of France, in
which he refers to treasons and conspiracies engaged in by the Earl of
Douglas and his brothers.* Godscroft, whose information regarding this last
Kepoi-t of the Historical Commission, p. 614. Pitscottie, edition 1778, pp. S2, 83.
The lands granted were Glenganet, in the , ^^^^ ^^ ^ Grandfather, by Sir Walter
barony of Trabeath and the earldom of >^(,ott vol ii d 149
Carrick, and they were forfeited by Hali-
burton in H.iS. Cf. also Exchequer Rolls,
3 Aiichinleck Chronicle, pp. 12, 53.
vol. vi. p. 236. * Letter dated Sth July 1455. Pinkertuus
1 Majoris Historia, edition 1740, p. 323 ; History of Scotland, vol. i. p. 486.
488 JAMES, NINTH EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
Earl of Douglas is more copious and accurate than usual, though ill-arraii^cd,
implies that while the Earl signed the agreements already quoted, yet the
deaths of his young cousins and of his brother, brought altout in such a
treacherous way, led him to put no faith in the king's promises.^ Douglas
would thus be more open to overtures from the English king, and King
James the Second may have discovered such a correspondence, and resol\-etI
to deal a deadly blow at the Douglases.
This resolution the king carried out witli a promptitude which took the
Earl by surprise, and ultimately secured success. From Inveravon the kin^
marched to Glasgow, and gathering an army composed of west-country men
and Highlanders, proceeded to Lanark, where an encoimter took place with
Douglas. It is also stated that the king then passed through and wasted
Douglasdale, Avondale and Lord Hamilton's lands, and that Ettrick Forest
also suffered from his vengeance. Immediately afterwards he laid siege to
the castle of Abercorn.'-
Meanwhile the Earl of Douglas had summoned his vassals, and is said to
have despatched Lord Hamilton to request aid from England, but which, as
it could be obtained only at the price of his allegiance, he in the end refused."'
By Hamilton's advice, he marched towards Abercorn with the intention of
' Godscroft'a History, edition 1644, p. 199. made for the king's lodging while at Lanark.
[Exchequer Rolls, vol. vi. pp. 12, 161.]
2 Auchinleck Chronicle, pp. 12, 5.3; cf. -^ Godscroft's History, edition 1644, pp. '20(',
Acts of the Parliaments of Scutland, vol. ii. 201. HamUtou and Douglas were apparently
p. 76. The king's movements must have been together at Peebles on 9th February' 1454-5,
very rapid. Inveravon Mas attacked and where the Earl, in presence of his brother
demolished in the beginning of March, and as John Douglas, Lord of Balvany, and others.
will be shown, the siege of Abercorn began in again granted to Hamilton the lands of
the first week of April. The siege of Inver- Drumsargart, with the advowson of the
avon is referred to in the Exchequer accounts, church of Cambuslancr, and the hospital of
which record payments for implements ne- St. Leonard. [Original Charter in Hamilton
cessary to its destruction, and a payment is Charter-chest.]
HOSTILITIES WITH THE KIXG, U5n. 489
giving battle to the king's army aud raising the siege, and Godscroft narrates
that when the forces of Douglas came within sight of the royal army,
Hamilton strongly urged the Earl to an immediate attack, but that Douglas
refused to fight against his sovereign. Hamilton then reproached the Earl
with want of resolution, which he declared would be his overthrow, and
that same night went over to the king. Xext day the remainder of tlu'
Earl's adherents deserted their leader.^
Godscroft appears to know nothing and says nothing of the influence
brought to bear upon the Earl's supporters by Bishop Kennedy of St. Andrews.
The bishop figures prominently in the pages of Pitscottie, who, in this case,
is not indebted to Boece."- Major also refers to Kennedy as the chief adviser
of the king at this time, not, however, in winning over Hamilton, but as
gradually attaching the more powerful nobles to the king before the final
blow was aimed at Douglas.^ According to another historian the siege of
Abercorn began in the first week of April 1455, and heavy ordnance was
brought to bear on the fortress. The king directed the attack in person, and
on the seventh day of the siege Lord Hamilton came to the king, aud
seeming the mediation of his uncle James Livingstone, then Chamberlain,
submitted himself wholly to the royal clemency. The Earl of Douglas, thus
left " all begylit," aud seeing himself deprived of all assistance, betook
himself with only four or five followers to England.'*
Abercorn Castle held out for a month, but was finally taken by assault,
the chief defenders hanged, aud the fortress itself demolished.^ During the
1 Godscroft, ut supra . It may have been * Auchinleck Clarouicle, pj». 12, 5,", .54 :
during this march that Dalkeith was burned Letter, King James il. to King Charles vii.
and injury done to other property, as after- of France ; Pinkerton's History of tjcotlaud,
wards alleged in the Act of Forfeiture. vol. i. p. 4SG.
2 Boece, edition 1574, fol. 377 ; Pitscottie, ° The castle, apparently, was never rebuilt,
edition 1778, pp. 81-87. It occupied a beautiful situation, commanding
3 Maioris Historia, edition 1740, p. 323. a long stretch of the Forth to the east an<l
Vol,. T. ?, (,
490 JAMES, NIXTH EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
same period the battle of Arkinholm had been Ibught, Avheie the vassaLs of
Douglas, headed by his three brothers, were defeated by the Border clans
mustered in the king's name.i One of the brothers alone escaped, Jolm.
Lord of Balvany. Archibald, Earl of Moray, was slain, and Hugh, Earl uf
Ormond, taken prisoner. The Castles of Douglas and Strathavon'and other
fortified places held for Douglas, soon afterwards capitulated. In the begin-
ning of June ParUament met, and pronounced a formal act of forfeitm-e
against the Earl of Douglas, his three brothers, and their mother, Countess
Beatrix, \\lien, in the month of July, King James wrote his letter to the
king of Erance, the island stronghold of Thrieve was the only one which still
held out for the Douglases,^ and a month or two later it also surrendered.
