This page is an extract from Historical Tales of the Wars of Scotland and of the Border Raids, Forays and Conflicts;
Author: John Parker Lawson
ASSASSINATION OF THE EARL OF DOUGLAS. A.D. 1452.
In the
Castle of Stirling there is shown to strangers a small room, adorned
with a rich and beautiful cornice cut in oak, which is said to have been
that in which James II. stabbed the Earl of Douglas with his own hand.
The closet where this murder was committed, which fixes an indelible
stain on the memory of the King, still goes by the name of “Douglas’
Room.” This nobleman was William, eighth Earl of Douglas, who succeeded
his father, James the Gross, seventh Earl, in 1443. He had been
constituted Lieutenant‑General of the kingdom, an office he was
appointed to hold six years, which invested him with the sole military
command, and he soon had an opportunity of distinguishing himself. In
1448 he twice defeated superior forces of the English, who invaded
Scotland, and ravaged the north of England as far as Newcastle; but his
victories afforded little compensation for his tyranny and oppression,
which seemed to increase in proportion to the continuance of his power.
Soon after the marriage of the King, however, in 1449, the dangerous
authority with which he was invested as Lieutenant‑General ceased, and
he retired from the Court followed by the execrations of the people. The
charms and good sense of the Queen, Mary, daughter of Arnold Duke of
Gelderland, and near relative of Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy,
roused James II. from his lethargy, and he was soon able to form a party
capable of undermining the odious power of the Earl of Douglas.
All historians agree that the conduct of this imperious and haughty
nobleman was intolerable. Contrasted with him the sovereign was scarcely
superior to the ordinary barons. Douglas possessed a revenue from his
estates in Scotland and France probably much superior to that of the
King, and his power increased the anarchy which prevailed throughout the
country. His adherents and dependants committed the most unwarrantable
excesses. One of his partisans named Galbraith, having killed Semple,
the Deputy‑Governor of Dumbarton Castle in 1444, and seized the command
of that fortress, Douglas procured admission to the presence of the
young King, then in his fourteenth year, and made the most humble
protestations of his fidelity. The result of this interview was highly
favourable to Douglas, who used the influence he had acquired to procure
the dismissal of the Lord Chancellor Crichton, who in 1440 had inveigled
by plausible invitations and flatteries William eighth Earl of Douglas,
his brother David, and Malcolm Fleming of Cumbernauld, into the Castle
of Edinburgh, and after an insidious display of hospitality, they were
impeached for high treason, and instantly beheaded.
All the other
responsible officers of the crown were dismissed. He procured his three
brothers to be created peers. Archibald was made Earl of Moray, having
married the youngest daughter of Dunbar Earl of Moray, and he thus
acquired that title and estate at the death of his father‑in‑law, to the
prejudice of Lord Chancellor Crichton’s eldest son, who had married the
eldest daughter. Hugh was created Earl of Ormond, and John was made Lord
Balveny—an “accession of power,” observes a historian, “to a family
already too potent, which could only be granted by a youth to a
favourite.”
The kingdom now fell into complete anarchy, and
became one scene of violence and disorder under the
lieutenant‑generalship of Douglas. Another example may be given, out of
the many, illustrative of his oppressive and tyrannical conduct. Sir
Richard Colville, having suffered numerous injuries from one Auchinleck,
a follower of Douglas, thought that in 1449 he might now venture on
revenge, especially as the King’s marriage had roused him to activity,
and the power of the Earl was evidently on the decline. Colville killed
Auchinleck, and this so enraged Douglas that he ravaged his lands,
besieged and took his castle, and put every one in it to the sword.
When Douglas found his influence diminished at home, he resolved to
change the scene, and display his pomp abroad. In 1450 he proceeded to a
Jubilee at Rome with a train of six knights, fourteen gentlemen, and
eighty attendants. This was the famous Jubilee, to witness which vast
numbers of people crowded to Rome, when on one occasion ninety‑seven
persons were killed by the pressure of the crowd at the end of the
Bridge of St. Angelo. During the absence of Douglas many complaints were
made concerning the violent and insolent conduct of his dependants, and
the King, enraged at this open contempt of his authority, marched in
person with a sufficient force, and took the castles of Lochmaben and
Douglas.
