cepted in England, and sent by Elizabeth to James on 17 Feb. 1588–9 (printed in Calderwood, v. 18). On the 29th he was summoned to appear before the council within eight days, under pain of rebellion, to answer against the ‘allegit practice tending to the subversion of the trew religion’ (Reg. P. C. Scotl. iv. 361). On 14 March the king went out hunting with Huntly, and they met Errol in the fields. Huntly urged the king to go with him and Errol. The king refused, and warned them against entering into futile conspiracies (Calderwood, v. 37). As Errol failed to appear before the council to answer the charge against him, the lords on 21 March denounced him as a rebel (Reg. P. C. Scotl. iv. 367). On the 22nd, probably before news had reached him of the proclamation, he wrote a letter to Robert Bruce, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, asserting that he had been maliciously accused by the chancellor, Maitland, and denied that he had ever neglected his duty to the kirk or ‘travelled anie wise against the religion’ (Calderwood, v. 54).
Notwithstanding these professions Errol was busy concerting with Huntly and David Lindsay, earl of Crawford, a rising in the north of Scotland. On 7 April 1589 his officers of arms and the keepers of the castles of Slains and Logiealmond were ordered to deliver them up within six hours under pain of treason (Reg. P. C. Scotl. iv. 372). Errol himself had gone to join Huntly and Crawford in the north, and on the 9th the king went to Linlithgow to await the muster of the forces ordered for the suppression of the rebellion. When the king had arrived at Cowie, near Aberdeen, the rebel lords marched out of the city to the Bridge of Dee, accompanied by three thousand men. The lords had given out that their aim was to set at liberty the king, who was ‘held captive and forced against his mind;’ but the presence of the king against them gave the lie to this statement, and although the royal forces numbered only one thousand the rebels' followers were afraid to attack. In such circumstances Huntly could not risk a battle, although Errol ‘would have foughten’ (Calderwood, v. 55). They therefore dispersed their forces, many of whom had already deserted. Huntly surrendered while the king was still in the north, and Crawford gave himself up at Edinburgh on 20 May. Errol remained at large until the king's second visit to the north in July; but when the king was on the point of returning south, he and other rebels came in to the king, and were ‘received in favour upon composition’ (ib. p. 59). By an act of council, dated Aberdeen, 4 Aug., liberty was granted him to ‘mell and intromett’ with such of his goods as were extant (Reg. P. C. Scotl. iv. 406). On 17 Sept. 1589 he and Huntly made a bond to keep sure and infallible affection, goodwill, and friendship to each other, and to assist and defend one another against all other persons, the king only excepted (‘Errol Papers’ in Spalding Club Miscellany, ii. 279).
Errol still remained in partial disgrace, for when the king in 1590 learned that a marriage treaty was in contemplation between him and a daughter of William Douglas, earl of Morton, he inhibited it on the ground of his rebellion and the fact that he was not reconciled to the church. The marriage was nevertheless celebrated, and the Earl of Morton had to answer to the council for his ‘contemptuous proceeding’ (Reg. P. C. Scotl. iv. 506). On 22 June 1591 Errol, Morton, and other nobles dined at Leith with Bothwell [see Hepburn, Francis Stewart, fifth earl] in celebration of the latter's escape from Edinburgh Castle (Moysie, p. 86). Errol was present with the king in Falkland Palace on 27 June 1592 when Bothwell attempted to capture it, and being suspected of complicity was committed to the castle of Edinburgh (Hist. of James the Sext, p. 250; Calderwood, v. 168). He soon obtained his release, but in December 1592 again fell under suspicion through the subscription of his name to two of the famous ‘Spanish Blanks’ which were supposed to be a portion of the instruments of conspiracy in connection with a contemplated second Spanish expedition for the restoration of the catholic faith (see Calderwood, v. 222–31). He was ordered into ward, but retired to his estates, and on 5 Feb. 1592–3 was denounced a rebel (Reg. P. C. Scotl. v. 42). On 9 March the Earl Marischal was appointed his majesty's commissioner to apprehend him (ib. p. 49). The king advanced to Aberdeen in person, but Errol retired to the far north, and the expedition was without result. The king was evidently loth to proceed to extremities. After his return Errol and his fellow-rebels were, on 16 March 1592–1593, relaxed from the horn (ib. v. 53) and summoned to appear before parliament on 2 June 1593. When the parliament met they were not forfaulted, offers having been made in their name to satisfy the king and kirk. The leniency was displeasing to the kirk, and by an act passed by the provincial synod of Fife on 25 Sept. they were excommunicated (Calderwood, v. 263). On 12 Oct. the king, while on his way from Edinburgh to the borders to repress irregularities, was intercepted at Fala by the rebel lords, who suddenly appeared and craved his pardon (Hist. of James the Sext, p. 283; Calderwood, v. 270). He