Before the Act of forfeiture was passed, the Earl was duly summoned by
Lyon Herald to appear personally before the King and the three Estates,-'
but, of course, decUned to leave his place of refuge. In the Act he was
charged with treasonably fortifying the castles of Thrieve, Douglas, Strath-
avon, and Abercorn ; making leagues and confederacies with the English ;
appearing in arms against the king at Lanark; assisting his brothers in
their rebellions, and burning Dalkeith and other places. Beatrix, Countess-
Dowager of Douglas, was charged with fortifying the Castles of Abercorn,
Douglas, and Strathavon, burning the lands of Kinca^^l and others, and
generally with aiding her sons in their treasonable proceedings.'^ Besides
the Acts of forfeiture passed on 10th and 12th June 1155, Parliament, in
west. Bastions had protected the castle on iu the hands of James, Earl of Dougla.s.
the north. The site and mounds can still be [Registrum :Magm SigiUi, vol. ii. No. 7SG.]
seen in the woods of Hopetoun, about a mile ., ^
tn fT.o «-^=*. f u i. TT ' l^etter lit supra, 8th July 14")5.
to the west of Hopetoun House. ^
^ It was perhaps on this occasion that '^^^ summons was only issued, or at least
David, fifth Earl of Crawford, was set free executed, on the 24th April, some days after
by Herbert Johnstone of Dalibank. In 1463 Hamilton's defection.
the Earl granted various lands to his hber- ^ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland,
ator, chiefly for rescuing him from captivity vol. ii. p. 76.
u
FORFEITURE OF THE DOUULASES, 145-3.
401
the following August, passed another Act enumerating the lands to be vested
m the Crown, and included a large portion of the Douglas territory — Ettrick
Forest, Galloway, Ballincreif and Gosford, with Ardmanach and a largi'
extent of land on the shores of the Moray Firth.^ A furtlier Act was also
passed, forbidding any one, under pain of treason, to receive or aid in any-
way the Earl of Douglas, his mother, or John Douglas, Lord of Balvau}',
then the chief surviving members of the Earl's family.-
One of the Earl's first acts after his escape to England was to make over
his castle of Thrieve to the English king in return for four hundred merks
for the succour, relief, and victualling of that fortress. One hundred
pounds were also paid to the Earl, and King Henry the Sixth issued a
mandate for paying the Earl yearly the sum of five hundred pounds, until
he should be restored to the estates taken from him " by hym that calleth
hym self kyng of Scottes." If restored, he was to receive only half the sum.^
Some hostilities took place between England and Scotland in the course
of the year following the forfeiture of Douglas, but during the remainder of
the reign of King James the Second comparative tranquillity prevailed
between the two countries, and Douglas remained in obscurity.^ On the
death of King James the Second, and the accession of King Edward the
Fourth to the English throne, Douglas was charged with an embassy to the
Earl of Eoss, which w-as followed in 1463 by an unsuccessful rising on the
part of Eoss, to whom, however, Douglas failed to contribute any assistance ,
perhaps owing to the capture of his brother Balvany.
1 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland,
vol. iL pp. 42, 43. - Ibul. p. 43.
3 The engagement as to Thrieve was made
before 15th July 1455. Issues of the Ex-
chequer, Rolls Publications, pp. 479, 480 ;
Mandates dated 4th August [Stevenson's
Letters and Papers illustrative of the Wars
of the English in France, vol. ii. pp. 502, 50.'} ;
Rymer's Fa;dera, vol. xi. p. 367].
^ In the Paston Letters, vol. ii. p. 111.
under the date of July 14G2, it is stated that
the Earl of Douglas was commanded to come
from Carlisle, " and as a sorweful and a sore
rebuked man ly'th in the Abbey of St. Albans."'
492 JAMES, XINTII EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
During the next twenty years the exiled Earl of Douglas makes no
appearance in history.^ There is evidence that he joined with Alexandc-r,
Duke of Albany, brother of King James the Third, and King Edward the
Fourth of England iu their enterprise against Scotland in 1482, but the
further history of that expedition as regards Douglas is obscure.- Albany
gained the upper hand in Scotland for a time, but in 1483 he again repaired
to England, and in liis company Douglas once more entered his native land.
The ciicumstances are somewhat peculiar, and suggest desperation or fool-
hardiness on the part of Albany and Douglas. King Edward the Eourth,
their friend, had died, and King Eichard the Third, though as Duke of
Gloucester he had fostered Albany's schemes, now showed his determination
to be at peace with Scotland. Thus foiled in his ambition of becoming King
of Scotland, a title he had actually assumed two years before,^ Albany
seems to have stirred up Douglas to accompany him to Scotland, apparently
in the hope that the Earl's former vassals, remembering the ancient glory of
his house, might rally round him.
But the hope was vain, and the attempt itself ill-advised. With only five
hundred horsemen in their train, the two nobles rode on St. Magdalen's day
^ The Earl was made by King Edward iv. the Scottish nobles with Albany. While the
a Knight of the Garter, as shown by the Roll English invasion was expected, a reward of
of that Order. Godscroft [ed. 1644, p. 205] lUO merks of land and 1000 merks in money
states that Douglas was named first of all the was offered to any one who shoidd capture
English Earls in a book named XohiUtas the Earl of Douglas. [Acts of Parliaments,
PoUtica ; that the English heralds said of him vol. ii. p. 139.] It was stipulated by Albany
that he was a very valiant noble gentleman, in March 14S2-3 that Douglas should be
beloved of the king and nobility, and steail- restored to his estates and honours according
fast to King Edward in all his troubles. to an agreement between the exiled noble and
" Great preparations were made to meet the Archibald, fifth Earl of Angus, who then held
English army, but the march of the Scottish the Douglas estates. [Fadera, vol. xii. i>. 175.]
king southward was interrupted by the execu- ^ See treaties by him as Alexander, King of
tion of his favourites at the Bridge of Lauder, Scotland, with Edward the Fourth of England,
his own imprisonment, and the coalition of June 1482. [Ibkl. pp. 156, 157.]
