text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 26.djvu/141

 Conquest of the flourishing Kingdom of the Tartars, with an exact account of the other Affairs of China,’ London, 1655. After the Restoration appeared several unimportant papers by him in the ‘Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society,’ and two small treatises on making ‘Salt Peter’ and ‘Gunpowder.’ He edited with an epistle to the reader Dr. Stephen Skinner's ‘Etymologicon Linguæ Anglicanæ,’ 1671, and is referred to in the preface to Elias Ashmole's ‘Way to Bliss’ (printed 1658) as an expert in the occult science of the time.

HENSLOW, JOHN STEVENS (1796–1861), botanist, the eldest of eleven children of John Prentis Henslow, a solicitor, was born at Rochester 6 Feb. 1796. Sir John Henslow, chief surveyor of the navy, was his grandfather. Henslow, who apparently inherited a taste for natural history from both his parents, was educated first at Rochester free grammar school and afterwards under the Rev. W. Jephson at Camberwell. In 1814 he entered St. John's College, Cambridge. Though already devoted to natural history, especially entomology and conchology, and studying chemistry under Cumming and mineralogy under E. D. Clarke, he graduated as sixteenth wrangler in 1818, proceeding M.A. in 1821. He became a fellow of the Linnean Society in 1818, and of the Geological Society in 1819. During the Easter vacation of the latter year he accompanied Adam Sedgwick, an intimate friend through life, on a geological tour in the Isle of Wight. This led to their co-operation in founding the Cambridge Philosophical Society. In the long vacation of 1819 Henslow took some of his pupils to the Isle of Man, and the geology of the island formed the subject of his first paper, which appeared in the ‘Transactions’ of the Geological Society. Similarly, in 1821, he explored Anglesea, describing it in the ‘Transactions’ of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. In 1822 he succeeded Dr. [q. v.] as professor of mineralogy at Cambridge, and in 1824 was ordained deacon and priest, becoming curate of St. Mary the Less, Cambridge. On the death in 1827 of Thomas Martyn, in whose hands the professorship of botany had for thirty years been a sinecure, Henslow was appointed to the chair. He shortly afterwards resigned the professorship of mineralogy, and held the botanical chair for the remainder of his life. His enthusiasm rendered botany a popular subject in the university, and his excursions and soirées were attended by men of various tastes, Darwin, Berkeley, and Babington being among his pupils. Darwin, his favourite pupil, always expressed the highest regard for him. He recommended Darwin as naturalist for the Beagle, and during the five years of the voyage took charge of all the specimens sent home. So far as Henslow's own work was concerned, the chief fruit of the expedition was a ‘Florula Keelingensis,’ published in the ‘Annals of Natural History’ for 1838.

In 1832 Henslow was appointed vicar of Cholsey, Berkshire, but only resided at that place during the long vacations. In 1837 he was presented to the crown living of Hitcham, Suffolk, and in 1839 left Cambridge for that place. He had taken an active part in politics at Cambridge as a follower of Palmerston, and now turned his energies to the reform of a most neglected parish. In spite of farmers' opposition, he established schools, into which he introduced the voluntary study of botany with signal success, benefit clubs, cricket and athletic clubs, allotments, horticultural-shows, and parish excursions. At the half-yearly flower-shows he was in the habit of delivering most effectively simple ‘lecturets,’ as he termed them, mainly on some of the specimens in his varied collection of economic products. On the occasion of the parish excursions, substituted by him for the orgies known as ‘tithe dinners,’ he accompanied his parishioners to Ipswich, Cambridge, Norwich, and to the London exhibition of 1851. He further showed his interest in their well-being by the publication in 1843 of his ‘Letters to the Farmers of Suffolk,’ dealing with the economic application of manures and other practical teachings of physiology. In the same year he made the important discovery of the valuable beds of phosphatic nodules in the Suffolk Crag. Henslow was an active member of the British Association from 1832, presiding, among other occasions, over the natural history section at the heated discussion on the ‘Origin of Species’ at Oxford in the last year of his life. He was a member of the senate of London University from 1836, and as examiner in botany from 1838 insisted upon the necessity of a practical knowledge of the subject. In 1848 he took an active part in the foundation of the Ipswich Museum, a type of what a local museum should be, and acted as president of the managing committee from 1850. For the first Paris exhibition he prepared a series of specimens illustrative of the structure of fruits, for which he received a medal, a duplicate of which is now at South Kensington. At his death his large collections


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 26.djvu/142

 were mainly divided between Ipswich, Cambridge, and Kew museums. He had greatly assisted Sir W. J. Hooker in the formation of the museums at Kew. After Darwin published his ‘Origin of Species’ in 1859, Henslow visited him at Down. ‘Henslow will go a very little way with me and is not shocked at me,’ wrote Darwin to Asa Gray (18 Feb. 1860). Henslow died at Hitcham on 16 May 1861. Adam Sedgwick attended his deathbed. Henslow was buried in Hitcham churchyard. He married in 1823 Harriet, daughter of the Rev. George Jenyns of Bottisham, Cambridgeshire; she died in 1857. He left two sons, Leonard and George, both clergymen; and three daughters, Frances, the first wife of Dr. (now Sir) J. D. Hooker; Anne, married to Major Barnard; and Louisa. There is a marble bust of Henslow by Woolner in the Kew Museum, and a lithograph portrait by Maguire in the Ipswich Museum series. The name Henslovia was given to a genus of plants now referred to Lythraceæ, and Henslowia of Wallich is a genus of Santalaceæ.

Among Henslow's chief publications are: 1. ‘Catalogue of British Plants,’ 1829; 2nd edit., 1835. 2. ‘Principles of Descriptive and Physiological Botany,’ 1836, in Lardner's ‘Cabinet Cyclopædia.’ 3. An ‘Account of Roman Antiquities found at Rougham,’ 1843, now a scarce pamphlet. 4. ‘Dictionary of Botanical Terms,’ 1857, originally issued in Maund's ‘Botanic Garden.’ 5. Nine botanical diagrams issued by the Science and Art Department in 1857. His name was put on the title of a ‘Flora of Suffolk’ issued in 1860 by Edmund Skepper, without his consent, he being merely a contributor. The successful ‘Elementary Lessons in Botany’ by Professor D. Oliver (1863) is professedly based upon work left in manuscript by Henslow.

HENSLOWE, PHILIP (d. 1616), theatrical manager, was fourth son of Edmund Henslowe of Lindfield, Sussex, who was in 1540 master of the game in Ashdown Forest and Broil Park. His mother's name was Margaret Ridge; his father's family came from Devonshire. Philip's earliest employment was as servant to one Woodward, bailiff to Viscount Montague, whose property included Battle Abbey and Cowdray in Sussex, and Montague House in Southwark. Henslowe's duties led him to settle in Southwark before 1577; in that year he was living there in the liberty of the Clink, and on the death of his master Woodward he married Agnes, Woodward's widow, with whom he obtained considerable property. He remained at Southwark till his death. From the first he showed a marked aptitude for commerce, and engaged in various trades. Between 1576 and 1586 he negotiated the sale of much wood in Ashdown Forest. On 14 June 1584 he was concerned in the purchase and dressing of goat-skins, and was for many years described as a dyer. He also manufactured starch, and practised pawnbroking and money-lending. In 1593 he bought land at Buxted, where his only sister Margaret and her husband Ralph Hogge, an ironfounder, were settled, and he subsequently obtained property at East Grinstead.

But Henslowe was chiefly occupied in the purchase and superintendence of house-property in Southwark. He owned many inns, including the Boar's Head, and several lodging-houses, some of which were undoubtedly used for immoral purposes. Chettle denounced him as a landlord who was unscrupulously harsh to poor tenants. He obtained much influence in the parish, was a regular communicant at church, was a vestryman from 1607, and churchwarden in 1608. He helped to assess a subsidy in the liberty of the Clink in 1608–9, and was selected with four other ‘ancients’ in 1613 to purchase ‘of the court’ the rectory of St. Saviour's. In 1604 he was in receipt of 20l. a year for providing a ‘dock and yard’ for the king's barges (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1603–10, p. 228), and managed to obtain some small offices about the court, becoming groom of the royal chamber in 1593, and sewer of the chamber in 1603. On 30 Dec. 1604 he and another were granted the reversion of the bailiwick of Hinckford and Barstable, Essex (ib. p. 180). His own residence was on the river bank between the Clink prison and an inn called the Bell.

Henslowe's chief claim to distinction lies in his relations with theatrical property in Southwark and elsewhere. On 24 March 1584–5 he purchased the land close by the southern end of the modern Southwark Bridge, on which already stood a playhouse called the Little Rose. On 16 Jan. 1586–7 he and one Cholmley arranged for the rebuilding of the theatre and the erection of a refreshment-room in its neighbourhood. The new Rose playhouse was doubtless opened soon afterwards, and its financial management was in Henslowe's hands. On 17 Feb. 1592, when his extant account-books begin, Lord Strange's company was performing at the

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 26.djvu/143

 Rose, and that or other companies occupied it almost continuously till 1603, when a quarrel between Henslowe and the ground landlord led him to close his connection with the house. He threatened to demolish it at the time. Meanwhile, he managed the theatre at Newington Butts when the lord admiral's and lord chamberlain's companies were acting together there in 1594. Towards the close of the century he seems to have taken some part in the management of the Swan Theatre, which, like the Rose, was on the Bankside. On 15 Oct. 1592 his step-daughter, Joan Woodward, had married Edward Alleyn the actor [q. v.], and his relations with Alleyn in business and in private life were thenceforth very close. On 26 Sept. 1598 an interesting extant letter from him to Alleyn, who was then in the country, mentions the murder by Ben Jonson of Gabriel Spencer, a member of Alleyn's company. In 1600 he and Alleyn built a new theatre called the Fortune in Golden Lane, Cripplegate Without. It was square in shape, was the largest playhouse of the time, and was opened in November 1600. Until his death Henslowe actively interested himself in the affairs of the Fortune, which was subsequently burnt down (9 Dec. 1621).