The Earl, as soon as he returned from Rome, sent a
submissive message to the King, who received him with great favour, and
even in April 1451 granted a commission to him and other ambassadors to
confer with those of England concerning any breaches of the truce
existing between the two kingdoms. Douglas was totally undeserving of
this confidence, for we find him in the following month obtaining a
protection from the English court for himself, his three brothers,
twenty‑six gentlemen, and sixty‑seven attendants. In addition to his
treasonable correspondence, he entered into a confederacy with Alexander
Earl of Crawford, and John Earl of Ross, Lord of the Isles, two noblemen
whose authority was as potent in the north as his own was in the south.
His brothers, the Earl of Ormond and Lord Balveny, the Lord
Hamilton, and other barons and gentlemen, connected themselves with this
daring confederacy, the tenor of which was, that “they were never to
desert each other during life; that injuries done to any one of them
should be considered as done to all, and be a common quarrel; neither
should they desist, to the utmost of their abilities, from revenging
them; that they should concur and use force indifferently against
whatever persons, within or without the realm, and spend their lives,
goods, and fortunes, in defence of their debates and differences.”
When James was informed of this formidable confederacy he trembled
at such a defiance of the royal authority, but he resolved to dissemble
for a season, resolving at the same time to punish those chiefly
concerned in it in the most summary manner. In the meantime, the Earl of
Douglas carried on his outrages. Some of his followers had ravaged the
lands of John Herries, a gentleman of Dumfriesshire devoted to the royal
cause. Herries complained of this outrage to the Earl, from whom he
received no redress, and by way of retaliation he ravaged a part of
Annandale which belonged to Douglas. He was unfortunately taken
prisoner, and the Earl ordered him to be hanged, in defiance of the
King’s prohibitory mandate.
Another of the lawless exploits of
Douglas was his attempt to waylay and assassinate the Lord Chancellor
Crichton, who had been restored to his office, and who escaped only
through the intrepidity of his son. He had also been permitted to
undertake a pretended pilgrimage to the shrine of Thomas à Becket at
Canterbury, and on his return, when summoned by the King, at the alleged
suggestion of the Chancellor, to appear at the Court and clear himself
from sundry treasonable imputations, the royal messenger was insulted.
In short, there was no limit to the disorders of this restless nobleman,
who aimed at the erection of a distinct and separate power, independent
of the sovereign and of the laws. Some even accuse him of casting an
ambitious eye to the crown, founding his pretensions on the same
visionary claim which had already been preferred by one of his family.
But the most atrocious and execrable of the acts of the Earl of
Douglas was the cruel and wanton slaughter of a gentleman, who was a
nephew of Lord Gray, Sir Patrick MacLellan of Bombie in
Kirkcudbrightshire, whose family was afterwards ennobled by the title of
Lords Kirkcudbright. In 1452 he compelled the great majority of his
dependants to enter into an engagement of service against the crown,
especially those in Galloway, Ayrshire, and the adjacent districts. Some
of the moderate and prudent refused, among whom was Sir Patrick
MacLellan. Irritated at what he considered his obstinacy and boldness in
resisting the authority of his chief, Douglas besieged him in his Castle
of Raeberry, forced him to surrender, and carried him off to Douglas
Castle in Lanarkshire, where he treated him as a strict prisoner.
When Lord Gray and his son Sir Patrick Gray were informed of this
outrage committed on their relative, whose only crime in the estimation
of Douglas was his refusal to connect himself with any illegal bond,
they informed the King of the whole affair. Though James was greatly
exasperated he deemed it prudent to conceal his resentment, and he wrote
a conciliatory letter to the Earl, requesting him to deliver Sir Patrick
MacLellan to his cousin Sir Patrick Gray, the bearer of the royal
letter. Gray made all the haste he could exert in the distance between
Stirling and Douglas Castle, and arrived at the latter place at the hour
when the Earl was at dinner.