RETIREMENT TO LIXDORES ABBEY, U84.
493
1484 towards Lochniaben, vowing, it is said, to make their ofieriug that day
on the high altar of the church there. It can scarcely be believed that with
so small a force their intentions were very hostile, but rather, as Godscroft
has it, to test the affection of their countrymen. Be this as it may, their
march was noted, and the smallness of their numbers, and perhaps also the
hope of the reward formerly ofiered for Douglas's capture, led to a concourse
of the Borderers, who attacked and dispersed Albany's force. Albany
escaped by the Heetness of his horse, but the Earl of Douglas, old in years
and weary of exile, was taken prisoner. Godscroft's narrative is here so
pathetic and apparently truthful that it may be followed. Struck from his
horse, the aged Earl, finding himself on foot, and unrecognised by his former
adherents, seeing in the field an old retainer, Alexander Kirkpatrick, called
him, and placed himself in his hands. Ivirkpatrick wept for sorrow to see
his old master so changed and aged, and offered to flee with him into England.
But the Earl refused, and only stipulated that his life should, if possible,
be secured at the king's hands. In the end King James the Third, while
conferring the promised reward upon Kirkpatrick, consented to spare the life
of Dou'^las. When the kincj and Earl met, and the latter heard himself
sentenced to retirement in the abbey of Lindores, it is said he simply replied,
" He that may no better be, must be a monk."^
Accordinif to the same author, this was not the last occasion on whicli
the king and the Earl came face to face. Once again they met, and this time
the former was the suppliant. Distracted by the insurrection raised against
1 Godscroft's History, edition 1644, pji.
205, 206. The correctness of the main facts
of the narrative are proved by the terms of a
royal charter on 2d October 1484 to Alex-
antler Kirkpatrick, granting to him the lands
of Kirkmichael and others = <£90 yearly rent,
for his service in the battle on the West
Marches against the Duke of Albany and
.Tames, Earl of Douglas, and specially for the
captiire of the latter, and bringing him to the
king. [Registnim Magni .Sigilli, vol. ii. No.
1603.] Other grants were made to other
Borderers in connection with service rendered
at the same time. [Ibid. Nos. 1590, 1594. J
494
JAMES, NINTH EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
him by his own son Prince James, afterwards King James the Fourth, ami
unable to raise forces in the south country, King James the Third passed
noi-th of the Forth to find faithful followers there. Then, according to
Godscroft, he sought the Earl of Douglas in his privacy, and proposed to
restore him to all his dignities and possessions if he would aid against the
rebel nobles. The reply of Douglas was at once sad and sarcastic: "Sir,
you have kept me and your black cofter in Stirling too long. Xeither of us
can do you any good." ^ The last Earl of Douglas accordingly remained in
his seclusion at Lindores, though there is no evidence that he assumed
the cowl. He had survived the death from accident of King James the
Second, wlio was the chief cause of the ruin of the Douglas race. The Earl
also survived, but only for a short time, the inglorious death of King James
the Third at the hands of his own subjects after the battle of Sauchieburn,
fought on 11th June 1488. The 15th of April 1488 has been assigned as the
date of the death of the last Earl of Douglas,- but as no authority is cited, the
tradition recorded by Godscroft is probably more correct. This last Earl of
Douglas was buried in the abbey where he had found an asylum.
^ Godscroft's History, edition 1644, p. 206.
He states that some allege that overtures
were made to Douglas by the rebel lords.
Godscroft probably obtained the story from
Ferrerius, a historian who is not usually
accounted a romancer, but who relates it
somewhat less dramatically than Godscroft.
Ferrerius says the king did not apply to
Douglas in person, but sent a messenger, to
whom the Earl replied that it was not pos-
sible for him to do the king's will, as he had
now no friends, besides being aged and worn
with much care. "Others," he adds, "tell
the story differently, but this is the more
probable." [Ferrerius, Appendix to Boeee,
edition 1574, fol. 400.] "The black cofifL-r."
or at least the treasure accumulated by King
James the Third, was afterwards made the
subject of iiu^uiry by Parliament. [Acts of
the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 230.]
The late James Douglas of Cavers, who
was well informed on the history of his own
line, told the author of the present work of a
tradition in the Cavers family, that the last
Earl of Douglas sent a letter from Lindores
Abbey to his kinsman of Cavers, dissuading
him from engaging in the insurrection against
King James the Third. But the letter, if
really wi-itteu, has not been preserved.
- Douglas's Peerage, 1764, p. 189.
HIS COUNTESS.
495
The marriage between James, ninth Earl of Doughis, and Lady Margaret
Douglas, the Fair Maid of Galloway, has already been mentioned. That she
became the Earl's wife is proved by the obligation granted in 1454 to j\Iark
Haliburton, as previously narrated.^ In June of the same year, the Countess
Margaret, John, Lord of Balvany, and Beatrix, Countess-dowager of Douglas,
received a safe-conduct to pass into England.- Tradition alleges that the
Countess was residing in Thrieve Castle during the siege, and that she lost an
arm, or a hand, sliot away by the first discharge of tlie great bombard brought
to bear on the fortress ; but the story is not corroborated by evidence, and it
does not appear that the Countess w^as then in Scotland. She remained
with her husband in England until 1459, when they separated, and she came
to Scotland. A courier from the English king brought letters to King James
the Second regarding her, and these seem to have won for her a favourable
reception.^ In that year she received a sum of money as a present from the
king, which was repeated in the following year, when she had become the
wife of the king's half-brother, John Stewart, Earl of Athole, and the payment
was discontinued on the ground that the king had otherwise provided for
her.* This may refer to the grant on 25th j\Iarch 1460 to her and her
husband of the lordship of Balvany and other lands.^ She was divorced or
dead before 1476, when Eleanor Sinclair is called the wife of Athole.^
^ Doubt Las been thrown on the reality
of the marriage ; and in an account rendered
to Exchequer in 1456 as to the rent of cer-
tain lands belonging to the Countess, she is
described as the alleged wife (asserte sponse)
of Sir James, formerly Earl of Douglas. [Ex-
chequer Kolls, vol. vi. p. 205.]