Henslowe and Alleyn were also connected with less elevated entertainments. In December 1594 they secured a substantial interest in the Paris Garden, devoted to bear-baiting, on the Bankside. They failed in 1598 in a joint application for the mastership of the royal game of bears, bulls, and mastiff dogs, but purchased the office from the holder in 1604, and secured a patent in their favour on 24 Nov. in that year. Many bears and lions belonging to the crown were thenceforth entrusted to their care (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 20 March 1611). In February 1610–11 Alleyn sold to Henslowe his interest in the Bear Garden, and on 29 April 1613 Henslowe and a new partner, Jacob Meade, ‘waterman,’ arranged for the demolition of the existing buildings, and for the erection of a new building, to be called the Hope, fitted for stage-plays, as well as for bull- and bear-baiting exhibitions. A new inn called the Dancing Bears was erected at the same time in the Garden, and there Meade resided. He, rather than Henslowe, managed the new Hope playhouse.

During Henslowe's tenure of the Rose and Fortune theatres plays by many of the leading Elizabethan dramatists were first put on the stage, and he was in intimate relations with the authors. His extant account-book proves that he bought plays direct from the authors, and hired them out at a profit, together with the necessary properties, to various acting companies. Among those who sold their works to him were Dekker, Drayton, Chapman, Chettle, Day, and Rowley. The highest price paid by him for a play before 1600 was 6l.; after that date the price sometimes rose to 10l., but in many cases four, five, or even six authors were concerned in the composition, and shared in the emolument. The receipts, inserted in the extant diary, of moneys paid to dramatists by Henslowe are signed, and in some instances fully written out, by the recipients themselves, and thus some unique autographs are preserved. Henslowe often lent the authors small sums of money on account of promised work, and invariably kept them in humiliating subjection to himself. He always looked carefully after his security. Frances, wife of Robert Daborne [q. v.], one of his most needy clients, stated at the time of Henslowe's death that he had in his possession all Daborne's manuscripts, together with a bond for 20l. as security for some loan; these Henslowe restored a few hours before he died.

Fully two-thirds of the plays mentioned by Henslowe as being acted under his management are now lost. Although plays by Marlowe, Chapman, and Dekker were repeatedly performed at his theatres, no play mentioned by him can be identified with any by Shakespeare. Shakespeare belonged to and wrote almost solely for the lord chamberlain's company of players, and that company only on one occasion came into contact with Henslowe or his theatres, namely, in 1594. The lord chamberlain's men then combined with the lord admiral's men, a company always more or less associated with Henslowe, to give some performances under Henslowe's management at the theatre in Newington Butts.

Henslowe died on 6 Jan. 1615–16, and was buried in the chancel of St. Saviour's Church, Southwark, on 10 Jan. 1615–16, ‘with an afternoon knell of the church bell.’ By his will, dated 5 Jan. 1615–16, he left all his lands and tenements to Agnes, his wife, whom he admits not to have used very well, although he derived much of his fortune from her. The overseers of his will were Edward Alleyn, Robert Bromfield, William Austin (1587–1634) [q. v.], and Roger Cole. The will was disputed by Henslowe's nephew, John Henslowe, but depositions made by witnesses in connection with the dispute agree that, although Henslowe was suffering from the palsy, his mind was quite clear to the last.

The volume containing Henslowe's diary and accounts, with many of his letters and other papers relating to him, is now preserved in Dulwich College library. The diary deals mainly with the expenses of his management


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 26.djvu/144

 of the Rose and Fortune theatres between 1592 and 1603, but interspersed are memoranda, dated both earlier and later, of other commercial transactions, especially of his loans as money-lender or pawnbroker to the general public as well as to dramatists. Almost the whole is in his own crabbed handwriting, and the spelling is singularly bad. The theatrical entries between 1592 and 1597 supply the names of the plays performed at his theatres, with the dates of performance and his share of the receipts. After 1597 he added to the names of the plays only the sums advanced by him to authors, actors, or property-makers. The diary and some of the letters and papers were borrowed from the college about 1790 by Malone, who printed valuable extracts in his ‘Historical Account’ prefixed to the ‘Variorum Shakespeare.’ James Boswell the younger, Malone's literary executor, returned the volume to the college in 1812, but some of the inventories of Henslowe's theatrical properties and the like which Malone printed are now missing from the college library. The diary was (probably after Boswell returned it to Dulwich) much mutilated, chiefly by the excision of narrow slips. One of these cuttings, containing genuine signatures of George Chapman and Thomas Dekker, was purchased at a sale, and is now in Brit. Mus. Addit. MS. 30262. The diary was first printed at length by Mr. J. P. Collier for the Shakespeare Society in 1845, but while Collier had access to this and the other theatrical documents preserved at Dulwich, several forged entries were interpolated in the manuscript diary, and appear in the printed edition. Mr. G. F. Warner, in his ‘Catalogue of the Dulwich MSS.,’ pointed out forgeries which introduce the names of Nashe, Webster, and other dramatists. A letter at Dulwich purporting to be written by Marston to Henslowe is also a forgery.

HENSMAN, JOHN (1780–1864), divine, son of Thomas and Anne Hensman, born at Bedford on 22 Sept. 1780, was educated at Bedford grammar school, whence he proceeded with an exhibition to Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, in 1797. Ninth wrangler in 1801, he was elected a fellow. Taking orders, he for a time assisted the Rev. Charles Simeon at Cambridge. In 1803 he became curate to James Vaughan, rector of Wraxall, Somerset, and married his rector's sister, Elizabeth, on 16 Sept. 1808. The next year he went to Clifton, near Bristol, as curate in charge of the parish church, the living being at that time under sequestration. Clifton had then only one small church with a chapel of ease in Dowry Square, and was little more than a village with a few wealthy inhabitants. During the next few years it increased rapidly, and, chiefly owing to Hensman's exertions, the old church, which had been rebuilt in the seventeenth century, was replaced by the present parish church, consecrated on 12 Aug. 1822. When in the course of that year the sequestration was removed and the incumbent returned, Hensman, at the bishop's request, took charge of Dowry Chapel as curate. In 1830 his friends built Trinity Church, Hotwells, for him; it was consecrated on 10 Nov. He held the incumbency from 10 Jan. following till 8 Oct. 1844, when he accepted the perpetual curacy of Christ Church, Clifton; the church here was built for him. In March 1847 he was instituted to the living of Clifton on his own presentation. He was instrumental in building St. Paul's Church, consecrated on 8 Nov. 1853, and St. Peter's, consecrated 10 Aug. 1855. On the completion of fifty years of his Clifton ministry, a chapel of ease was built as a memorial of him, and was consecrated in December 1862. He was for some years an hon. canon of Bristol Cathedral. He died at Clifton on 23 April 1864, exactly fifty-five years from the day on which he preached his first sermon at Clifton. He was buried at Wraxall. Hensman was highly esteemed, not only in his parish and in the adjoining city of Bristol, but more widely as one of the wisest and oldest members of the evangelical party. He declined all part in controversy, nor did he in his sermons, which were persuasive rather than eloquent, ever touch on any disputes about doctrine or practice. He was always gentle and forbearing. His wife predeceased him in November 1860. He left one daughter, Harriet, married to her cousin, the Rev. Edward P. Vaughan, rector of Wraxall.

HENSON, GRAVENER (1785–1852), commercial historian, was born in 1785 in humble circumstances at Nottingham. His education was scanty, but hard study and a retentive memory enabled him to acquire much valuable information, including an accurate knowledge of the commercial law of England and France. While still young he


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 26.djvu/145

 was engaged in the hosiery trade, and became familiar with the inventors then busy in improving the stocking-frame. He began a ‘Civil, Political, and Mechanical History of the Framework-Knitting and Lace Trades,’ of which the first volume appeared in 1831. It stopped from want of support. Felkin says that he had ‘a practical knowledge of most kinds of looms, and describes them correctly, though in a technical manner.’ In 1828 he had published a list of a hundred inventions and alterations in the stocking and lace machines, and he left behind him at his death the manuscripts of ‘Notes of Inventions and Improvements of Lace Machines down to the year 1850.’ He wrote voluminously upon local trade, the claims of workmen, combination laws, and other kindred subjects. He wandered about the coast of England, Scotland, and of northern France, discovering and exposing the tricks of the smugglers. He gave valuable parliamentary evidence on his own subjects, but was more than once imprisoned for complicity in the Luddite riots. He died in poverty at Nottingham in 1852.

 HENSTRIDGE, DANIEL (d. 1736), organist and composer, was organist of Rochester Cathedral for some years until 1700, when he succeeded Nicholas Wootton as organist of Canterbury Cathedral. Of his anthems very little besides a few organ parts still exist. Henstridge died in 1736, and was buried on 4 June in Canterbury Cathedral.

In a collection of manuscript anthems made by Flackton, a Canterbury bookseller, and preserved in the British Museum Library, are several compositions by Henstridge. They include three hymns and an anthem in E minor for three voices, ‘Hear me when I call’ (Addit. MS. 30932, Nos. 100, 101), in the handwriting of the composer; the organ part of his ‘Morning and Evening Service in D;’ and an anthem, ‘The Lord is King’ (Addit. MS. 30933, Nos. 20, 21).

 HENTON or HEINTON, SIMON (fl. 1360), Dominican, born at Henton, near Winchester, became a Dominican friar, and eventually provincial of the order in England. He wrote commentaries on the books of Proverbs, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the four greater prophets, and Job, besides treatises on the Ten Commandments, the Articles of the Faith, and the Cross of Christ. All these works have perished. The treatise on the Articles of the Faith and the commentary on Job were once in the library at St. Paul's (, Hist. of St. Paul's, pp. 277, 282). Henton's ‘Moralia’ or ‘Postillæ’ on the twelve minor prophets are preserved in New College MS. 45 (, Cat. MSS. Coll. Aul. Oxon. i. 12, 13). Bernard (Cat. MSS. Angl. et Hib. pt. iii. No. 736) mentions a manuscript which contains ‘excerpta ex summa Fratris Symonis de Heintun.’

