Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 15.djvu/270

 Wyntoun, and the statement of Bower that Rothesay's death was due to dysentery, cannot outweigh the charge implied by Major, and expressed in the ‘Book of Pluscarden,’ that he was murdered. That he had been incarcerated by them was confessed by Albany and Douglas in the preamble of the statute, the necessity for which, as in the similar case of Bothwell, is a further argument of guilt. Nor can the act of the aged king, who sent his remaining son James out of the kingdom soon after, be left out of account in judging of the share which Albany took in conducting his nephew along the short road from a royal prison to the grave. The account of later history, which describes his arrest by Sir John Ramorney and Sir William Lindesay, the perpetration of the deed by Wright and Selkirk, and the mode of death as starvation—not uncommon in that age—has all the appearance of a real, not of an invented, narrative, while the burial of the king's heir as a pauper at Lindores gives the final touch to the tragedy. Lindesay had a personal wrong to avenge in the dishonour of his sister. Ramorney was a baulked conspirator. The motive of Douglas in effecting the removal of one doubly allied to him by marriage is less clear. If the secrets of history were disclosed, probably we should find that the aggrandisement of his house, which no Douglas could resist, had been secured by the terms of his agreement with Albany. We seem to get a glimpse of the dark plots in which Albany and Douglas were engaged when we read in the ‘Book of Pluscarden’ that Sir David Fleming of Cumbernauld, who had been sent by the king to conduct his son James to the ship which was to carry him to France, was slain on his return by Sir James Douglas of Balveny, the brother of the earl.

During this year, 1402, there were several Scottish raids into England, in retaliation for Henry's invasions, all of which were either prompted or led by Douglas. Sir John Haliburton of Dirleton returned from the first of these laden with booty. Sir Patrick Hepburn of Hailes, who had distinguished himself at Otterburn, and was ‘dear to Douglas as himself,’ says Hume of Godscroft, conducted the second with unlike fortune, for he fell with the flower of the Lothians at Nisbet Muir. To avenge his death Douglas, with Murdoch, the son of Albany, the Earls of Angus and Moray, and other nobles, and a strong force, advanced into Northumberland, where they were met on 24 Sept. 1402, the day of the exaltation of the Holy Cross, by the Earl of March and Hotspur, at the head of ten thousand men, at Milfield, not far from Wooler. The Scots took up their position on the rising ground of Homildon Hill, when March, checking the impetuosity of Hotspur, harassed them by the English archers, and, pursuing his advantage, put the Scots to rout with the slaughter or capture of almost all their principal leaders. Douglas, who was wounded in five places and lost an eye in the battle, Murdoch, the son of Albany, and the Earls of Moray and Angus were among the captives. Three French knights were also taken prisoners, and an effort was made in Paris to raise a sum sufficient for the ransom of Douglas along with them, but nothing came of it so far as Douglas was concerned. Next year events took a sudden turn in England. Henry ordered Northumberland and his son not to release any of their prisoners without his consent, and his grant to them of the Douglas lands in Scotland was not unnaturally regarded by the Percies as a gift of birds in the bush in lieu of those in their hands. They demanded money for their services to the king, whom they had helped to win and keep the crown, and, this being refused, entered into a league with Glendower to dethrone him, and encouraged the rumour that Richard II was still alive, a refugee at the Scottish court. Douglas was induced to join this formidable conspiracy by the promise of Berwick and part of Northumberland, and fought on the side of his captor in the great battle of Shrewsbury on 23 July 1403, where Hotspur was killed, and Douglas, again severely wounded, was taken prisoner. His personal prowess in this field is celebrated both by English and Scottish writers. Drayton compares him to Mars, and he and Shakespeare preserve the tradition that he sought to encounter Henry himself.

His final release from captivity in England was not effected until June 1408, but during this period he several times revisited Scotland with the view of raising the sum required for his ransom, leaving on the occasion of each visit a large number of hostages from the families of his chief vassals or retainers as pledges for his return. The names of these hostages, preserved in an indenture of 14 March 1407, afford striking proof of the power of the Douglas family and the value set upon its head. Besides his own son and heir and his brother James, the hostages included James, the son and heir of Douglas, lord of Dalkeith, the son and heir of Lord Seton, Sir James Douglas of Drumlanrig, Sir William Sinclair of Hermiston, Sir Simon Glendinning, son and heir of Sir Adam of that ilk, Sir John Herries, lord of Terregles, Sir Herbert Maxwell, Sir William Hay, and Sir William Borthwick. His release was