2 Rymer'a Foedera, vol. xi. p. 349 ; 26th
June 1454. In the Rotuli Scotiai, this writ
is placed at the same date in 1455 [vol. ii.
p. 374], but Rymer's arrangement is more in
accordance with the progress of events.
2 £5 were paid to the courier. [Exchequer
Kolls, voh vi. p. 498.]
* Ibid. pp. 571, 646. The siun paid was,
in each year, £06, 13s. 4d.
'' Registrum Magni Sigilii, vol. ii. No. 750.
^ Margaret was dead in 1509. Kegistrum
Magni Sigilli, vol. ii. No, 1268; Antiquities
of Aberdeen, etc., vol. ii. p. 265. It would
49G
JAMES, NINTH EARL OF DOUGLAS, ETC.
James, uinth Earl of iJouglas, so far as is kuowii, left no children, ami
was thus the last Earl of his name, though not the last male of his familv,
as he was survived by Hugh, Dean of Erechin, the son of his brother Huiih,
Earl of Orniond. Archibald Douglas, Earl of Moray, also left a son Jaincs,
whose historv has not been traced.
also appear that while in England, James,
Earl of Douglas, married Anne, daughter of
John Holland, Duke of Exeter, relict of two
John Nevilla, nephew and uncle, and mother
of Ralph Nevill, third Earl of Westmore-
land. Her second husband, Sir John Nevill,
was killed in 14G1, and she died on -JOth De-
cember 1486. [Inquisitiones post mortem,
2 Henry MI. Public Record Office, Lor.don.]
Anne Nevill is described in the brieve of
inquest as wife of James Douglas, Earl of
Douglas.
LiT^S
^^^v^U'^tof^tVt;-
:::^
-f-
497
PEDIGREE OF THE FAMILY OF DOUGLAS, EARLS OF DOUGLAS.
I. -WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS.
The first owner of Douglasdale known to hi.-tory. He appears on record as a witness to a cliartiT
bv Joceline. Bishop of GlasL;ow, in favour of the monks of Kelso, dated between 1174 and 1191) ;
and as witness to a grant liy Thomas, son of Taiifanl. to the monks of Arbroath, between 1178
and 1"214. He al.-o witnesseil an agreement l)etween ilaurioe seTiior and INIaurice junior, as to the
Earhlom of Meuteith, dated at E lininir^di, tjth L)."_'eiaber l-21o. He niarried a sister of Freskin de
Kerdal in Moniv. He liad issue six sons and a daughter. Memoir, pp. ui-i-i of tliis volume.
I
—ARCHIBALD OF DOUGLAS.
Apjiears as a witness alon'4 with
William in the asreement of li!13 ;
also in many charters of his brother
Brice, Bislio]> of Moray, between
1203 and 1"2'22, and in a cliarter iiy
Ameleo, brother of D'Miahl, Earl of
Lennox, c. 12-0. In l-'li he wit-
nessed a charter of teinds of lands
near Lesmaha^ow, and other cliar-
ters of same date. He died before
1240. He is said to have niarrieil
Margaret, elder daughter of Sir
John Crawford of Crawford-john.
Memoir, pp. 44-46.
I III
Brice of Docglas. Prior of Hknry of Douglas. Canon
Lesmaiia'jfow before 120:5, of Spynie, in the diocese
'.viien iie was promoted to the of Moray, 1203-122S.
see of M'iray, where he was
bishop from 1203 to 1222, Hugh of Douglas, a canon
w'tit-n he died. Memoir, jip. and archileacon of Morav,
47-55. 1203-1223.
Alexander OF Docglas. Frkskin of Douglas, sonie-
Mahgaukt, who
is said to have
married Har-
vey Keitli, :in-
ct'stor of the
Keiths. Earls
Marischal.
Appears as Sheriff of Elgin,
and also as head of a "House
of God" there. He and his
brother Henry are designed
'• Canons of Spyuie."
time parson of Douglas.
aftervMards apparently
dean of Morav,
TIL- SIR WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, Knight.
Appears first iu a charter of Kin<,' Alexamler ii. contirniin':; a grant of teinds of lands near
Lesmahagow, dated in 1240. He was a niciubpr of the ParliaTiieut of Kins Ale.uinder III. at
Roxbursrh in 12.55. He made an iuiienture with Sir Hujh of Abeniethy for tiie man la'.'e
of his son Hugh of Doii.das to Marjory of Abernethy, sister of Sir Huuh, dated tjth April
12.59. He ac(|uired, ai'parentlv bv' marria'.'e. in 12i34. the kmds of Fawdon in Xorth'im-
beriand un.ler Gilbert Uruiraville. Earl of An_'us. He was ilead before Ifdh October
1274, and was survived bv his wife, a lady who>e Christian name was Constance, but her
surname has not been ascertained. r*Iemoir, pp. 50-67.
Andrew of Douoi-Aa.
Appears as a wit iiess
ill tile indenture of
l•_'5i^ l!e\vasL'r-at-
gi-amlfa' lier of Wil-
liam I'ouglas. t!:c
Knii'lit of Li, ides-
dale, aii'l also r.]i-
cestur of tile E.'.Kl.s
OF MOKTON.
IV. -1. HUGH OF DOUGLAS.
Distinguished himself at the
liattleot Largs in 1263. He
marrieil (contract fd' marriau'e
dated tJth April 12.50) Mar-
jory of Abernethy. and died
without issue before 1285.
ileiuoir, pp.. 68-71.
IV —2. SIR WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, suunamkd
"LE HARDI."
