Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 38.djvu/315

 was created Earl of Shrewsbury, and was father of Hugh, earl of Shrewsbury (d. 1098) [q. v.] Robert de Montgomerie accompanied Walter, son of Alan, first high steward of Scotland, from Wales to Scotland, and received from him the manor of Eaglesham, Renfrewshire.

Sir John Montgomerie, ninth of Eaglesham, succeeded his father about 1380, and by his marriage with Elizabeth de Eglinton, sole heiress of Sir Hugh de Eglinton of Eglinton, justiciary of Lothian in 1361, obtained the baronies of Eglinton and Ardrossan. In 1388 he accompanied his brother-in-law, Sir James Douglas, second earl of Douglas [q. v.], in an expedition to England. At the battle of Otterburn, where Douglas was slain, Montgomerie, according to the Scots version of the ballad on the battle, worsted Sir Henry Percy, surnamed Hotspur, the commander of the English, in single combat and took him prisoner. With the ransom of Percy he built at Eaglesham the castle of Polnoon, now in ruins, but long the chief seat of the Eglinton family. In 1391 Montgomerie, for service to the king and the Duke of Rothesay, received an annuity from the customs of Edinburgh and Linlithgow (Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, iii. 280 et seq.) He died about 1398, leaving three sons—Sir John, who succeeded him, and was father of Sir Alexander, first lord Montgomerie [q. v.]; Alexander of Bonnington, and Hugh, shot with an arrow through the heart at Otterburn.

[Froissart's Chronicles; ancient ballad on the battle of Otterburn; Exchequer Kolls of Scotland, vol. iii.; Sir William Fraser's Earls of Eglinton; Douglas's Scottish Peerage (Wood), i. 494.]  MONTGOMERIE, ROBERT (d. 1609), titular archbishop of Glasgow, was the third son of Hugh Montgomerie of Hessilhead, Ayrshire, by a daughter of Houston of Houston, and a younger brother of Alexander Montgomerie [q. v.] the poet (pedigree in General History of the Montgomerys). He is mentioned by the first general assembly of the reformed kirk, 20 Dec. 1560, as one of those thought able to minister (, ii. 46), and was appointed to the charge of Cupar Fife about 1562. In 1567 he was translated to Dunblane, and in 1572 to Stirling. He was one of a commission who in 1572 met in the house of Knox to arrange certain articles to be propounded to the regent and council (ib. iii. 210); in 1580 he received a commission to warn the bishops of Argyll and the Isles to appear before the assembly to answer such things as might be laid to their charge (ib. p. 465); and in 1581 he was named a commissioner for the establishment of a presbytery in Stirling and Linlithgow (ib. p. 524).

After the death in 1581 of James Boyd, titular archbishop of Glasgow, James VI, on the recommendation of Esmé Stewart, duke of Lennox, presented Montgomerie with the bishopric, Montgomerie, on the payment of 1,000l. Scots, giving a bond to Lennox to dispone to him and his heirs all the income of his see. The general assembly censured Montgomerie for agreeing to accept a bishopric, and interdicted him from undertaking the office. Montgomerie was supported by the king and council, who denied the illegality of episcopacy, but the kirk met this by articles against Montgomerie, declaring him unfit for any high office, and commanding him to remain at Stirling under pain of the highest censures of the kirk (ib. p. 580). Montgomerie thereupon set them at defiance, and on 8 March entered the church of Glasgow accompanied by a band of the royal guard, and in the king's name commanded the officiating minister to come down from the pulpit (ib. p. 595). This he declined, and through the interference of the laird of Minto, Montgomerie was induced to desist (ib.} The students of Glasgow University also took the part of the kirk against Montgomerie, and on 22 April were summoned to answer before the council on 10 Sept. for riots in opposition to him (''Reg. P. C. Scotl.'' iii. 490). On 12 April an order was also made by the council forbidding the presbyteries, synods, and general assemblies of the kirk from proceeding against Montgomerie (ib. p. 476). Nevertheless the kirk resolved to proceed to excommunication, unless he desisted from his purpose (, iii. 596-7), and summoned him to appear before the next general assembly. He appeared, and, after protesting against their proceedings as illegal, declined their jurisdiction in the matter in dispute. They were proceeding to his excommunication when a messenger from the king appeared charging them to desist under pain of rebellion and horning, and although this did not prevent them passing a resolution for his excommunication, they resolved to delay sentence till they had held further conference with him. The result was that he 'granted, as appeared with all submission, his offences in every point, to the great admiration and contentment of the assembly,' and promised to 'attempt nothing further concerning the bishopric' (ib. pp. 599-607). Finding afterwards, however, that he had the strong support of the king and council, he resiled from his promise, and consequently on 10 June was excommunicated by the presbytery of 