When informed that Sir Patrick Gray,
captain of the King’s guard, was at the gate, Douglas in some surprise
rose to receive him, and courteously invited him to partake of the
repast. “No business,” he observed, “could be transacted between a man
who has satisfied his hunger and one who is fasting, and therefore, as
you have had a long ride, you must first dine, and then we shall talk
together of the occasion of your visit.” Sir Patrick sat down to dinner,
and the Earl treated him with the greatest hospitality and
condescension, revolving with himself what could possibly be the nature
of his guest’s mission.
Knowing the relationship between his
prisoner and Sir Patrick, and suspecting that his visit was connected
with the liberation of the former, he secretly issued an order that
MacLellan should be led out to a grass‑plot beside the Castle, and his
head struck off and removed. This atrocious injunction was obeyed; the
unfortunate prisoner was decapitated, the head taken away, and the body
left on the ground covered with a cloth.
Meanwhile the Earl and
Sir Patrick continued conversing on general matters, the former
apparently in uncommon good humour, until the dinner was ended, when the
latter produced the King’s letter requesting him to deliver up MacLellan.
Douglas received it with hypocritical respect, and, after carefully
perusing it, he said, “I am indebted to you for being the bearer to me
of so gracious a letter from the King, especially considering how
matters stand between us. The demand shall instantly be granted, and the
more willingly for your sake.”
He rose from the table, and taking
Sir Patrick Gray by the hand, led him down the staircase of the castle
to the grass‑plot, where the headless body of MacLellan was still lying
bleeding, and covered with the cloth. Removing the cloth, Douglas said
with a significant smile, “Sir Patrick, you are come a little too late.
This is your father’s sister’s son, but he wants the head. You may take
his body, and do with it what you please.” Sir Patrick, in the deepest
distress at the sight of this melancholy spectacle, and the atrocious
circumstances connected with it, replied, “My Lord, since you have taken
his head, you may dispose of his body as you please.”
He then
summoned his attendants, and mounted his horse. Turning to Douglas,
before starting, he said, “My Lord, if I live, you shall be rewarded for
this day’s work according to your deserts.” This threat put the Earl
into a towering passion, and calling for his horse he set off in pursuit
of Sir Patrick, but the latter escaped by the fleetness of his steed,
though it is said the chase extended nearly to Edinburgh.
The
body of Sir Patrick MacLellan was conveyed to the Abbey Church of
Dundrennan, where it was interred, and a monument erected to his memory,
which is probably still to be seen. His death was subsequently revenged
to such an extent by the MacLellans, that it was found necessary to
restrain their depredations on the lands of the Earl of Douglas, by
forfeiting the Laird of Bombie and many of his friends, in the reign of
James II. According to Sir George Mackenzie, the forfeiture was removed
and the barony recovered in the same reign in the following manner: It
happened that a band of gypsies from Ireland infested Galloway, and
committed great depredations. The King issued a proclamation, promising
as a reward the barony of Bombie to any one who should disperse them,
and take their leader dead or alive. A young gentleman, son of the
forfeited Laird of Bombie, was fortunate to kill this individual. He
presented the head of the gypsy leader on the point of his sword to the
King, and was immediately secured in the estate. To perpetuate the
recollection of his brave action, he took for his crest a Moor’s head on
the point of a sword, and for his motto the words, *Think on*.
There is, however, another account, that the body of Sir Patrick was
buried in the church of Kirkconnel, in the county of Dumfries, and it is
said that this is proved by an inscription on a grave‑stone there.
The historian of the House of Douglas and Angus differs from the
ordinary accounts respecting the Earl’s atrocious conduct to Sir Patrick
MacLellan. Old Master David Hume of Godscroft represents the said Sir
Patrick as having killed a retainer of the Earl of Douglas, and that he
and his brother, who was connected with the slaughter, were apprehended
and imprisoned in the stately Castle of Threave, in the parish of
Balmaghie, and county of Kirkcudbright, at that time a residence of the
chiefs of the House of Douglas—an ancient castle situated on an island
formed by the river Dee.