He was under age in 125tj. On tiie occasion of a
raid in 1207 by Gillievt UmfraviUe, Ldtd of Redes-
dale, upon his father's manor of Fawdon in ISorth-
nniberlanil, he was severely wounde'l. In 12>^, he
acknowledges receipt from the Abiiot of KelsO of
Ids charters in tiie al.iiofs cust,"ty. He swore
fealty to the King of England m 1202. In 1203 he
was "snmmoneii by Kini; .Jijlin Baliol lor failuie to
render h<jnia'ue, a"iid on appearing was impriM.ned
for deforcing the Kiiv/s messengers when enforcing a
decree as to his mother's infeftmeiit. He joined Sir
William Wallace aliout 1207, but on 0th July in that
year he. witli Ki'bert ile Brus and other " .^Iaguates
Scotie," suLnutted themselves to Edward I. Sir
William Diur,:l:is was tirst iin]'ris"iied in Berwick,
and afterwards m the Tow.-;- cf Li'inhm. wheiv iie
died in 120^. He iii;;i-rie,i, ilr>t, Eii/aiieth, daughter
of Alexanier, High Steaard of Scotland ; and
secondly. Eleanor of I.(.vain. relict of William de
Ferrers of Gioby. Memoir, jip. 72-104.
WiLLEL;.r\. descril f 1 in
l:',03 as dauL'htero;' the
late ■• Sir William Dii.-
las.'' >lie manii'.i Wil-
liam de (.Jdi'iathe m>u
of Sir William ile (i;ii-
brithe and a da'.igluer
01 Sir John Comyn, mIio
gave them Dalsert , and
had issue four daugh-
ters, the eldest of whoni,
Joaiiua. married de
Cathe Keith ' . and had
issue Bernard de Ca'iie,
She was the heiress of
Dalserf. but .iied at
Candlemas 1301. before
her mi'tl'er, Wi;!e!iii;i.
who died about Chvist-
mas 13U2.
VOL. I.
3 K
498
PEDIGREE OF THE FAMILY OF DOUGLAS, EARLS OF DOUGLAS.
v.— 1. SIR JAMES, LORD OF DOUGLAS, called the "GOOD SIR JAMES."
Sou of William " Le Hardi " and Elizabeth Stewart. He was a tiriu adherent of Kin.,' Koliert tlie Bruce. He was
present at his coronation at Scone in 1306, and fout;lit at Bannocktiurn in 131-1, besides ilistinauishiii:; himself
in many other battles. He was suitably rewarded by the kin?, receiving; eharters of the lands of I'nlliutiiy,
Jedburgh, Stable.'i'; ton, Buittle in Gallowa} , and otlicrs. iietween the years 131 .S ami 132-1. He was Wanien
of the Marches, and on receiving a charter of reic.ility from King Robert in Vi'li was infeft by oljtaiinn'.: an
emerald ring fro.T:i the king's own hand. In 1329, King Edward in. restored to him the manor of Kawilou,
"held by his father,"' and forfeited because of the war of succession. He received comniission froni King
Robert to convey his heart to the Holy Land, ainl while on his way was killed in Spain on 'Joth Au^rust 133ij.
• He married, thou.'li the name of his wife is unknown, and he was succeeded by his son William. He had nfsf>
a natural son Archibald, who afterwards became third Earl of Douglas. Memoir, pp. 105-184.
VI.— 1. WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS,
LORD OF DOUGLAS.
The eldest and lawful son of the
"Good Sir James," who succeed.ed his
father as Lord of Douglas. He was
under the g'.iardianshiy of his uncle,
Sir Archibald Douglas. He accom-
panied his uncle to war against the
Enslish, and was killed at the battle
of ilahdon Hill on 19lh July 1333.
He dieil unmarriL-d, and was suc-
ceeded in the Douulas tcrri'ory by
his uncle Hugh. Memoir, fp l&a-
190.
VL— 3. ARCHIBALD OF DOUGLAS, LORD OF GALLOWAY.
He was natural son of the "(^rood Sir James," and became, by a special de^tinatio:-. \:\
the charter of 1342 by King David ii., heir of the Douglas estates, and third E'.-;
of Douglas. He was surnanied "the Grim." He took a prominent part in t:.r
history of his country under David li., Robert ii., and Robert iii.. and received
a grant of the lordship of (Calloway on ISth September 136'.-*. In 1371 he wn.
commissioned by King Robert ii. as ambassa'lor to King Charles v. of Fi-anrf.
In 13S4 he recovered Lochmaben Castle from tlie EnLilish. Later he concl'.-.dt-i
a truce with England, wliich, however, was soon broken, as the Scots uii-ler
James, Enrl of Douglas, witli the French under De Vieniie, ravaged a great i;':r:
of England in 13S5. In 13S9 he became third Earl of Douglas, as suci'-'-s.-.r
to his cousin James, second Earl <jf Douglas and Mar. He married Joa'in.-\.
daughter of Thomas iloray. Lord of Bothwell, and had issue tv/o sons and 'ii-
daughter. He die! on 24th De'/ember 14ori, at the Thrieve, and was buried i-i
Bothwell. He left also a natural son. Sir William. Memoir, pp. 321-354.
VII.— 2. ARCHIBALD, First Dcke of Tocraine,
Fourth Earl of Dotglas. Lord of Gallowav.
Is mentioned as taking the Castle of Dunbar in 1401.
He and the Duks of Albany received an amide remis-
sion on 16th May 1402 f<ir their si.are in the imprison-
ment ot Da\ id. Duke of Rothesay. The Earl was taken
prisoner at Hoinihlon in 14o2. In 1403 he took part
in Percy's rebellion against Henry rv.. ami was ak^ain
taken prisoner at Shrewsbury. He returned to Scot-
land in 14o7. In 1400 he received a charter of the
lordship ot Aunandale. King Charles vii. of France,
in 1423, imited the P^arl to that country as an ally.
Douglas accepted the invitation, and arrive'! in France
in April 1 424. He was creatkd Di'ke of Tolraine,
■with limitation to himself and h.is hrirs-male in the
direct lino, and was made Lieutenant-:zeneral of tiie
French forces. On 17th Au'iust 1424 he was killed at
the battle of Verneuil. an^l interred, on 24th August.
at Tours. He married Mariraret. eldest daughter of
King RoViert rri. , who survivf.l !um until aiiout 14.">0.
