Chapter XIX: Dissolution of the Monastery, 1547-1571
The Archbishop himself, in a letter which he wrote during his last hours to the English Queen, [27] describes the place as deserted. He speaks touchingly of his loyalty and “treu service done to my Prince and realme.” The place he was accused of violating was “his own, and he had it these forty-five years, and as my said place of Paisley was standing waste [28] and no man in it but only a boy that had the key of the yeit, [29] and my servants did no violence to any man, but entered into my own place without any trouble ; and when it is said that I was in Paslay and held courts in our Soverain's name, that is manifest fals, for I was not there these three years and mair.” It would appear, however, notwithstanding this disclaimer, that not only did the attendants of the Archbishop take possession of the Abbey, but that they seized Lord Sempill himself and kept him a prisoner. [30] It was even suspected that they endeavoured to poison him. The Regent Lennox came against the Abbey with a considerable force and besieged it, and the defenders surrendered on the condition that their lives should be spared. This condition, though granted by the victorious party, was not fulfilled. Whether the Regent found that his prisoners had been all implicated in the murder of the King's father or not, he certainly shewed them no mercy. Thirty of them were taken on the 7th March to the Easter Borough Muir of Glasgow and there hanged, and one or two others imprisoned. [31] There was an intense hatred cherished by the Regent against the Hamiltons, and he certainly gratified it to the utmost.
He soon afterwards had an opportunity of taking still more dire vengeance upon his enemies. On the 1st April, 1571, the castle of Dumbarton was captured by the gallantry of a Captain Crawfurd of Jordanhill, and among other prisoners was the Archbishop himself, clad in a shirt of mail, and with a steel cap on his head. He had little mercy to expect from his captors, but he wrote a letter in his own defence to the English Queen in the hope, probably, that she might interfere in his behalf. There was no time given for any such intervention, even if it had been likely. The Archbishop was taken to Stirling, and there hurriedly brought to trial. George Buchanan, the historian, was one of his accusers, and narrates his trial, [32] and we have also the narrative of another who was present, and graphically describes the scene. The prisoner was accused by Lord Ruthven, the Justice-Clerk, and Mr. George Buchanan.
[27] This letter is given in the Appendix I was fortunate enough to find it in the State Paper Office.
[28] Empty.
[29] Gate.
[30] Drury to Cecil, State Papers, Foreign, Eliz., Vol. cxvi., No. 1062, Appendix. The following is from the records of the third report of the Commission on Historical MSS. “Letter by King James VI., with consent of Mat. Earl of Lennax, Regent, to his Sheriffs, to charge the keepers of the Abbey and Place of Paisley to surrender the saide Abbey, with their own persons, into the hands of Thomas Crawfurd, or else to put into the hands of the said Erle of Lennax, Regent of the Kingdom, Robert, Lord Sempill, together with the said Place, before ten o'clock on the following day, under an assurance that all the persons therein would be set at liberty excepting those who were suspected of the murder of Henry, Lord Darnley, his Majesty's father, 15th February, 1570.”
[31] The Archbishop complains bitterly of the treatment his followers received (see letter in Appendix). The following are the names of some of those captured at the “taking of Paisley”:—John Hamilton, junior, Paris Hamilton, William Schirlaw, William Donaldsone, John Arbuckle, George Naismith, John Hastie, Thomas Toucht, Donald Schirar, Sir Thomas Dickson, granter of Paisley ; Michael Hamilton, and John Walker. The last two being convicted were taken to the gallows and got their lives. The sons of Andrew Hamilton of the Cochnacht (Cochno) were put in ward. Diurnal of Occurrents, p. 201. The latter attempted to escape (Ibid. 217), and were afterwards beheaded (Ibid. 223).
[32] Buchanan's History of Scotland, p. 266. There is an uncertainty about the date of the capture of Dumbarton, and the Archbishop's execution. I have followed the narrative in the “Diurnal of Occurrents,” as the writer was evidently present himself at the latter event. The letter to the English Queen is noticed doubtfully in some of the accounts. I have given it in the Appendix.