MacLellan’s relatives, when they heard
that Douglas had seized him, represented to James II. that he was so
treated by the Earl not so much on account of the slaughter of his
follower, as on account of his loyalty, and his refusal to join the
Douglas standard of rebellion. Swayed by these statements, James sent to
Sir Patrick Gray to bring his cousin before himself, where he would be
tried for the crime he had committed in the regular way, and at the same
time intimating to Douglas that if he had anything to urge against the
prisoner he could appear as a witness in the prosecution.
It
appears from the whole of Godscroft’s story, that the Earl was not at
Douglas Castle in Lanarkshire, but at Threave Castle, which is in the
neighbourhood of a village in the parish of Kelton, in
Kirkcudbrightshire, situated at the north corner of Carlinwark Loch,
anciently called Carlinwark, but now Castle‑Douglas. On the west side,
near the corner of the Loch, there is a small piece of rising ground in
view of the Castle of Threave, and distant from it upwards of a mile,
called to this day the Gallows Lot. On the top of this stood a gibbet
for the execution of those whom the Earls of Douglas thought proper to
condemn in this quarter.
When Sir Patrick Gray arrived at Threave
he was courteously received by Douglas, who, suspecting his errand, gave
private orders for the immediate execution of MacLellan at the Gallows
Lot, near Carlinwark Loch. The rest of Godscroft’s narrative agrees with
Pitscottie, with this difference, that Gray did not see his cousin’s
dead body, and that when he heard his fate from Douglas, with the
insulting intimation that he had come too late, and “saw himself so
deluded, he presently in a great chafe and rage renounced all kindred
and friendship, and whatever bond beside might seem to tie him to the
Earl, vowing that from that time he would be his deadly enemy in every
possible way and manner, which the other little regarding, dismissed
him.” Such is the account of this atrocious affair by the avowed
defender of the House of Douglas, whose great object is to palliate the
crime of the Earl, and in fact to show that he was more sinned against
than sinning.
Irritated beyond measure at these repeated insults
offered to the royal authority by Douglas, and inflamed by the
recollection of the league formed by that nobleman with the Earls of
Crawford, Ross, and others, James called a chosen council to deliberate
on the state of affairs, and the measures to be adopted to restrain and
humble these powerful subjects. It was resolved, to prevent the horrors
of a civil war, that Douglas should be invited to an audience of the
King, with the assurance that all his past offences would be forgiven if
he would only reform his future conduct.
It is impossible to
discover whether these promises of James were sincere, but when it is
recollected that the whole was projected by Lord Chancellor Crichton,
whom Douglas had recently attempted to murder, there is some reason to
infer a plot against him. Be this as it may, a letter of safe‑conduct
was issued to Douglas, bearing the royal signature, and that of the
councillors and officers of the King’s household then about his person,
and to which the privy seal was attached. Sir William Lauder of Hatton,
a gentleman who had attended Douglas in his pilgrimage to Rome, was sent
to him with the safe‑conduct, and to invite him to a friendly conference
at Stirling Castle, promising absolute security to his person, and
declaring that upon expression of regret for his past conduct no farther
notice would be taken of his misdemeanours.
The Earl was induced
by the conciliatory expressions of the royal letter to proceed to
Stirling in company with Sir William Lauder, attended by his usual
retinue. He arrived on Shrove Tuesday, and whilst his friends and
followers took up their residence in the town, he proceeded to the
Castle, accompanied by Lord Hamilton. When they reached the gate Douglas
was readily admitted, but Hamilton was rudely pushed back by the guard.
