Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/102

 the whole conspiracy. On 3 Oct. Norfolk was again sent to the Tower, and on the 19th Leslie was taken back to London, where he was at first detained in the house of the lord mayor. His plea of privilege as an ambassador was overruled (document in ib. p. 18). After being brought before the council on 24 Oct. he was sent to the Tower, where he was kept a close prisoner.

On 26 Oct. he made a confession of the main outlines of the conspiracy (ib. pp. 19–32), and on the 31st gave minute explanations of all its main particulars (ib. pp. 32–8; Cal. Hatfield MSS. pp. 555–7). These were supplemented by still further explanations on 2 Nov. (, pp. 38–40) and 3 and 6 Nov. (ib. pp. 41–55). He himself states that he ‘cunningly extenuated’ the ‘crimes of the other conspirators’ (case of the Bishop of Ross, Harleian Miscellany, ii. 482); but it was nevertheless chiefly on his evidence that the Duke of Norfolk was executed. On 3 Nov. he succeeded in despatching a letter to Queen Mary, which, however, was intercepted, advising that she should write to Elizabeth bidding her reject the statements of her enemies (, pp. 44–6; Cal. Hatfield MSS. p. 561). Having on 6 Nov. asked permission to write to Mary (Discourse, p. 227), he on 8 Nov. informed her of his confession, and expressed the opinion that the discovery of these designs was intended by God's special providence to warn her and her friends against employing like means for her relief in the future (, pp. 54–7; Cal. Hatfield MSS. pp. 563–4). On the same day he gave Dr. Thomas Wilson the impression that he was glad ‘that these practices had been brought to light,’ and that he held the worst opinion of Mary's character (, p. 57). His severe attack on the queen has been accepted by Mr. Froude and others as serious evidence against her, but it is plain that it was mainly made with the aim of securing his liberty. Possibly it produced some impression on Cecil, but he was still retained a prisoner even after Norfolk's execution. In May 1572 an endeavour was made by the king's party in Scotland, who regarded him with bitterest hostility, to obtain his delivery to them in exchange for the Earl of Northumberland (Cal. State Papers, Scott. Ser. pp. 350, 353), and on 13 June the Earl of Mar made similar application on the ground of certain treaties and contracts of peace (ib. p. 356). About the same time, however, the Duke of Montmorency, on behalf of the king of France, was endeavouring to secure his liberty, and Elizabeth compromised the matter by removing him from the Tower to Farnham Castle, the seat of the Bishop of Winchester. (Regarding an inscription by Leslie in the Bloody Tower, see Notes and Queries, 4th ser. v. 174, 266, 372.) In October 1573 he pleaded for his release in a Latin oration, which he sent to Elizabeth. Elizabeth seems to have been favourably inclined to him, and this delicate compliment to her learning did not lessen her esteem. On 11 Nov. he was brought to London, and on the 16th it was intimated to him by the council that he might have his liberty on condition that he left England. In January 1574 he landed in France and proceeded to Paris, where on 24 Feb. he wrote a letter on behalf of Queen Mary to the king of Spain (, v. 120–1). On the 12th of the same month the Scottish privy council published a declaration against supplying him and other traitors beyond seas with ‘money, finance, counsel, or other aid’ (Reg. P. C. Scotl. ii. 334). After remaining about a year in Paris, Leslie went to Rome specially to represent the interests of Mary at the papal court. The scheme of capturing the young king and conveying him to a catholic country to be educated, the combination against Morton in 1578 (see especially on this, Hist. of Scotland, ed. 1864, iv. 19, 20), the mission of Esme Stuart to Scotland, and the consequent accusation and execution of Morton, were more or less traceable to him. His leisure was occupied in writing his Latin history of Scotland, which was published at Rome in 1578. Towards the close of that year he was sent by the pope to visit certain catholic princes of the empire in the interests of Mary Queen of Scots, and also to secure the restoration of certain Scottish monasteries to Scottish monks (letter of the Bishop of Ross to the king of Spain, 8 Feb. 1579, in, v. 182–3). On the borders of Lorraine he was captured by a protestant noble, and was kept in captivity for twenty-four days, in the belief that he was the archbishop of Rossano, a papal legate (the Duke Don Juan de Vergas to Philip II, 21 Jan. 1579, ib. v. 176–7). He went on to Paris by order of the pope, so as to watch more narrowly the progress of events in Scotland (Bishop of Ross to Philip II, 8 Feb. 1579, ib. p. 182). According to the Archbishop of Glasgow, he had a commission to treat with the Dukes of Lorraine and Guise for receiving the young king of Scotland, and himself had permission to go to Scotland should he think it desirable (ib. pp. 184–6). The death of Atholl on 24 April 1579 for a time shattered the hopes of the catholics. Not long afterwards Leslie was appointed suffragan and vicar-general of the diocese of Rouen.

In June 1587 he was admitted to the