 HENTY, EDWARD (1809–1878), pioneer of Victoria, sixth son of Thomas Henty of West Tarring, Sussex, was born there on 10 March 1809. His father, a landowner, induced by the offer of a large grant of land, sent out three of Edward's elder brothers in 1829 to the Swan River in Western Australia. They removed thence to Launceston in Van Diemen's Land, where Edward, with the rest of the family, joined them; but they soon returned to the continent. Edward Henty touched at Portland Bay in July 1833, and settled there on 19 Nov. 1834 with stock and boats to form a whaling establishment, thus inaugurating the first permanent settlement in what is now Victoria. Several of his brothers followed him, and when Major (afterwards Sir Thomas) Mitchell the explorer came from Sydney down the valley of the Wannon and Glenelg in 1836, he found a small but prosperous colony at Portland. By Mitchell's advice Henty and his brothers pushed inland, and obtained possession of great sheep-runs. Besides managing a very large estate, Henty carried on business as a merchant. The whole family were careful to improve the breed of sheep. In 1856 Henty was elected to represent Normanby in the Legislative Assembly, but was defeated at the election of 1861. During the last years of his life he resided at Offington, St. Kilda Road, Melbourne, and died there on 14 Aug. 1878.

 HENWOOD, WILLIAM JORY (1805–1875), mineralogist, was born at Perron Wharf, Cornwall, 16 Jan. 1805. He came of an old Cornish family settled at Levalsa in St. Ewe; but his grandfather having lost considerably in the Huel Mexico, the first Cornish silver mine, Henwood's father, John Henwood, and, from 1822 to 1827, Henwood himself, acted as clerk to Messrs. Fox & Co. of Perron Wharf. While here he began the


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 26.djvu/146

 study of metalliferous deposits, his first paper being read before the Royal Geological Society of Cornwall in 1826. From 1832 to 1838 Henwood was assay-master and supervisor of tin for the duchy of Cornwall, and in 1837 he received the Telford medal of the Institution of Civil Engineers for a paper on pumping-engines. He became a fellow of the Geological Society in 1828, and of the Royal Society in 1840. In 1843 he took charge of the Gongo-Soco mines in Brazil, where he paid much attention to bettering the condition of the slaves. In 1855 Henwood proceeded to India to report on the metals of Kumson and Gurhwal for the Indian government; and in 1858, his health having been impaired, he retired from active work and settled at Penzance. In 1869 he was elected president of the Royal Institution of Cornwall, and in 1874 he was awarded the Murchison medal of the Geological Society. Henwood died unmarried at Penzance, 5 Aug. 1875.

In his earlier researches Henwood was assisted by a subscription raised by the gentry of Cornwall, his results being published by the local geological society. The fifth volume of their ‘Transactions,’ 1843, 512 pp., with 125 plates, is entirely devoted to his observations ‘On the Metalliferous Deposits of Cornwall and Devon, … Subterranean Temperature … Water … and Electric Currents,’ and the still larger eighth volume (1871) contained his account of foreign deposits. Fifty-five papers by him are enumerated in the Royal Society's ‘Catalogue’ (iii. 298–300), and some additional ones are mentioned in Boase and Courtney's ‘Bibliotheca Cornubiensis.’ The name ‘Henwoodite’ has been bestowed in his honour upon a hydrous phosphate of aluminium and copper.

HEPBURN, FRANCIS or FRANCIS KER (1779–1835), major-general, born 19 Aug. 1779, was second son of Colonel David Hepburn of the 39th foot and 105th highlanders, by his wife Bertha Graham of the family of Inchbrakie, Perthshire. His grandfather, James Hepburn of Brecarton and Keith Marshall, spent his fortune in the Stuart cause. Francis was appointed ensign in the 3rd foot-guards (now Scots Guards) 17 Dec. 1794; became lieutenant and captain 23 April 1798; captain and lieutenant-colonel 23 July 1807; brevet colonel 4 June 1814; regimental 2nd major 25 July 1814; and major-general 19 July 1821. He served with his regiment in Ireland in 1798 and in Holland in 1799; was aide-de-camp to General [q. v.] at Colchester, and afterwards in Malta and Sicily; but was laid up with fever and ophthalmia during the descent on Calabria and battle of Maida. He joined his battalion at Cadiz in 1809, and his leg was shattered at the battle of Barossa 5 March 1811. He refused to submit to amputation, and by the autumn of 1812 had recovered sufficiently to rejoin his battalion, although his wound remained open and caused frequent and severe suffering during the subsequent campaigns. He was placed in command of the detached light companies of the Coldstream and 3rd Guards in 1812; was present at Vittoria, Nivelle, and the Nive; and at the end of 1813 was ordered home to assume command of the 2nd battalion of his regiment in the expedition to Holland. Delayed by contrary winds, he arrived after the expedition had sailed, but followed the battalion to the Low Countries, and commanded it there during the winter of 1814–15. He joined the Duke of Wellington's army in April 1815. Hepburn was in temporary command of the 2nd brigade of guards until the arrival of Sir [q. v.] in May. He commanded his battalion at Quatre Bras and Waterloo. The light company of the battalion was sent with other troops under Lord Saltoun to occupy Hugoumont on the night of 17 June. Other companies of the battalion were sent to reinforce the post soon after the battle had commenced next day, and later Hepburn was sent with the rest of the battalion, when he took command of the troops posted in the orchard of the chateau, an important service, the credit of which, by some official blunder, was given to a junior officer, Colonel Hume. The mistake was explained officially, but never notified publicly, and, it is said, was the means of depriving Hepburn of the higher honours awarded to other senior officers of the division of guards. Hepburn was made C.B., and had the fourth-class decorations of the Netherlands Lion and St. Alexander Nevski in Russia. He married in 1821 Henrietta, eldest daughter and coheiress of Sir Henry Poole, last baronet of Poole Hall, Cheshire, and Hook, Sussex, by whom he had two sons and a daughter. He died at Tunbridge Wells on 7 June 1835, aged 56 years.

HEPBURN, FRANCIS STEWART, fifth (d. 1624), was the eldest son of John Stewart, prior of Coldingham, one of the illegitimate children of James V, and brother of the regent Moray. Bothwell's mother was Lady Jane Hepburn,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 26.djvu/147

 only daughter of the third earl, and sister of James, the fourth earl [q. v.] On 29 July 1576—it being wrongly supposed that his uncle the fourth earl, a captive in Denmark, was then dead—he was created Earl of Bothwell, and appointed to many of his uncle's offices, including those of lord high admiral of Scotland, sheriff of Edinburgh and within the county of Haddington, and sheriff of the county of Berwick and balliary of Lauderdale. Bothwell attended the parliament held in Morton's interest at Stirling on 15 July 1578, and was one of those who bore the royal robe in the procession to and from the great hall (, Memoirs, p. 12). His support of Morton [see (d. 1581)] is possibly traceable as much to his relationship to the regent Moray as to the fact that he had married Lady Margaret Douglas, eldest daughter of Morton's near relative, David, seventh earl of Angus, and widow of Sir Walter Scott of Buccleugh. It was perhaps to escape being involved too closely in Morton's fortunes that he went to the continent about 1580. He was presumably there when his wife, on 15 Dec. 1580, presented a petition in reference to great ‘spuilzes’ committed against her by the borderers (Reg. P. C. Scotl. iii. 335). A second petition to a like effect was presented 3 Feb. 1581–2 (ib. p. 441). On 4 April 1580–1 his mother petitioned the privy council (1) for an assurance that her own property might be duly transmitted to her son; and that (2) ‘her said sone, now in his absence,’ might retain all the ‘qualities appertenit of befoir to the Erlis Borthuile’ (ib. p. 371). The fall of Morton had perhaps rendered Bothwell's position somewhat insecure. The king granted the petition. After the execution of Morton (2 June 1581), Bothwell landed at Newhaven, near Leith, on 26 July (, Memoirs, p. 37; or 27th according to, iii. 634), on his way from France.

Immediately after landing Bothwell had an interview with some of the leading ministers of Edinburgh, by whom he was ‘well informed of the estate both of the Kirk and country’ (ib. iii. 634). He undertook to represent their interests at court. As the nephew of the regent Moray he was regarded by many ministers as the hereditary champion of their cause. It was in this rôle, for which he was peculiarly unfitted, that he persisted in posing before them. He resembled the fourth Earl of Bothwell in his dissolute and lawless conduct, although he lacked his virile strength; and his indecorous acts rendered his relations to the kirk singularly grotesque. The king regarded him with a curious mixture of partiality and dislike, the latter doubtless created by fear, and soon predominating. Gradually the king became possessed of the idea that Bothwell's ultimate aim was to be his rival: that, in his intrigues with the kirk, he was following in the footsteps of the regent Moray, and seeking to injure the prerogatives of the crown. There were misunderstandings on both sides; but probably, had each fully gauged the intentions of the other, their relations would not have been materially improved. As it was, Bothwell became the ‘stormy petrel of politics,’ the only character in which he could have obtained any support from the nobility. There is no evidence that he intended any serious revolutionary movement. His ‘incursions and alarms’ only aimed at inducing the king to come to terms with him after their alienation.

For some time after his arrival from France Bothwell enjoyed the king's special friendship. After his interview with the ministers of Edinburgh he proceeded, on 29 June 1582, to the king at Perth, where, according to Moysie, he ‘was heartily welcomed’ (Memoirs, p. 37). At this period Lennox and Arran, the king's favourites, thought to make Bothwell their subservient tool. According to Calderwood, they foresaw that Bothwell might be induced by his wife's influence to favour the Douglases, and they sought to sow discord between them by raising slanders against her (History, iii. 634). But they failed to win Bothwell. Although he took no active part in the protestant conspiracy against Lennox and Arran of 22 Aug., known as the Raid of Ruthven, his name was attached to the band, and he associated on intimate terms with its principal members. Meanwhile, under the new protestant régime, he exercised considerable influence in the king's counsels. It was chiefly through his persuasion—‘for nothing,’ says Calderwood, ‘of importance which might serve for furtherance of the Lord's cause was obtained without his procurement’ (iii. 649)—that the king consented to sign the proclamation ‘touching the liberty of the assembly of the kirk and free preaching of the word.’ He also appeared before the assembly of October, and ‘professed that he would live and die in the reformed religion professed within this realm’ (ib. iii. 689).

After the counter-revolution of 27 June 1583, and the king's sudden withdrawal to St. Andrews, the protestant ascendency at court was for a time ended, and Bothwell's influence was greatly diminished. Angus sent for Bothwell to accompany him to St. Andrews; but when within six miles of the town they were met by a herald, forbidding them to come with armed men into the city.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 26.djvu/148

 They advanced alone, and, though cordially received by the king, were commanded to return home (ib. iii. 715). Nevertheless, Bothwell still retained the royal favour. James was as yet ignorant of his connection with the Ruthven raid. On 28 Nov. a serious brawl occurred between Bothwell and Lord Home [see, first , d. 1619] in the streets of Edinburgh, and the same evening, ‘after the king had been hanging about his neck’ (ib. iii. 759), he was ordered into ward in the palace of Linlithgow. But this order was countermanded, and he was directed to return to his own house, from which the king sent for him and upbraided him for his connection with the Ruthven raid. Bothwell and the king were never again on the old cordial terms; but in any case Bothwell's position must have been insecure so long as the king was under Arran's influence.