He drew his sword to revenge the insult, and attempted to make a
forcible entrance, when his relation Sir Alexander Livingstone, who was
standing within the gate, little regarding his rage, held him back with
a long halbert until the gate was secured. Lord Hamilton, viewing all
this as a personal insult, returned to the town greatly
exasperated and vowing revenge, but he had reason to view the matter in
a different light when he knew the result.
The Earl was received
by the King with every mark of friendship, and after some time spent in
conversation, he was invited to dine with James on the following day. He
obeyed, and not only dined but supped with the King, during all which
time nothing occurred to interrupt the harmony of the intercourse. The
supper hour was seven o’clock, and after it James intimated that he was
anxious to have some private conversation with the Earl, who instantly
declared his readiness to attend the monarch. The King led him into an
inner chamber, attended by Lord Chancellor Crichton, Lord Gray, Sir
Patrick Gray, Sir Simon Glendinning, and a few more of his most intimate
councillors. Standing apart from these attendants James began with as
much calmness as he could command to remonstrate with Douglas** on his
long‑continued treasonable and violent proceedings, and in doing so it
was impossible not to mention the execution of Herries, the murder of
Sir Patrick MacLellan, and other outrages. The Earl endeavoured to
excuse himself, and, if Hume of Godscroft is to be credited, answered
submissively, craving pardon for what he had done to offend the King,
alleging that his proceedings on these points were not directed against
his sovereign, but against his own personal enemies.
“Be it so,”
said James, “these are matters for after consideration, and they must be
investigated for the sake of the relatives of those who have been so
cruelly injured. My Lord, you know well the many favours you have
received, notwithstanding all these outrages, and yet what say you to
that treasonable confederation into which you have entered with the
Earls of Crawford, Ross, and others? I pledge my royal word, that when I
first heard it I scarcely could give it credit. That bond must be
broken. No leagues or societies can be tolerated in a realm under one
sovereign without his express sanction and command. By abandoning this
confederacy you will remove all suspicions from my mind. I am unwilling
to believe any evil of you, notwithstanding what has past, but you can
expect no favour from me if you persist in continuing such practices as
must show a bad example to the people, and cause them to live as if
there were neither law nor justice in this kingdom.”
Douglas
heard this remonstrance with surprise, but recovering himself, he
replied: “For your Grace’s favours I ought and will most certainly
strive with all earnestness to obtain them. Your Grace knows that as I
have the honour to command many who obey me, I know well how to render
dutiful obedience to my sovereign. None of your subjects, Sir, enjoy
more lands and honours than I do, and there is not one who would more
willingly engage life and fortune in your defence and honour. Those who
lay snares for my life are now your Grace’s constant attendants, and I
dare not trust myself in your presence without a letter of safe‑conduct,
and well attended by my friends. For the wrongs committed by my
followers and vassals I am ready to give every requisite satisfaction.
As to the bond of mutual friendship between sundry noblemen and myself,
I can assure your Grace that we would have adhered together without any
written obligation. We were driven to this bond for our own safety, not
to offer violence to, but to defend ourselves from our enemies.”
“Deeds, and not words,” said the King, “make the affection and
submission of a subject known, and there can be no greater security for
him than to rely on the laws of the commonwealth and the country,
especially in a country where the laws and not faction ought to
predominate. Such men as you, my Lord, raise these factions to the
subversion of all laws and authority. Is it to be tolerated for a moment
that any subjects, of whatever rank and condition, are to make offensive
and defensive leagues against all persons? This is to disclaim all
government, to do what they please without control, to commit treason in
the highest degree, to make your own swords influence and justify your
proceedings, and to conceal the progress of your career until you openly
demand the crown itself. I insist upon it, therefore, that this
confederacy of yours be instantly broken, and thus you will receive
wonted clemency instead of deserved justice.”
“The bond,” replied
Douglas, “being drawn up by the common consent of certain noblemen and
gentlemen, and subscribed, it cannot be renounced without mutual
consent. Your Grace must in consequence see that we must all meet and
consult before it can be cancelled.”