She was buried in the Aboey oi Linclud'-n. Tf.ey
had two sons and one daughter. Memoir, pp. 3DO-40(i.
VIL— 3. JAMES, Seve.vth
Earl of Dougl\s.
He was styled James Duuoi as
OF Balvaxy. and also Lord
of Abercoru and Al)erdi:ur
(in Buchan). In 14:!7 he was
created Eaul of Avon-
dale, anil in 144i) succeeded
to the Earldom of Douglas
on the death ot the si.ttli
Earl. Vi,h pa'.'e ;>(}() liereoi,
No. IX. He dieii on 2oth
March 1443. He niarried,
first, Lady Stewart,
daugl'.ter of Roliert, Duke
of Albany, without issue ;
secondly, about 1426. Lady
Beatrix Sinidair, daughter of
Henry, Earl of Orkney, who
survived him. They i:ad is-,ue
six sons and fo.ir daughters.
Memoir, pp. 431-446.
Mart, married,
tirst, in Feb-
ruary 1400, to
David, Diike
of Rothesay,
Prince ot
Scotland.
She niarried.
secondlv. in
1403. Walter
Hahburton.
i>ie.l -■. 1420.
No issue.
Sir Willta.m of \)"V-
GLAs, stvled L'.rd ' ''
Nithsd.il.^ ii- r-
ceived several -Ta;'.'*
of land, inc;::'!;:-..;
Nithsda!e,fron.. K>.:;j:
Robe't II.. -iVA :u--
in L<j7. ti:e Inn i ■'
the kim:' d-.>ii:ht- r.
Princess Kizidi.-.. l;-
was as.-a^siii.iu-! '"■
loy2. at Dan:.<ic. ii-
left issn>^ a '■■•i;.
name INV'ilIi.iTn !^ ;■
glas of Nit'!>.'.--»i'',
Knight, and who :i'<-
parelitly died Wi-.i
out issue ; and a!^o j
<lau.:hter, v. ! o n: :r-
riod Henr\-St. ('!.•"
seconil Earl ..f Or.^
ney. She sar-i e-i- ■
her brother in ' •
lordship of N.:;:-
dale. .Memoirs, : p
355-3-59.
PEDIGREE OF THE FAMILY OF DOUGLAS, EARLS OF DOUGLAS.
40Lt
V.-2. HUGH, LORD OF DOUGLAS.
Eldest son of William " Le Hanli" ami Eleanor of Lovain, Ixirn about
1"294. He was rector of Old Roxlmrirh and a canon of Glas;j;o\v,
andsueceeiled liis nephew, William, Lord of Doii.'las, in 13:33. He,
however, served heir to his brother Sir James, who was last infett
in the estates, which Hujrh resiirned, after holdin<: them for eleven
years, in favour of his nephew, William Dovi^'las. son of his brother
Archibald, who received a charter of them from Kinc: David the
Second on '29th May 1342. To this destination tlie kin,^ added
William Doiiirlas. Lord of Liddesdale. ot the iiue of the Doiicrlases
of Dalkeith, and .Vrchibald, natural son of the Good Sir James,
who became thinl Earl. Memoir, pp. 191-199.
v.— 3. SIR ARCHIBALD DOUGLAS.
Had a charter from Kiii;,' Robert the First in l.'!24, of the
lands of Rattray, Crimond, and others. He. with .Ii.l.n
Earl of .Moi'ay, defeated Edward Baliol at .\iiiian m
1332. He became "'Warden" or Re'.^ent of Scoilanii.
and in that capacity iuvailed England, but in an
attempt to raise the sie-e of Berwick, was rlefeated and
slain at the battle of Halidon Hill.' 19th July 133;',.
He married Beatrice, dauiihter of Sir Alexander Liiui-
say of C'rautord, by whom he had two sons and a
dau^'hter. His wile survived him, and atterwanis
married Sir Robert Erskiue. Memoir, p{). 2UiJ-21J.
John of Dougl.\s.
named in a charter
by Duncan. Earl of
Fife, granting to
Lady Beatrice of
Douglas, widow of
Sir Archibald Dou-
glas, in liferent, and
John Douglas, her
son and heir, in fee,
tiie barony of West
Calder, ante 133S.
He survived his fa-
ther, and went to
France with King
David II., c. 134ii.
He died abroad, be-
fore 1342. 5. t).
VI. — 2. WILLIAM OF DOUGLAS, cre.vtkd EARL OF DOUGLAS.
First named in tlie charter of 1312. Lrrantei] by King David the Second to him on the re-
signation of his uncle Hu^h. He seems to have been educ.ted m France, and retunieil
to Scotlaml in 1348. In 13.54 lie received a charter from King D;ivid of all tiie lands
in which his late father an<l Sir James his uncle had died infett. In IS.'itJ he was
present at the battle of Poitiers in France, where he was kniijhted by King John. In
1357 he was one of the three great lords who were to be lio.sta'_'es tor David ir. On
2i-th January 1357-S, he was created EaRL OF Douglas, ami in 1363 his restoration
to the English estates of his father and uncle was made a condition in tlie secret
treaty between David ir. and Edward iii. He oppo.-ed the succession of King
Robert II. in 1371, but yielded on condition that the kiiiL-'s daui;hter should marry
his son, an<l he swore fealty at the coronation at Scone. 2tJth March 1371. He died
in May of the year 13S4, and was buried iii the Abbey of Melrose. He married
Margaret. dau'.;hter of L>onald, and sister of Thomas, Earl of Mar. On the death of
Eaii Thomas he became Earl ok Mar, and was designated Earl of DoIGL.\s and
M \U. Of his marriage there was issue one son and one daughter. Mar^raret, Coun-
tess of Doiic'las and Mar. survived her husband, and married, secondly. Sir John
Swintou of .Swinton. by wiioni she had no issue. William, tirst Earl of Douglas, had
also two natural children. Memoir, pp. 216-291.