Bothwell was a strenuous supporter of the conspiracy devised by the Master of Gray [see, seventh ] for the overthrow of Arran in 1585. The dispute between him and Lord Home had been settled by both coming under an obligation in 10,000l. to keep the peace towards each other (Reg. P. C. Scotl. iii. 616, 634), and now the two co-operated in fortifying Kelso, which formed a temporary asylum for the banished lords on their arrival from England (Hist. James Sext, p. 214). It was thence that the insurgents marched suddenly towards Stirling. On their nearing the city Arran fled, and Bothwell was nominally restored to favour. He was one of the commissioners appointed on 19 June of the following year to conclude an offensive and defensive league with England; but on learning the news of the execution of Queen Mary in England (February 1587), he urged the king to undertake an invasion of England to avenge her death. He refused to put on mourning, declaring that the best ‘dule weed’ was a steel coat. Irritated against the Master of Gray on account of his unsuccessful embassy in Mary's behalf, he sided with Sir William Stewart against him, declaring Gray's accusations against Stewart to be false. As the brother of Arran, Sir William was, however, almost necessarily hostile to Bothwell. On 10 July 1588 they had a violent controversy in the king's presence at Holyrood (see, iv. 680). On the 30th they met each other with their companies in the High Street, when Stewart, after being stabbed by Bothwell with a rapier, was pursued by Bothwell's followers into a hollow cellar, and there despatched. Stewart's relationship with Arran made him unpopular with the nobles in power, and no notice was taken of the outrage by the king and council. On the following day Bothwell, as lord high admiral, was entrusted with the duty of taking measures to resist the threatened arrival of the Spanish Armada in Scotland. He performed the duty very unwillingly. He had advocated that instead of offering resistance to the Spaniards, advantage should be taken of their arrival to invade England, and avenge the death of the queen. The popish lords, availing themselves of his animosity against England, induced him to join the conspiracy for persuading the king of Spain to despatch a second armada against Elizabeth. To aid the scheme he raised a large force, ostensibly for an expedition to the North Isles, but in reality to co-operate with the Spaniards. He was present with the king when the intercepted letters inculpating Huntly and Errol in the conspiracy were opened. The growth of the influence of the chancellor Maitland, who was now installed as the king's chief favourite, increased his discontent with his position at court. He joined Huntly and Errol, and raised a force to create a diversion during their rising in the north. The rebellion collapsed almost as soon as the king took the field. Two ministers of the kirk, Robert Hepburn and Robert Lindsay (, Memoirs, p. 76), interceded with the king for Bothwell, and promised to ‘bring him in’ on condition that his ‘life, lands, and goods were saved.’ To this the king agreed, but placed Bothwell under the charge of the captain of the guard. On 20 May 1589 he was examined before a committee of the council, when he denied that he ever intended ‘any practice against the king or religion,’ asserting that his sole reason for collecting a force was a private quarrel between him and the chancellor Maitland (, v. 57). He was placed in ward in Tantallon Castle, but with other nobles obtained his release in September ‘to attend upon the arriving of the queen’ from Denmark. The vessels conveying the queen were driven by a storm on the coast of Norway, whereupon the king at first proposed to send Bothwell, as lord high admiral, to bring her home at his own expense. He subsequently resolved, on the ground that Bothwell had already been put to great expense in connection with the marriage, to make the voyage himself (Reg. P. C. Scotl. iv. 428).

During the king's absence Bothwell was appointed to assist the Duke of Lennox as president of the privy council (ib. p. 425)—a position which did not satisfy his aim of obtaining supreme influence with the king. It was to the kirk's intercession that Bothwell


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 26.djvu/149

 owed his escape from the effects of his association with the catholic nobles; and as a proof of gratitude he ostentatiously made, on 9 Nov., a public repentance in the little kirk before noon, and in the great kirk after noon, promising to ‘prove another man in time coming’ (, v. 68). He was already busy with eccentric schemes to improve his position.

In January 1590–1 Agnes and Richie Graham, the former ‘the wise wife of Keith,’ who were burned at Edinburgh for the practice of sorcery, asserted that Bothwell had consulted them about the date of the king's death, and had bribed them to make use of their arts to raise storms during the king's voyage from Denmark. According to Sir James Melville, Bothwell, on learning the charge, surrendered himself for trial, hotly denying the veracity of the devil's ‘sworn witches.’ The author of the ‘History of James Sext’ asserts that Chancellor Maitland instigated the charge, and was so hated by the nobility that they several times refused to assemble for Bothwell's trial (p. 242). The weak point in Bothwell's case was, as he subsequently confessed, that he had consulted the witches, although only (he affirmed) in regard to his own fortunes, without any reference to the king. On the king the accusations of the witches against Bothwell produced a deep impression, and probably strengthened that peculiar dread of him by which the king was haunted. On 21 June Bothwell escaped from the castle to which he had been committed by bribing the master of the watch, a gentleman named Lauder. Shortly after his escape he appeared at the Nether Bow, and promised any man a crown who would bid the chancellor come and take him (, Memoirs, p. 86). On the 24th he was put to the horn, but as he appeared to possess the sympathy of the greater part of the nobility, all efforts to effect his capture failed. On 6 July certain border lairds swore to pursue him under Lord Home (Reg. P. C. Scotl. iv. 648). But Home himself, ‘to his Majesty's greater contempt,’ joined Bothwell, and the king, resolving to take the field against him in person, ordered a special levy to be raised. On the 4th Bothwell was denuded of all his offices and dignities, and his castles were seized. The king was informed that Bothwell ‘was still a fugitive,’ but on the 7th he desisted from ‘riding towartis the Bordouris at this time’ (ib. p. 668)

In October 1591 Bothwell, enticed, he affirmed, by the chancellor Maitland, reappeared at Leith; but an attempt to capture him on the 18th failed, ‘notwithstanding all the haste the king made,’ and in spite of Bothwell's loss of ‘his best horse called Valentine.’ Emboldened by the king's supineness Bothwell sought on the evening of 27 Dec. to capture Holyrood Palace, where the king and queen, with the chancellor Maitland, were then residing. He had the assistance of about forty southern lairds and others (see list in v. 141). Several within the palace knew of the plot. Entrance was gained by a back passage through the Duke of Lennox's stables. Bothwell's principal aim seems to have been the capture of Chancellor Maitland, and, according to Moysie, the intruders passed direct to the chancellor's door (Memoirs, p. 87). Alarmed by the cry of a boy, the chancellor withdrew to his inner chamber, and Bothwell, foiled for the moment, passed, after giving directions for breaking in the door of the apartment, towards the rooms of the king and queen. Failing to gain entry there, he is said to have called for fire. An inroad of the citizens, warned by the sound of the common bell, interrupted him. Overpowered by numbers, the conspirators extinguished the lights, and succeeded in the darkness in making their escape, with the exception of seven or eight, who were executed next morning. On 10 Jan. 1591–2 a proclamation was made against Bothwell, ‘thought to be penned by the king himself’ (, v. 144), in which a reward was offered to any that would kill him. Nevertheless he remained unhurt in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh, and on the 13th the king was nearly drowned in some boggy ground while riding eastward from Holyrood to apprehend him (ib.)

With a view to obtaining the intercession of the kirk, Bothwell in April 1592 wrote to the ministers of Edinburgh that his intrigue with the Spaniards was not directed against their religion, but intended solely to avenge the death of Queen Mary; and secondly, that his foolish consultation with witches never touched the king, it being impossible that he could ‘hate where both benefits and blood compelled him to love’ (Letter printed ib. pp. 150–6). Chancellor Maitland, a notorious enemy of the kirk, was, he added, the sole accuser of himself and Home, in the hope that by destroying them he, ‘a puddock stool of a night,’ might take the ‘place of two ancient cedars.’ About 8 April the king, on learning that Bothwell had crossed the Tay at Broughty on his way to Caithness, suddenly left Edinburgh for Dundee. At a meeting of the parliament on 29 May James denounced Bothwell, and asserted that he aspired to the throne, although he was ‘but a bastard, and could claim no title to the crown’ (ib. p. 161). In the same parliament sentence of forfeiture was passed against Bothwell.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 26.djvu/150