“Nay,” said James
vehemently, “you shall begin first, to show a good example. No man shall
in my presence disavow and disclaim my authority. You stir not from this
room till you solemnly, sincerely, and deliberately sign your withdrawal
from this treasonable bond, of which these noble lords and gentlemen
shall be witnesses.”
“Your Grace will recollect,” replied
Douglas, “that I came hither upon a public assurance of safe‑conduct.”
“No public assurance,” rejoined James, “can protect any man from the
consequences of a private misdemeanour.”
As this last reply of
James implied a threat of personal violence, the pride of Douglas
betrayed him into the most imprudent passion. He broke into an invective
of reproaches, upbraiding the King for depriving him of the office of
lieutenant‑general of the kingdom, declared that he cared little for the
name of treason with which his conduct had been branded; that as to his
confederacy with the Earls of Ross and Crawford he had it not in his own
power to dissolve it, and that if he had, he would be sorry to offend
his best friends to gratify the boyish caprices of the King.
James, naturally fiery and impetuous, became furious with rage at this
rude defiance uttered by one in his own palace whom he regarded as his
enemy. In a state of ungovernable fury, he drew his dagger, exclaiming,
“False traitor! if thou wilt not break the bond, this shall!” He then
stabbed the Earl first in the throat and afterwards in the lower part of
the body. Sir Patrick Gray, burning to revenge the murder of his cousin,
seized a pole‑axe and struck him a blow on the head, which felled him to
the floor. The other personages present next gratified their resentment
by assailing him with their knives and daggers, and he expired without
uttering a word, covered with twenty‑six wounds. The window of the
apartment was thrown open, and the mangled body of the proud Earl of
Douglas, the rival of James in power, was thrown into the open court
adjoining the royal apartments.
No justification can be offered
for such a murder committed by James on the person of one for whose
safety he had pledged his royal word, and it exhibited a most pernicious
example to the country. But at the same time little sympathy can be felt
for Douglas, whose career, as Mr. Tytler observes, “from first to last
had been that of a selfish, ambitious, and cruel tyrant, who at the
moment when he was cut off was all but a convicted traitor, and whose
death, if we except the mode by which it was brought about, was to be
regarded as a public benefit.”
The friends of Douglas prepared to
revenge his death, and his retainers and vassals regarded his
assassination with bitter indignation. As he left no children he was
succeeded by his next brother James, who relinquished his clerical
profession, and became the ninth Earl of Douglas. His younger brothers,
the Earls of Moray, Ormond, and Lord Balveny, who had accompanied the
murdered Earl to Stirling, proposed to storm the castle, and put all to
the sword within it, but a little reflection convinced them that they
were without resources for such an enterprise. As for Lord Hamilton, a
friend in the castle conveyed to him a pair of spurs—an intimation to
save himself as a friend of Douglas by flight.
On the 25th of
March the vassals and followers of Douglas mustered at Stirling,
dragging after them through all the towns and villages in their way the
King’s safe‑conduct made fast to a wooden truncheon, tied to the tail of
an old jaded horse. At the market cross, amid the sound of horns, they
proclaimed the King and all who adhered to him to be false and perjured
traitors. After bidding defiance to the castle, they concluded this
exploit by plundering and setting fire to the town. They committed
several outrages in other parts of the country.
But the battle of
Brechin, fought between the Earl of Huntly, who had been promoted to the
office of lieutenant‑general of the kingdom, and the Earl of Crawford,
who was known by the soubriquet of the Tiger, in which the latter was
completely defeated, destroyed that league which had cost his associate
so dear. The new Earl of Douglas was soon afterwards reconciled to the
King, but both parties were insincere. Their mutual injuries were too
recent and too important to be easily forgiven, and they were secretly
preparing themselves to renew those contentions, which two years
afterwards terminated in the final overthrow of the House of Douglas.
See also:
•
A Narrative on the Origins and Nature of Lawson’s Historical
Tales
Contributions
The Douglas Archives are built
from families histories. Do you have an ancestor whose
story should be told here? Please let us have the details.
|
