Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 25.djvu/263

H advised them to clear themselves at a trial. They went to Dalkeith, and sent word that they were ready to be tried at Perth on 24 Oct. The clergy in Edinburgh and their supporters sent a deputation to the king at Jedburgh to crave that the trial should be strictly legal, and that meanwhile the earls should be committed to prison (Petition, printed in Hist. of James the Sext, pp. 284–6). The king by way of compromise entrusted the trial to a convention of estates to be held at Linlithgow after his return from the borders. The clergy resolved to summon an armed gathering to see justice enforced, but were prohibited by a proclamation of the council. The convention was held on 27 Oct. 1593, but the king, deeming the arrangement inconvenient, named, with consent of the estates, special commissioners for the trial to meet at Edinburgh on 12 Nov. (Reg. P. C. Scotl. v. 104). Those summoned failed, however, to appear, and at a convention held on the 19th others were chosen, who on the 26th passed an ‘Act of Abolition,’ granting full pardon to the accused on condition that they did not repeat their offences. They were to have the option of remaining in this country as true protestants or going into exile; the earls were also required to give security in 400l. each; and Errol was ordered to remove from the realm the jesuit William Ogilvy (ib. v. 108). Their choice between exile and protestantism was to be made by 1 Jan. 1593–4. They failed to arrive at a decision within the specified time, and an act was passed on 18 Jan. declaring that they had ‘tint all benefit and favour granted to them by the Act of Abolition’ (Acta Parl. Scot. iv. 52–3). On the 31st Errol was ordered to enter into ward in the castle of Edinburgh within ten days (Reg. P. C. C. Scotl. v. 130), and failing to do so he was declared to be a traitor, sentence of forfeiture being also passed upon him by the subsequent parliament.

Errol now joined Huntly in Aberdeenshire with a formidable force. The authorities of Aberdeen on 16 July 1594 seized the crew of a Spanish ship, from which James Gordon, an uncle of Huntly, and some other jesuits had disembarked. Huntly and Errol threatened to burn the town unless the prisoners were released. The request was complied with (, p. 118). The king sent a force against them under the command of the young Earl of Argyll, but on 4 Oct. it was, after a severe struggle, completely defeated by Huntly and Errol. The loss on both sides was heavy, and Errol himself was wounded by an arrow in the leg, and was otherwise severely injured (ib. p. 120;, v. 348–53). On the arrival of the king in the north Huntly and Errol kept themselves quiet, ‘and no intelligence was to be had of them.’ Slains Castle, the seat of Errol, was demolished in the presence of the king, but no special effort was made to pursue him. The king returned south on 9 Nov., leaving the Duke of Lennox as his lieutenant to keep the catholic earls in check. On Lennox's persuasion Huntly and Errol left the country, their lands being given to the duke ‘by way of factorie,’ but their wives being made ‘intrometters therewith’ (ib. v. 357). In the following January Scot of Balwearie revealed the signature in the previous August of a bond between the northern earls for the imprisonment of the king and the coronation of the young prince. The revelation did not injuriously affect Errol's relations with the king. On 26 March 1594–5 a proclamation was issued to mariners and skippers against bringing the earls or any of their adherents back (Reg. P. C. Scotl. v. 217). Rumours of his conspiracies abroad caused Errol to be arrested by the States of Zealand, and detained a captive in Middelburg (Cal. State Papers relating to Scotland, p. 713). Subsequently he was surrendered to Robert Danielstoun, the Scottish king's conservator in the Low Countries, who permitted his escape (Reg. P. C. Scotl. v. 315). He returned home secretly in September 1596, and on 22 Nov. a declaration was issued by the council to the effect that he and others had returned without the king's leave, and warning them that unless they satisfied the kirk the king intended to take the field against them in person (ib. pp. 329–31). On the 30th David Black, minister of St. Andrews, was summoned for asserting that they had returned with the king's consent. The king was clearly anxious to be on good terms with the earls, and was specially desirous to bring about a reconciliation between them and the kirk. On the king's representations the assembly ultimately agreed to release Errol and other earls from excommunication, on condition of their abjuring popery and subscribing the confession of faith. With these conditions Errol (see his answers to the articles in, v. 635) complied, and absolution was granted him on 26 June 1597. In the beginning of August he and his friends were also relaxed from the horn at the cross of Edinburgh, and at the parliament held in the following December they were formally restored to their estates and dignities.

Errol enjoyed for some years afterwards much of the king's confidence. On 30 Oct. 1601 a commission of justiciary was given him against Gordon of Gicht and the rebels who had adhered to him (Reg. P. C. Scotl.