 Bothwell's stay in the north was short. Having learned ‘by secret advertisement of certain counties’ that the king was ‘at quietness at Falkland’ (Hist. of James Sext, p. 250), he surrounded the palace between one and two of the morning of 20 June 1592, but the king being warned by the watch, retired with his attendants to the tower, where he resisted till seven o'clock, when the country people in the neighbourhood flocked to his assistance, and put Bothwell to flight. On 2 July proclamation was made for the raising of a levy for his pursuit (Reg. P. C. Scotl. iv. 762), but nothing was accomplished. On 1 Aug. the lairds of Logie and Burley brought Bothwell secretly to the palace at Dalkeith, in order that he might be suddenly introduced into the king's presence to crave pardon, but the king was forewarned of their intention, and Bothwell was safely conveyed away (, v. 173). The Master of Gray also promised to get him ‘into the king's favour,’ but Bothwell feared treachery (ib. p. 190). On 9 Oct. the king headed another fruitless expedition to the borders to apprehend him. Probably Bothwell, when the king retired, followed closely in his wake, for on 3 Nov. the citizens of Edinburgh were summoned suddenly while at dinner by the common bell to search for him. The only result of the quest was the committal of one or two women to the common gaol for receiving him. The king, now at his wits' end, weakly issued a proclamation against introducing Bothwell into his presence. On 20 Nov. the Countess of Bothwell, who on the 17th had intercepted the king at the castle gate of Edinburgh ‘crying for Christ's sake that died on the cross for mercy to her and her spouse,’ was forbidden to enter the king's presence (Reg. P. C. Scotl. v. 23). As she and many of Bothwell's adherents still continued at large about Edinburgh, an order was given on 8 Dec. to the provost and magistrates of Edinburgh to apprehend them (ib. v. 26–7). On 1 Jan. 1592–3 Bothwell caused a placard to be affixed to the cross of Edinburgh and other places, informing the ministers of Edinburgh that his constancy to religion gave them no just cause to abhor him, although a declared rebel (, v. 232). This appeal produced no result, and finding no prospect of help he resolved to take refuge on the English side of the border. On learning this the king instructed Sir Robert Melville, who had gone on an embassy to England on 1 June, to persuade Elizabeth to deliver him up. Elizabeth assented. On 21 July sentence of forfeiture was passed against him by parliament, all his property being confiscated, and his arms riven at the cross of Edinburgh. His friends thereupon determined to make a special effort on his behalf. The Duke of Lennox and other noblemen secretly sympathised with him, on account of their jealousy of Maitland. On the evening of the 24th, after assembling their retainers in the neighbourhood of the palace, Bothwell in disguise was introduced into the king's chamber during his temporary absence. On returning the king found Bothwell on his knees, with his drawn sword laid before him, crying with a loud voice for pardon and mercy. The king called out ‘Treason!’ the citizens of Edinburgh hurried in battle array into the inner court; but the king, pacified by the assurances of those in attendance on him, commanded them to retire. Bothwell persisted that he did not come in ‘any manner of hostility, but in plain simplicity.’ To remove the king's manifest terror, he offered to depart immediately and remain in banishment, or in any other part of the country, till his day of trial. The king permitted him to leave, and an act of condonation and remission was passed in his favour (Reg. P. C. Scotl. v. 92–3), but, according to the author of the ‘History of James Sext’ (pp. 272–3), the king remained in ‘perpetual grief of mind,’ affirming that he was virtually the captive of Bothwell and the other noblemen who had abetted him. His suspicions were partly allayed by the intervention of Robert Bowes, the English ambassador, and others, but as his fears subsided he was less inclined to deal leniently with Bothwell. On 14 Aug. he signed an agreement, binding himself to pardon Bothwell and his adherents, and to restore them to their estates and honours, the agreement to be ratified by a parliament to be held in the following November (, v. 257–258); but at a convention held at Stirling on 8 Sept. an attempt was made to modify the bargain, it being set forth as a condition of Bothwell's restoration that he should remain beyond seas during the king's pleasure. Matters soon drifted into the old unsatisfactory condition. On the 22nd Bothwell and his supporters were forbidden to come within ten miles of the king, unless sent for, on pain of high treason. He, Atholl, and other nobles assembled notwithstanding in the beginning of October 1593 in arms near Linlithgow, where the king was staying, and on the 22nd he was summoned to appear before the council to answer the charge of high treason (Reg. P. C. Scotl. v. 100), and not appearing, was denounced.

The change in the king's policy is partly explained by the recall of Maitland, on whom alone the king could depend for


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 26.djvu/151

 co-operation against Bothwell. It being rumoured in March 1593–4 that Bothwell was assembling his friends and dependents, a proclamation was issued on the 27th for a levy of forces for his pursuit if need be (ib. p. 137), and on 2 April a second proclamation was issued for a muster at Stirling against him (ib. p. 138). Bothwell suddenly appeared with a powerful force in the neighbourhood of Leith. He proclaimed that he came to offer assistance against the Spaniards, whose landing, he said, was expected in a few days. His real object was to make a demonstration of his strength for the encouragement of his friends, and in the hope of bringing the king to terms. The king advanced against him from Edinburgh, and he retired slowly—‘as if none had come forth to pursue’—by the back of Arthur's Seat towards Dalkeith. On being charged by Lord Home's horse he had the best of the encounter, and it was supposed that he might, had he chosen, have captured the town. The king ‘came riding into Edinburgh at full gallop with little honour’ (, v. 297). Bothwell retired leisurely to Dalkeith, and thence to the borders. He sought refuge in England, but was forced to leave by command of Elizabeth. He had to choose between delivering himself up and joining the northern earls. In September he sent a letter to the ministers of Edinburgh, describing his friendliness and destitution, promising to adhere to his religion, and offering to put off his appointment for a conference with the catholic earls till the ministers had discussed measures for his relief (ib. v. 347). He was soon in the north under the protection of Huntly and Errol. On 25 Sept. he ‘cast into the kirkyard’ a letter to the ministers announcing his alliance with Huntly, but offering to do them any service in his power (ib.) On 23 Jan. 1594–5 Scot of Balwearie delivered up the treasonable correspondence into which Bothwell had entered in August with Huntly and the catholic earls (Reg. P. C. Scotl. v. 205). Huntly declined to surrender him, although offered a full pardon. But Bothwell's case was now desperate. His association with the catholic earls proved fatal. The king demanded his excommunication by the kirk, and although Bothwell wrote to the clergy of Edinburgh offering to receive their correction for whatever offence he had committed, he was on 18 Feb. excommunicated by the presbytery of Edinburgh at the king's command. Bothwell passed northward to Caithness, where he continued to lurk till the month of April. The king sought to bribe an acquaintance of Bothwell, Francis Tennant, a merchant of Edinburgh, to betray him, but Tennant as soon as he reached Bothwell revealed the king's purpose (Hist. of James Sext, p. 344). Tennant supplied him with a ship to convey him to Newhaven in Normandy, and in spite of James's demand for his surrender he was permitted to remain in France (ib. p. 345). Some months afterwards he removed to Spain, and finally went to Italy, where he spent his later years. He died in extreme poverty at Naples in 1624. The bulk of Bothwell's estates, including the lordship of Crichton and Liddesdale, came into the possession of his stepson, Sir Walter Scott of Buccleugh, while Lord Home obtained the priory of Coldingham, and Ker of Cessford the abbacy of Kelso. He had three sons and three daughters. The eldest son Francis obtained a rehabilitation under the great seal 30 July 1614, which was ratified by parliament 28 June 1633, but the title was never restored. John, the second son, was prior of Coldingham, and got the houses and baronies belonging to that priory united into a barony in 1621. Henry, the third son, also obtained a part of the lordship of Coldingham in 1621. Of the three daughters, Elizabeth married James, second son of William, first lord Cranstoun; Margaret married Alan, fifth lord Cathcart; and Helen married Macfarlane of Macfarlane.

HEPBURN, GEORGE BUCHAN (1739–1819), baron in the Scottish exchequer, son of John Buchan of Letham, East Lothian, by Elizabeth, daughter of Patrick Hepburn of Smeaton, was born in March 1739. He was educated at the university of Edinburgh, where Henry Dundas [q. v.], afterwards Viscount Melville, was among his intimate friends. He succeeded to the barony of Smeaton-Hepburn in 1764, and thereupon assumed the name and arms of Hepburn of Smeaton. In January 1763 he had been admitted a member of the Faculty of Advocates, Edinburgh, and from 1767 he was solicitor to the lords of session till 1790, when he was appointed judge of the high court of admiralty in Scotland. On 31 Dec. of the following year he was made baron of the exchequer. He retired in 1814, and on 6 May 1815 was created a baronet. He was the author of ‘The General View of the Agriculture and Rural Economy of East Lothian, with


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 26.djvu/152

 Observations on the Means of their Improvement,’ 1796. He died 3 July 1819, having married (1) Jane, eldest daughter of Alexander Leith of Glenkindy and Freefield, and (2) Margaretta Henrietta, daughter of John Zacharias Beck, and widow of Brigadier-general Fraser. By his first wife he had an only son, who succeeded him in the baronetcy.

HEPBURN, JAMES, fourth (1536?–1578), husband of Mary Queen of Scots, only son of Patrick, third earl of Bothwell [q. v.], by his wife Agnes, daughter of Henry Lord Sinclair, was born probably in 1536 or 1537. According to Buchanan (Detectio) he was brought up for the most part in the palace—Spynie Castle—of his relative Patrick Hepburn, bishop of Moray [q. v.], a circumstance to which Buchanan ascribes his unruly and vicious career. Under the care of the bishop he probably obtained a more complete education than was then customary in the case of the sons of Scottish nobles. His extant letters and other writings show him to have been well educated. Certain books on mathematics and on military affairs which bear his arms indicate that he had studied the art of war.

Notwithstanding the divorce of his father and mother in 1543 (probably on the ground of consanguinity), Bothwell, on the death of his father in September 1556, obtained unquestioned possession of the titles and estates, as well as the hereditary offices of lord high admiral of Scotland, sheriff of Berwick, Haddington, and Edinburgh, and also baillie of Lauderdale with the custody of the castles of Hailes and Crichton. His father had died reconciled to the queen-dowager; and Bothwell, though professedly a protestant, became one of the most consistent supporters of her policy, even after the revolt of the protestant nobles. On 14 Dec. 1557 he signed the act appointing commissioners for the betrothal of Queen Mary to the dauphin of France. Shortly afterwards, when some of the leading nobles, jealous of the French influence at the court, refused to obey the order of the queen-dowager to make a raid into England, Bothwell, ‘notwithstanding he was yan of very young aige’ (letter of Mary Stuart in, ii. 34), took command of the expedition, which, according to his own account, did ‘irreparable damage on the frontiers.’ From this time to the close of his life he appears as the consistent and irreconcilable enemy of England. Some time after Bothwell's early exploit against the English, negotiations were entered into for settling the differences on the borders. Bothwell, with other commissioners, met Sir James Croft, and on 17 Feb. 1558–9 an armistice was signed (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1558–9, entry 350). Bothwell was also one of those who, on 30 Aug., agreed to meet the Earl of Northumberland (ib. 1283), and signed the articles on 22 Sept. for reformation of all attempts upon the borders (ib. 1359). At the same time the English commissioners secretly agreed to supply the lords of the congregation with a sum of 3,000l. to aid them in the struggle with the queen-dowager. Cockburn, laird of Ormiston, was sent towards the end of October to convey the money from Berwick-on-Tweed. Bothwell apprehended him on 31 Oct., by order of the queen-dowager, near Dumpender Law, East Lothian, and carried off the treasure. Only three days previously he had sent Michael Balfour, one of his servants, to the lords of the congregation to ask for a safe-conduct that he might come and treat with them. As he had pledged himself meanwhile to do them no injury, they regarded his seizure of the money as an act of treachery. Bothwell carried the money and his prisoner to Crichton Castle. Immediately on learning the calamity, the Earl of Arran [see, third , 1530–1609] and Lord James Stuart set out to Crichton with two hundred horse, a hundred foot, and two pieces of artillery (State Papers, For. Ser. 1559–60, entry 183). Half an hour before they arrived, Bothwell was warned of their approach and fled with the money. His castle was taken and occupied by a garrison. Two days were given him to make restitution, and when he failed the castle was stripped of all its furniture (, Works, i. 459). On 9 Nov. he sent Arran a challenge to meet him on horseback or foot before ‘French or Scot;’ Arran replied that he could not meet him until ‘he had won back the name of an honest man, and in no case would he meet him before Frenchmen.’