Eleanor, who
married, first,
A le.YanderBruce.
Earl of Can irk.
slain at Halidon
Hill ; second iv,
Janies Saiicii-
land« of Caldei .
ancestor of Lord
To rphi ch e n :
thirdly, .Sir John
Tours of Dairy ;
f o u r t li ] y. Sir
Duncan \Valla<-e
of Suiidnim : ami
fifthly, >ir Pat-
rick Hepburn ot
Haiies.
VII.— L JAT.IES OF DOUGLAS. Second Earl
OK DoL'GLAS AND ,MaK.
Married the Princess Is.abel, daughter of King
Robert II., ab/.vt 1371. On the ileath of his
father, in .May 1384, he succeeded him as Earl of
Douglas and Mar. He was very active in leading
incursions into Encrbind. one of which led to the
famous battle of Utterbuni, 12th Ai;,irust 13SS,
in which the Earl was killed, and his rival
"Hotspur" was captured. He left no surviv-
ing lawful issue, and was succeeded in his Earl-
dom of Dougl.Ts by his cousin. A rchibald. Lord of
Galloway. By Ids wife, the Princess l,-.ab.el. the
Earl had one son, name unknown, who die<i in
infancy. He hail also two natural sons and
a daughter. Memoir, pp. 292-320.
Isabella of D( ifglas. On the
death of her brother James
she inherited the landed
Earldom ot Mar. Init not the
territorial dignity of Coun-
tess of Mar. She married,
first. Sir Malcolm Dnim-
mond; and secondly. Sir
Ale.vander Stewart, who was
createit Earl of Mar. He
survived his wife, and ilied
in 1436, without issue by
her, when the Earldi.im of
Mar reverted to the Crown,
in terms of a regrant to
Alexander Stewart.
George, designed '•' de
Douglas" in a ciuuter
by King Rohert the
Second, granting to him
the Earldom of AiiLrus,
on the resignation ot his
m other, M a i g a r e t
Stewart. Countess of
Mar and .^ncrus, dated
lotli Apnl 13>9. Vide
Pedigree of the Earls
of Angus, ami IMemoir,
vol. li. of this work,
pp. 17-23.
MaRG.M;ET. de-
senliedbvls.;-
b. 1 Dou-ias ,1.
i;o4 as iier
si-ier. Si!-
marrie.l Tlio-
mas Jo!iii~ n.
ami had j<-Ui-
a son. Jijti::
Doi!.:ks. an-
cestor (if the
iJcUu'b'^es of
Bonieilward.
WiLLl.^M Douglas, ancestor of the
family of Dou'.:las of Drumlanrig,
DaKEs of Queensberry.
Archibald DOUGLAS, ancestor of the family of Doucrlas
of Cavers, in the cfumty of Roxburgh, long iiereditary
Sheriffs of that county.
Elf.inor, manied to Sir
Williai!! FraNei o;' Philorth,
and hail issue.
500
PEDIGREE OF THE FAMILY OF DOUGLAS, EARLS OF DOUGLAS.
VIII.— 1. ARCPIIBALD, Second
Dl'KE OF TOIUAINE, AND FiHH
Earl ok Douglas.
Who hail in t!ie lifetime of lii.s fatlier
the title ot Earl of Wi^itown. Jn
14'J"2 he was Earl of \\ ii,'to\vn aud
LouLjiieville. After his father's
death he was usually styled Earl of
Douglas and Longueville, although
lie also took the title of Duke of
Touraine in France, and bore the
arms of that Duchy. He sat as
one of the jurv on the trial of ^Mtir-
dach, Duke of Albany m U2fi. On
the death of King James I. in ]-lo7,
tl.e Earl was one of the Council of
Kegeucy; and in the ne.^t year he
was Lie\itenaut-genevai of the king-
dom, and suimnoued a Parliament
in 143S. tie died at Restalrig on
26th June l-iol'. and was buried
at Dou_'Ias. He married Euphe-
niia, eMe<t daughter of ^ir Patrick
Graham and Euphemia, C'luntess
of Strathern, nnci hj- h"r, who sur-
vived biiu, and married, in 1440.
.Tames, first Lord Hnmilton, had
issue t'.vo sons and cue daughter,
'"leiiioi.-, pp. 4iJl-4'J2.
James, second son
of the Earl of
Dousrlas, is men-
tioned in an
agreement be-
tween Robert,
Duke of Alliany,
and the Earl of
Douglas on 20th
June 14(W, and
also as a hostage
for King James i.
in 1421. He went
with his father to
France, was killed
at Verneuil, and
was huripd in the
same grave with
him. He died s.ij.
Elizabeth, mar-
ried, first, John
Stewart, Earl of
Biuhan, "ho was
killed at Verneuil.
Is^ue, one daugh-
ter, Margaret,
married to George
Lord Seton. She
married, secondly,
Sir Thomas Stew-
art of M.ar, s.p
Her third hus-
band wasWilliam.
third Earl of Ork-
ney, who surviveil
her. She died
about 1451.
VIII.-2. WILLIAM. EiGUTK Kaui. '
OF D'/CGLA.S.
Succeeded his fatlier in 144^. He rr
stored the great power of lii> h'.UM. i,,
marrying umler j-apal <lispe:i>.itii.n \ ■.
144 i. Lady ilargaret Dongla.s, ••/•,■,.'
Fair M'lid of (id.Uoirdii." \\^. j,,
gratiated himself with Kins: Jaiu>-s u
and rose .to great jmwer ami auiiiuniv
in the kingdom. He was made Li- n
tenant-general, and in 144S twi'-e .i.-
feated the English and rava'.'rcl ti.iir
country to Newcastle. He pa^—1 i,-
Home in 14.'j() with a great n-;ini:-
About this time he received a liiaiLrr
of Ettrick Forest, and ma'-.y otliei iarji-
grants of land. He was Warden of ihi-
West and Middle Marches. In ] 1.^>1 i..-
is said to have entered into a lea,:;-.!
with the Earls of Crawford and l;i.->.
dangerous to the peace of the kinLcdon;
For refusing to break tliis coiitract. h.-
was, in February' 14.'(2. assassinatrd bv
King James ii., in an interview at S;;r-
liug Castle, where he was invited, uini- 1
an assurance of safety. Having n^
issue, he was succeeiled by his brolbtr.
