Chapter XIX: Dissolution of the Monastery, 1547-1571
Little of the reverence he was accustomed in old days to receive was shown him. He was compelled to stand at the bar as a common criminal, and his great opponent, John Knox, seems to have taken a somewhat unworthy delight in noticing the indignity offered to his fallen enemy. “A meary man,” he says, who now sleeps in the Lord, “Robert Boswell, instead of the Bischoppis croce, bair before him a steyl hammer, whereat the Bishop and his band were not a little offended.” He and his friends" were accused [19] in the toun of Paslay, kirkyard and Abbey place thereof, openlie, publicklie, and plainlie taking auricular confession in the said kirk, tonne, kirkyaird, chalmeris, barns, middens, and killogies thereof, and thus makand an alteration and innovation in the state of religion, which our Soverane Lady found publicklie standing and professit within this realm, ministrand, and alswa irreverently and indecentlie the Sacramentis of Haly Kirk, namely, the Sacramentis of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.” It was a serious charge, and, if proven, was punishable by death. The Archbishop had a powerful friend in Queen Mary, who interfered in his behalf. He and his companions were committed to ward ; and, if we believe Knox, his imprisonment was but a very slight hardship, for he had a fair custodian to watch over him. “The Lady Erskine (a sweet morsel for the Devil's mouth) gat the Bischoppis for her pairt.” [20]
The young Queen, through whose intervention he thus escaped severe punishment, did all in her power to reinstate him, in his former dignity and position. In 1566 he baptised her son, in the Chapel of Holyrood, with all the pomp of the old ritual, [21] to the great scandal of the reformers. After the murder of Darnley, of which he was accused as having been an accomplice, he was in close attendance upon her. She restored to him the consistorial rights he had possessed as Archbishop, and one of the first acts of his court [22] was to divorce Bothwell from Lady Jane Gordon, in order that he might be free to marry the Queen. He was, the leading spirit in what was called the faction of the Hamiltons, who were her strongest supporters. He took part in planning the Queen's escape from Lochleven, joined her immediately afterwards, and was at the battle of Langside, which decided her fate. It is said he accompanied her to Dundrennan, and earnestly endeavoured to dissuade her from venturing into England, wading knee-deep into the water, and catching with both hands the boat that bore the ill-fated Mary away. [23]
After the battle of Langside, things grew very sad for the old Prelate. He was shut out from Paisley. The Regent Murray gifted all the church property to Lord Sempill, [24] who had become his supporter, and who fought on his side. The Archbishop was proscribed, and his former bailie reigned in his stead at Paisley. The outlawed Prelate still, however, maintained an undaunted front to his enemies, and when the Regent was assassinated by Hamilton of Bothwell-haugh, he is said to have been among those who received the murderer with congratulations. [25] In the confusion that occurred, the Archbishop came back to Paisley, and took possession of the Abbey House, which the Sempills had probably restored. They made no resistance, and it was supposed that they were in league with their former master. [26]
[19] A full account of the Archbishop's trial is in Pitcairn's Criminal Trials, Vol. I., p. 429. The names of those tried with him were—Maister John M`Quheyne, elder ; Maister Andro Davidsone, Dene William Lepar, Friar James Johnstone, Alexander Somerville, Mr. John M`Quheyne, younger ; Schir Johne Hamilton, curat of Paslay ; Schir Johne Craig, Schir Johne Elder, Schir Johne Wry, Schir Johne Browne, Schir Johne Dunlop, Dene David Brance. Will Sempill of Thirdpart and Michael Naysmith of Posso were cautioners for the Abbot. See also “Diurnal of Occurrents,” Baunatyne Club, p. 65. Keith, p. 239.
[20] John Knox.
[21] Tytler, Vol. II., p. 248.
[22] Diurnal of Occurrents. Keith. Tytler, Vol. II, p. 231.
[23] I have seen this again and again stated, though I have been unable to find the authority on which the assertion is made. Tytler, Vol. II., p. 270, makes the almost inconceivable statement that in 1567 the Archbishop wished to put the Queen to death, in order to open up the succession to the throne to his family. Burton, Vol. V., p. 305, shows how the charge against the honour of the prelate was probably exaggerated.
[24] Privy Seal, Reg. xxxvii., 84.
[25] Tytler, Vol. II., 320. 17th Jan., 1570. Diurnal of Occurrents.
[26] State Papers, Foreign, Elizabeth, Vol. CXVI., Sir W. Drury to Cecil, dated 25th January, 1577—i.e. 1570-71.