After the lords of the congregation had temporarily evacuated Edinburgh, Bothwell and Lord Seton, on 24 Nov., entered Linlithgow, but hearing the common bell rung, hurriedly retreated, losing some weapons by the way (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1559–60, entry 352). In December Bothwell was appointed by the queen-dowager to the command of eight hundred French and Scots soldiers, with whom he was sent to secure Stirling. From a letter of his to the queen-dowager, 15 May 1560, it would appear that she had resolved to send him as a special ambassador to procure assistance from France. The enterprise was full of hazard, for a diligent watch was kept round all the coasts of Scot-


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 26.djvu/153

 land. On 7 June Randolph reported that Bothwell had gone north to ‘search’ a passage (ib. 1560–1, entry 172). He made good his escape, but probably before leaving he had learned of the death of the queen-dowager, which took place on 10 June. His mission thus became less urgent, and he went on a visit to Denmark. Writing to Cecil on 23 Sept. Randolph mentions a rumour that Bothwell had there married a wife with whom he obtained forty thousand yoendallers (ib. 1560–1, entry 550). The lady was doubtless Anne, daughter of a Norwegian nobleman, Christopher Thorssen, who with her father was at this time resident in Copenhagen. She subsequently complained that Bothwell had taken her from her father and relations, and would not hold her as his lawful wife, despite promises to them and her (document quoted in Life of Bothwell, Engl. transl., p. 54). Having been abandoned by Bothwell in the Netherlands, she was reduced to such straits that she had to dispose of her jewels. She visited Scotland, probably to obtain redress, in 1563; but all that is known of her visit is that in this year she received a passport from Queen Mary to permit her to return to Norway.

Bothwell was well received by the king of Denmark, who at his request conducted him through Jutland and the Duchy of Holstein. He arrived in Paris in the following September and received from the French king the appointment of gentleman of the chamber and a fee of six hundred crowns (, State Papers, p. 143). Mary, who was still in France, chose Bothwell one of her commissioners for holding the estates, and he set out for Scotland on 17 Nov. In announcing his departure to Elizabeth, Throckmorton, who describes him as ‘a glorious, rash, and hazardous young man,’ advises that his ‘adversaries should have an eye to him’ (State Papers, For. Ser. 1560–1, entry 737). Bothwell did not arrive in Edinburgh till February 1561 (ib. Scott. Ser. i. 169). It is often asserted that he soon returned again to France, but this is improbable if we accept Knox's statement that he had entered into a conspiracy to seize Edinburgh before the meeting of the parliament in May. Bothwell was one of the members of the privy council chosen on 6 Sept. after Mary's return to Scotland (Reg. P. C. Scotl. i. 157); but, having been forbidden to come to court on account of his differences with the Earl of Arran, he did not attend a meeting of the council till 13 Oct. On 11 Nov. he and Arran came under a mutual obligation to keep the peace till 1 Feb. 1562, and a similar arrangement was also made in regard to Bothwell's attitude towards Lord James Stuart and Cockburn of Ormiston. But Bothwell, with the French ambassador and Lord John Stuart of Coldingham, soon afterwards took part in an unseemly riot in Edinburgh, when they endeavoured to enter a merchant's house in search of a young woman, who was reputed to be the mistress of Arran. The riot induced the assembly of the kirk to present a supplication for the interference of the queen, who gave a ‘gentle answer until such time as the convention was dissolved’ (, ii. 318). The attempted outrage was followed by a causeway fight between the Hamiltons and the Hepburns, but when matters looked serious, Huntly and Lord James Stuart interfered in the name of the queen, and Bothwell was commanded to leave the city. Thereupon Bothwell sought the aid of Knox—whose ancestors were dependents of the earls of Bothwell—in making peace with the Earl of Arran. Reconciliation, he stated, would spare him expense, since he was obliged for his own safety to keep ‘a number of wicked and unprofitable men, to the utter destruction of my living that is left’ (ib. ii. 323). Knox had almost succeeded in effecting a reconciliation, when Bothwell, in an ambuscade with eight horsemen, seized Cockburn, and brought him to Crichton Castle. This outrage interrupted Knox's negotiations with Arran. But Bothwell soon sent back Cockburn, and Knox, having renewed negotiations with Arran, finally brought about a meeting between them in the lodging at Kirk-o'-Field. Here they had some friendly intercourse. On the morrow Bothwell went with Arran to hear Knox preach. Three days later Arran told Knox that Bothwell had proposed to him to carry off the queen to Dumbarton. Arran's manner, as Knox observed, bore evident signs of insanity. He was confined by his father in Kinnaird House, but escaped to Stirling, and was brought thence to the queen at Falkland, where he was placed in ward. Bothwell, having unwittingly come to the court at Falkland, was also imprisoned. From Falkland the two were brought to St. Andrews, where, after six weeks' confinement in the castle, they were on 4 May removed to Edinburgh. During the night of 28 Aug. Bothwell succeeded in breaking one of the iron bars of his prison window, and either escaped down the castle rock, or, according to another account, ‘got easy passage by the gates’ (ib. ii. 347). In any case he must have had the assistance of accomplices. Knox states that the queen was little offended at his escape.

Bothwell went to his own house at the Hermitage, and acted on Knox's advice to keep ‘good quietness,’ so that his crime of


text:
Page:Brundtland Report.djvu/177

 engineering projects; and energy planning - all based on the assumption that past climatic data, without modification, are a reliable guide to the future. This is no longer a good assumption'.

21. They estimated that if present trends continue, the combined concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would be equivalent to a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels, possibly as early as the 2030s, and could lead to a rise in global mean temperatures 'greater than any in man's history'. Current modelling studies and 'experiments' show a rise in globally averaged surface temperatures, for an effective CO2 doubling, of somewhere between 1.5°C and 4.5°C, with the warming becoming more pronounced at higher latitudes during winter than at the equator.

22. An important concern is that a global temperature rise of 1.5 - 4.5°C, with perhaps a two to three times greater warming at the poles, would lead to a sea level rise of 25-140 centimetres. A rise in the upper part of this range would inundate low-lying coastal cities and agricultural areas, and many countries could expect their economic, social, and political structures to be severely disrupted. It would also slow the 'atmospheric heat-engine' which is driven by the differences between equatorial and polar temperatures, thus influencing rainfall regimes. Experts believe that crop and forest boundaries will move to higher latitudes; the effects of warmer oceans on marine ecosystems or fisheries and food chains are also virtually unknown.

23. There is no way to prove that any of this will happen until it actually occurs. The key question is: How much certainty should governments require before agreeing to take action? If they wait until significant climate change is demonstrated, it may be too late for any countermeasures to be effective against the inertia by then stored in this massive global system. The very long time lags involved in negotiating international agreement on complex issues involving all nations have led some experts to conclude that it is already late. Given the complexities and uncertainties surrounding the urgent that the process start now. A four track strategy is needed, combining:
 * improved monitoring and assessment of the evolving phenomena;
 * increased research to improve knowledge about the origins, mechanisms, and effects of the phenomena;
 * the development of internationally agreed policies for the reduction of the causative gases; and
 * adoption of strategies needed to minimize damage and cope with the climate changes, and rising sea level.

24. No nation has either the political mandate or the economic power to combat climatic change alone. However, the Villach statement recommended such a four track strategy for climate change, to be promoted by governments and the scientific community through WMO, UNEP, and ICSU backed by a global convention if necessary. /…

title: Page:Brundtland Report.djvu/177


text: User talk:Fauban

title: User talk:Fauban


text:
Page:Brundtland Report.djvu/176

 by the turn of the century. They would also enable developing countries to achieve higher levels of growth with much reduced levels of investment, foreign debt, and environmental damage. But by the early decades of the 21st century they will not alleviate the ultimate need or substantial new energy supplies globally.

{{center|

Ⅱ. FOSSIL FUELS: THE CONTINUING DILEMMA
}}

16. Many forecasts of recoverable oil reserves and resources suggest that oil production will level off by the early decades of the next century and then gradually fall during a period of reduced supplies and higher prices. Gas supplies should last over 200 years and coal about 3,000 years at present rates of use. These estimates persuade many analysts that the world should imediately embark on a vigorous oil conservation policy.

17. In terms of pollution risks, gas is by far the cleanest fuel, with oil next and coal a poor third. But they all pose three interrelated atospheric pollution problems: global warming, urban industrial air pollution, and acidification of the environment. Some of the wealthier industrial countries may possess the economic capacity to cope with such threats. Most developing countries do not.

18. These problems are becoming more widespread particularly in tropical and subtropical regions, but their economic, social, and political repercussions are as yet not fully appreciated by society. Wih the exception of CO2, air pollutants can be removed from fossil fuel comustion processes at costs usually below the costs of damage caused by pollution. However, the risks of global warming make heavy future reliance upon fossil fuels problematic.

{{center|

1. Managing Climatic Change
}}

19. The burning of fossil fuels and, to a lesser extent, the loss of vegetative cover, particularly forests, through urban-industrial growth increase the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. The pre-industrial concentration was about 280 parts of carbon dioxide per million parts of air by volume. This concentration reached 340 in 1980 and is expected to double to 560 between the middle and the end of the next century. Other gases also play an important role in this 'greenhouse effect', whereby solar radiation is trapped near the ground, warming the globe and changing the climate.