Memoir, pp. 455-47o.
IX.— WILLIAM, Sixth Earl of Dolglas. and Third Liki: of Toukaine.
Who succeeded his father in 143i', when he was in his sixteenth }ear. He di>playeti great magnificence in his
recinue and household. Lord I'liancelloi- C'lichton, resolved nn the overtiiiow of his great power, under gui-r;
of an entertainment in the Ca.stle of Edinburgh seized the Earl and his brother, who were i.ielieaded 24th
Novem'.er 144t). He married Janet (otheiwise called Mar.trareO Lindsay, aj)parent!y a daughter of Ale.vander.
second Eail of Crawlord, who survived him. and was still aiive in 1473. The E.iildom of Douglas was inh',ri*ei
hy his great-uncle, .Tames Douglas of Ealvany, Lord of Abercorn and Earl of A.vondale. {Vide No. \ II. p^ge
4;'8 hereti;.] Jlemoir, pp. 423-4S0.
PEDIGREE OF THE FAMILY OF DOI'GLAS, EARLS OF DOUGLAS.
•J 01
Vlir.— 3. JAMF.S, XiNTEi Ex\RL (IF Douglas. Ahxiiibald,
Was a twin with Archibald, Earl of Moray, ami h\ a special instni- F.arl of
merit was denlnrt-ii to be the elder. He sucreeded his brutber MoUay. He
Wiiliara in 14r.2, and took up arm.', to aven;ze Ins death, but alter- married, in
wards was reconeiied to the i<ing, and bound luinselt' to the latter 144:^, Eli/.a-
by a special encjaLrement. He inarried Laily Marpiret Di:.u;:;las. beth Dunliar,
Conritei-s of Douiiias, reiict of his brother, the ei;,'lith Earl, nmler second
papal dispensation in 1 4;''-!. an(l in the same year went as an ambas- daughter of
8ador to Enc^Liud. On account of the Earl's alleged treasonable Jame.s
eorre.sponiieuce with England, King James 11. determined to bre;dv Dunbar, Earl
down tht: power of the Douglases. He laid siege lirst, in March of Moray.
14r'5, to the small fortress of Inveravon, and then, in April, to He built the
the Castle of .Abercorn. During the sipge of Ahercorn, Doudas great hall at
marched against the king with a large force, L'Ut hesitated to Damaway
attack, and bein^r deserted by his cliief followers he fled to Castle. He
England. The Earl's brothers, Moray, Urmcnd, and Balvany. was slain at
kept up the contest till 1st May 14.5."i, when, at the battle of Arkiiihobu,
Aikinh-juii, they weiv defeated, and Moray was slaiu, Oiuioud 1st May 1455,
executed, whi'c" Balvany escaped to Ensjland. whither the Earl leaving issue
hid rr ce'U',1 him. Douglas, Jus niothcr, and his brothers Moray a son and a
and BahaDV, were forfeictd by Parliament, and the title of Earl daughter,
of r>ouglas was thus extinguished. In Eneiand the Enri was wel! Memoir.
rece:"ed, ami invested with the Order of the Garter. In 1484 he pp. 447-450.
and the exiled Duke of Albany advanced into Scotland with a ;
small force, ■in'.\ at Lochmr.ben were defeated. Douglas was trJ;en
and brought before King James lir., who sent I'iin under safe j
'''jstody to Lindores Abbey, where he died in 14S8, s.p. While ;
in England, or between 14ol and 14S4. he married Ann Holland. :
widow of Sir John Nevill and mother of Kulph. thinl Earl of i
Westmoreland, who died in 14S6. In this Earl ended the direct j
line of the illustrious race of the Earls of Douglas. The lord.sbip I
of Dongho-s an<l other estates were gi'anted to George Domilas, I
fourth Earl of An'^us, wh.) took the kinsr's side in the wars of his I
chief, and have been inherited by his descendant, Charle.s .■\lf,x-
ANOKR DoCGLAS-HoMF, Earl OK PIOMK. But the titk' of F.arl of
Douglas has never been restored. Memoir, pp. 47''-4S6. 1
Hugh, Eakl
OF OU.MoM),
beheaded m
145.x He
had one
son.
Memoir.
pp. 451-4.r2.
Joux, Loan
OF Bai-vanv,
fo'-leiteii ill
1455. He
apparently
was unuiar-
rie-l. He
was lje!ii-;;ded
in 140:j.
Memoir,
pp. 4.?3-454.
Henry
Douglas
(in holy
orders).
Maiujarkt.
married to
Heiirv
DoUi^las of
Borg. and
hail i^-.ue.
Bk.VTRlX.
nj.'.vi-'l Mr
Wiiliam
Hay, tirst
Earl of Erroi,
constable of
Scotland,
ami had
issue. She
survivetlhim,
and was
alive in ii4;«,'.
Janet,
n.arri'-d '.r.
Bdbert, LM
Fleming,
Eliz.'.bkth,
described ou
Dionuia-ni
a"; fourth
daughter.
She is said
to have n:;»r-
ried Wallace
of Craiirie.
David, who was Laijy Margaret Douglas, " Tlie Fair Maid of Gal- James, Janet,
beheaded -witli his Iowa;/," who married successively the eighth and whose history
brother in 1440. ninlli Earls of Douglas without issue. She married, has not been
He was unmar- thirdly, about 14o(), John Stewart, Earl of Athole, ascertained.
ried. and had issue by him two daughters. She die<i before
1.W9.
TUGil
Do-
;r..».s
Dean
ofBrc
chic
who
wL-s ai
.ve ;-
150>5.
but
dicl
5.^.
VOL. r.
SS44
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11