20. After reviewing the latest evidence on the greenhouse effect in October 1985 at a meeting in Villach, Austria, organized by the WMO, UNEP, and ICSU, scientists from 29 industrialized and developing countries concluded that climate change must be considered a 'plausible and serious probability'. They further concluded that: 'Many important economic and social decisions are being made today on … major water resource management activities such as irrigation and hydropower; drought relief; agricultural land use; structural designs and coastal

title: Page:Brundtland Report.djvu/176


text:
Page:Wiltshire, Extracted from Domesday Book.djvu/92

[ 44 ] ''tenui, et geldavit pro 20 hidis, Terra est 22 carucatæ. In dominio sunt 2 hidæ et ibi 6 carucatæa et 46 servi et 8 coliberti, Ibi 30 villani, et 40 bordarii cum 16 carucatis. Ad hoc manerium pertinent 5 burgenes in Wiltune, reddunt 6 solidos. Ibi 3 molini reddunt 30 olidos, et 70 acræa prati. Patura 3 leucæ longa et dimidium leucæ latum. Valuit 40 libras modo 57 libras. De hac terra hujus manerii tenet Herveus bidam et dimidium et ibi habet 1 carucatam, Unus tainus habet 2 hidas et dimidium, et ibi. habet i carucatam. Ecclesiam hujus manerii cum una hida tenet Nigellus medicus. Hæc cum omnibus appendicibus suis valet 32 libræ, ipsa vero vasta est et ita discooperta ut pene corruat.''

19. Rex tenet Colingburne. ''Heraldus comes tenuit et geldavit pro 20 hidis. Terra est 45 carucatæ, in dominio sunt 5 bidæ et ibi 5 carucatæ''


text:
Page:Brundtland Report.djvu/175

a greater extent on fossil fuels. A near doubling of global primary energy consumption will be difficult without encountering severe economic, social, and environmental constraints.

13. This raises the desirability of a lower energy future, where GDP growth is not constrained but where investment effort is switched away from building more primary supply sources and put into the development and supply of highly efficient fuel-saving end-use equipment. In this way, the energy services needed by society could be supplied at much reduced levels of primary energy production. Case B in Box 7-2 allows for a 50 per cent fall in per capita primary energy consumption in industrial countries and a 30 per cent increase in developing countries. By using the most energy-efficient technologies and processes now available in all sectors of the economy, annual global per capita GDP growth rates of around 3 per cent can be achieved. This growth is at least as great as that regarded in this report as a minimum for reasonable development. But this path would require huge structural change to allow market penetration of efficient technologies, and it seems unlikely to be fully realizable by most governments during the next 40 years.

14. The crucial point about these lower, energy-efficient futures is not whether they are perfectly realizable in their proposed time frames. Fundamental political and institutional shifts are required to restructure investment potential in order to move along these lower, more energy-efficient paths.

15. The Commission believes that there is no other realistic option open to the world for the 21st century. The ideas behind tnese lower scenarios are not fanciful. Energy efficiency has already shown cost-effective results. In many industrial countries, the primary energy required to produce a unit of GDP has fallen by as much as a quarter or even a third over the last 13 years, much of it from implementing energy efficiency measures. Properly managed, efficiency measures could allow industrial nations to stabilize their primary energy consumption

title: Page:Brundtland Report.djvu/175


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 26.djvu/154

 breaking ward might be more easily pardoned (ib. ii. 357; Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1562, entry 641). On 23 Sept. 1562 he wrote to the queen, giving in his submission (ib. 688). The defeat and death of Huntly in October, however, established so firmly the predominance of Bothwell's enemy, Lord James Stuart, now Earl of Moray, that Bothwell, probably with the secret consent of the queen, resolved to return to France. Some time in December he embarked on board a merchant vessel at North Berwick, but was driven by tempestuous weather into the Holy Island. He was detained by Sir Thomas Dacre. On 1 Jan. 1564 he begged the Earl of Northumberland by letter to take him under his protection. Subsequently he came to Berwick, and on the 18th he was apprehended there in bed. Queen Mary was favourable to his release, but Moray and the counsel advised that he should be sent to England. The prudence of Moray's advice was endorsed by the opinion of Randolph, who in a letter to Cecil attacked Bothwell as ‘the mortal enemy’ of England, ‘false and untrue as a devil,’ ‘a blasphemous and irreverent speaker both of his own sovereign and the queen, my mistress,’ and one that ‘the godly of this whole nation have cause to curse for ever’ (ib. 1563, entry 131).

On 24 Jan. Bothwell was delivered into the castle of Tynemouth (ib. 164). By order of Elizabeth he was afterwards sent to the Tower (ib. 777). In February 1563–4 Queen Mary wrote to Elizabeth on his behalf, and Maitland of Lethington having also made special representations to Elizabeth, he was allowed to proceed to France. He asserted that through the recommendation of Queen Mary he was made captain of the Scots guard in France (Les Affaires du Conte de Boduel), but his name does not appear on any of the lists of the Scots guard. He returned to Scotland in March 1564–5, and, in defiance of Moray, again took up his residence at the Hermitage, where a large number of his vassals resorted to him. Although he was reported to have spoken disrespectfully of both queens in France, asserting that the ‘two could not make one honest woman’ (Randolph to Throckmorton, 31 March, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1564–5, entry 1073), Mary certainly desired his recall. Acting on her advice he expressed his willingness to appear to answer the charge of conspiracy with Arran, and of having broken his ward; but as his accusers, Moray and Argyll, brought a formidable following with them to Edinburgh, he declined to appear. The sureties for his appearance were outlawed, but Bothwell, owing to the interposition of the queen, was not put to the horn. He again withdrew to France, where he remained until after the marriage of Mary and Darnley (29 July 1565). Being recalled by the Scottish queen to assist in subduing Moray's rebellion, he went to Flushing, where he obtained two small vessels to convey him and a few followers to Scotland. An attempt was made to capture him by an English captain, named Wilson, acting on Elizabeth's directions, but he escaped, although Wilson fired several shots at him (Bedford to Cecil, 19 Sept. 1565, ib. 1510). Landing at Eyemouth, he proceeded to court. According to Randolph, who describes him as a fit man ‘to be a minister to a shameful act, be it either against God or man,’ the queen and Darnley were already at strife as to whether Bothwell or Lennox, the father of Darnley, should be lieutenant of the forces. The queen preferred Bothwell, ‘by reason he bears an evil will against Moray, and has promised to have him die as an alien’ (ib. 1551). Whether or no there was such a dispute Lennox was appointed to lead the van, Bothwell being joined with those noblemen who accompanied the king ‘in leading the battle’ (Reg. P. C. Scotl. i. 379). Probably also it was further decided, as Bothwell hinted to M. de Castelnau (, ii. 256), that Bothwell should act as lieutenant-general in the absence of Lennox. It is clear that Bothwell, from the period of his recall, occupied a position of special trust and influence. Queen Mary was prepossessed in his favour by his invaluable services to the French party during the lifetime of her mother, and by his antipathy to Moray. His reckless daring appealed to her romantic sentiments; while his strong character and resolute purpose contrasted forcibly with the weakness of her husband Darnley and his inability to control or protect her.

On 24 Feb. 1565–6 Bothwell was married in the Abbey Kirk of Holyrood House to Jean Gordon, sister of George, fifth earl of Huntly [q. v.] (Diurnal of Occurrents, p. 88). He thus thought to strengthen himself with the queen's party, and more especially to cement his friendship with Huntly, who subsequently became his subservient tool. The marriage must be taken to indicate that the idea of becoming the husband of the queen was not yet within the range of Bothwell's ambition. Burton's subtle theory that the queen's heart already belonged to Bothwell is inadmissible. His chief purpose in marrying seems to have been to render his position more secure. By the catholics generally the marriage was regarded with feelings of exultation. Bothwell had always been an equivocal protestant; surrounded as he now was by catholic in-


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 26.djvu/155

 fluences, it was expected that he would become a catholic. But he remained steadfast in his outward adherence to protestantism. Notwithstanding the queen's express wish, he declined to permit the marriage ceremony to take place during mass in the chapel of Holyrood.

Bothwell's exceptional influence over the queen began after the murder of Rizzio (9 March 1566), which had been arranged by a conspiracy of protestant lords with Darnley's connivance. Bothwell was entirely ignorant of the plot. Having accompanied the queen to Edinburgh on 1 March for the opening of the parliament, he and his brother-in-law, Huntly, lodged in Holyrood Palace on the night of the murder. According to Knox, on ‘hearing the noise and clamour’ they came suddenly to the inner court ‘intending to have made work if they had a party strong enough’ (Works, ii. 521), but were commanded by Morton, a chief of the conspirators, who had seized the palace with a band of armed followers, to pass to their chambers. They obeyed, but shortly afterwards escaped by a back window, and went to Bothwell's house at Crichton (Diurnal of Occurrents, p. 90). Mary was now a prisoner at Holyrood, in the hands of her husband and his associates. A plan was contrived by Bothwell and Huntly for her escape, but she found it unnecessary to take advantage of it after she had persuaded Darnley to abandon his allies and aid in her liberation. She and Darnley rode by midnight to Dunbar. There Bothwell and Huntly joined her, Bothwell bringing with him a formidable array of borderers. By her flight the tables had been completely turned on her opponents. Both she and Moray, the leader of the protestant lords, deemed it prudent to feign a reconciliation with each other. As a matter of course she had the best wishes of the catholics, but next to her own deftness and courage she was indebted to Bothwell's resolute support for the advantageous position in which she now found herself. From this time, therefore, their special friendship must be dated. Bothwell's position acquired more and more importance as the breach between Mary and Darnley widened. Knox states that Bothwell, soon after Rizzio's murder, ‘had now of all men greatest access and familiarity with the queen’ (Works, ii. 527); writing on 24 June to Cecil, Killigrew affirms that ‘Bothwell's credit with the queen is greater than all the rest together’ (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566–8, entry 521); and on 27 July Bedford reports that Bothwell carries all credit at court, and is the most hated man in Scotland (ib. 601). As a special mark of the queen's favour, he obtained, in addition to part of the benefices of Melrose, Haddington, and Newbattle, the ancient fortress of Dunbar with the principal lands of the earldom of March. Previously Bothwell's power had, owing partly to his own extravagance, been seriously crippled by his poverty; but through the special gifts of the queen, he soon came to rank, both with regard to wealth and following, as the most powerful noble in the south of Scotland.

Bothwell manifested at this time a special grudge against Maitland of Lethington, whose talents as an intriguer he probably feared, and of whose influence with the queen he was in any case jealous. Maitland resolved to seek refuge in Flanders, but, hearing that Bothwell had taken means to capture him at sea, he went to Argyll (Killigrew to Cecil, 24 June, ib. 521). The Earls of Argyll and Moray at the queen's command also passed to Argyll, but after remaining there a month were sent for by the queen, and banquetted in the castle, Huntly and Bothwell being present (, ii. 527). This may have been done at Bothwell's instance, but a subsequent proposal to recall Maitland was decidedly distasteful to him. He is stated to have had high words with Moray on the subject (Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566–8, entry 650). Ultimately he permitted Maitland to be numbered for a short time among his friends. Bothwell's progress in the queen's favour was unmistakable. ‘Every man sought to him, where immediately favour was to be had, as before to David Rizzio’ (, ii. 535). Bothwell was ‘mair, as wes reported, familiare with the quenis majestie nor honestie requyrit’ (Diurnal of Occurrents, p. 106). There are also several allusions of a similar tenor in the correspondence of the English agents with Cecil. The specific accusations, with place and circumstances, made by Buchanan, avowedly rest to a large extent on the inconclusive statements of Hubert, Bothwell's servant, and of George Dalgleish, his chamberlain; but Bothwell certainly had, in the words of Sir James Melville, ‘a mark of his own that he shot at,’ viz. Darnley's place.

When the queen was about to set out to hold justice ayres at Jedburgh in October, Bothwell, as her lieutenant, was sent forward to make the necessary preparations. On approaching the castle of Hermitage, in advance of his attendants, he was severely wounded in a wood by a notorious outlaw, John Elliot, alias John of Park, and was carried home in a cart for dead. On the 15th the queen rode there and back on the same day to visit him. He recovered rapidly, and by the 21st travelled to Jedburgh on a horse-litter (Foster to Cecil, 23 Oct., Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. entry


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 26.djvu/156

 772). On the 24th he was able to attend a meeting of council. The queen meanwhile had been taken seriously ill, and on the 26th her life was despaired of. On her recovery Bothwell attended her in her progress through the southern shires. She stayed from 17 to 23 Nov. at his castle of Dunbar.

Thence she removed to Craigmillar, where early in December the famous conference was held in her presence regarding her relation to Darnley. The conference was called in order to determine on a method by which the queen might gratify her desire to be rid of Darnley. The only account of the conference, apart from a very summary notice by Buchanan, is contained in a narrative signed by Argyll and Huntly (printed in, History, App. No. xvi. and frequently reprinted). As this narrative emanated from the queen it is necessary to receive its statements with caution. Bothwell is there represented merely as favouring a divorce, and citing his own case as a proof that a divorce might be obtained without prejudice to the young prince. Maitland alone is represented as letting fall a hint of the advisability of recourse to a more summary method; but this hint is said to have drawn from the queen an appeal to those present not to do anything ‘whereto any spot may be laid to my honour and conscience.’ It is plain that none of those present had a good word to say for Darnley, and all were of opinion that matters would be simplified if he ceased to be the husband of the queen. The majority of the protestant nobles saw no obstacle to procuring a divorce. But the catholic nobles, with the exception of Huntly, were unlikely to assent to this procedure. After the conference Bothwell was approached on the subject of Morton's recall. He assented to the proposal, but clearly demanded a quid pro quo, which should include the dissolution by some means or other of the queen's marriage with Darnley.

Bothwell's natural predilection for lawless violence, and his fear of revelations made during the process of divorce, contributed, with possibly the representations of Maitland and others, to shape his plans. Nor could he suppose that the protestant nobles, the majority of whom had been involved in the plot against Rizzio, would be greatly shocked by the death of their treacherous co-conspirator. Accordingly, after the Craigmillar conference a bond, so the subordinate agents in Darnley's murder subsequently asserted, was signed by Bothwell, Huntly, Argyll, Maitland of Lethington, and James Balfour, in which it was engaged that Darnley ‘sould be put off by ane way or other, and quahosever sould take the deid in hand, or do it, they sould defend and fortifie it as themselves.’ Bothwell, after a vain effort to obtain the help of Morton, resolved himself to ‘take the deid in hand.’ There is undoubted proof that he had the immediate charge of the practical arrangements, and he doubtless suggested the method adopted. Cool, resolute determination characterised his every step. If the genuineness of the ‘Casket Letters’ be admitted, the queen, presumedly under the spell of an absorbing passion for Bothwell, forced herself to become his instrument in effecting his purpose.

When the queen set out in January 1566–1567 to visit Darnley at Glasgow, Bothwell, according to the ‘Diary’ handed in by the Scottish commissioners at Westminster, accompanied her to Lord Livingstone's place at Callendar. His movements after parting from her are somewhat uncertain. Not improbably, before returning to Edinburgh, he proceeded to Whittingham, where he made an unsuccessful attempt to induce Morton to undertake the murder. According to the ‘Diary’ already mentioned, he superintended the arrangements at Edinburgh for lodging Darnley at Kirk-o'-Field. Subsequently he proceeded south, for on the 27th he set out from Jedburgh to chastise some rebellious borderers in Liddesdale, with whom he had a sharp skirmish (Scrope to Cecil, Cal. State Papers, For. Ser. 1566–8, entry 918). On 31 Jan. he met the queen some distance from Edinburgh, and escorted her and Darnley into the city. A suite of apartments was assigned him in Holyrood Palace. Here on the night of Sunday, 9 Feb., he held a consultation with certain subordinates to arrange the final details of his plot. His plan from the beginning appears to have been to blow up the lodging. He had conveyed an immense quantity of powder from the fortress of Dunbar, his calculation being to arrange the explosion on such a gigantic scale that it would be beyond the limits of possibility for his victim to escape, or for it to be known how he met his death. On the Sunday evening the queen, who occasionally slept in a chamber below that occupied by Darnley, had remained at Kirk-o'-Field till a late hour. She intended to sleep at Holyrood, having agreed to attend a masked ball in the palace in honour of the marriage of one of her servants. Before setting out she and her escort went upstairs to Darnley's apartment. Bothwell must at least have been informed of the queen's intentions. It was actually while she and her escort were in the room above that he superintended the conveyance of the powder into the room which she had just left below. It was placed beneath the bed which she would have occupied had she


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 26.djvu/157

 not decided to go to the ball. After completing these arrangements Bothwell followed the queen into Darnley's chamber. They left Darnley about eleven o'clock. The queen passed the door of her own apartment without again entering it, and the royal party, lighted by torch-bearers, wended along Blackfriars Wynd to Holyrood. Bothwell put in an appearance at the ball, but retired towards midnight, and after changing his court dress for a simple doublet and a horseman's cloak, sufficient in the darkness to conceal his identity, returned, accompanied by four of his followers, towards Kirk-o'-Field. On stating that they were ‘friends of Lord Bothwell’ they were permitted to pass the keeper at Canongate Port and arrived safely at Kirk-o'-Field. Leaving three of the attendants at the garden wall, Bothwell and his French servant, Hubert, leaped it and proceeded to the house. Two other agents of Bothwell had been left in charge of the powder, and as soon as Bothwell had inspected the arrangements and given instructions for lighting the train, the whole of them returned to the place of tryst at the garden wall to await the result. The match burned slowly, and Bothwell, with characteristic impatience, was preparing again to leap the wall in order to return to the house when the explosion took place. The conspirators hurried back with the utmost speed to Holyrood. Failing to scale the city wall at a low part near Leith Wynd, and dreading delay, they were compelled to pass again the keeper at Canongate Port. On reaching his apartments Bothwell called for drink before going to bed. In about half an hour a messenger arrived at the palace with the news that the king's house was blown up, and the king himself, it was supposed, slain. Feigning to have been aroused from sleep, Bothwell exclaimed, ‘Fie! Treason!’ and hurriedly dressed himself in order (he pretended) to make inquiries personally. The lodging was found to have been, as Mary said, ‘dung in dross to the very groundstone.’ The body of Darnley lay at some distance from the site of the building (see sketch in, Life of Mary Queen of Scots). Bothwell stated that there was not ‘a mark or a hurt on all his body.’ The impression prevailed that previous to the explosion he had been strangled in bed, but the subordinate agents affirmed that no personal violence was used. Their testimony is not, however, of much weight, nor is it appreciably strengthened by the fact that the surgeons expressed themselves to a similar effect. After viewing the body, Bothwell returned to break the news to the queen. As he was leaving her apartment he met Sir James Melville, to whom he stated that her majesty was ‘sorrowful and quiet.’ He also attributed the calamity to ‘the strangest accident that ever chancit, to wit, the fouder [lightning] come out of the luft [sky] and had burnt the king's house’ (Memoirs, p. 173). After the murder Bothwell gave valuable presents to all who had assisted him, and charged them to ‘hold their tongues, for they should never want so long as he had anything.’

Bothwell may have counted on suspicion falling on Morton, or other well-known enemies of Darnley; in any case he seems to have supposed that he had rendered no inconsiderable service to the protestant nobles. There was a passive indifference in the attitude of the protestant lords, which at the least showed that their indignation, if it existed, was well restrained by prudence. It was against Bothwell, however, that the universal suspicion of the multitude from the beginning pointed. According to Buchanan his guilt was proclaimed ‘baith be buikes and be pictures and be cryis in the dark night.’ Placards were secretly posted up naming as the murderers him and several others of minor rank, who were subsequently executed as the perpetrators of the crime. The accusations seemed to produce not the slightest effect on Bothwell's iron nerves, although it was observed that when he talked with any one of whose goodwill towards him he was doubtful, he ‘was accustomed to keep his hand on his dagger.’ His position at court was in no degree weakened. With the queen his influence, whatever its nature, was plainly greater than ever; nor was there any indication that the cordiality, on one side or the other, was feigned. On 14 Feb., the day of Darnley's funeral, he received the reversion of the superiority over the town of Leith. Two days afterwards the queen went to Seton, Haddingtonshire, leaving, according to the ‘Diurnal of Occurrents’ (p. 106), Huntly and Bothwell in Holyrood in charge of the young prince. On the 28th Drury reported to Cecil that Argyll, Huntly, Bothwell, and Livingstone were with the queen at Seton; that on the previous Wednesday she came to Lord Wharton's house at Tranent, and that she and the Earl of Bothwell having won at the butts against Lord Seton and Huntly, the losers entertained them at dinner at Tranent. This report is not necessarily inconsistent with the fact that Huntly and Bothwell were left in charge of the prince at Holyrood. They did not require either separately or together to be day and night in attendance on the prince; they had merely to see that he was properly guarded, and Tranent was within easy riding distance of Holyrood.